What the Moderators of PhysicsForums Didn’t Want You To See

For evidence of geocentrism, click here.

What the Crackpot Troll Moderators of PhysicsForums Didn’t Want You To See, Because None of their Darwinist and Big Bang Believer Members Nor Their Darwinist Big Bang Cult Moderators Could Refute In Any Scientific, Logical or Mature Way, In Fact: HAD NO RESPONSE TO, Not Even After Day Had Passed.

A very long silence speaks loudly.

The philosophical and religion ignorant moderators of PhysicsForums didn’t want anyone to see this reply to a comment one of their members made in a post in PhysicsForums on Void Theory (three times it was posted, and three times they removed it using insults as there reasons, no science at all, and attempting to be feelings and thoughts police). And what got one of them to remove it? When a called a newbie to knowledge moron member named Nick an insulting troll who put words in my mouth, a moron with three posts on his belt in PhysicsForums, named Nick, for saying I was pretending to believe that Earth was no older than 6,500 years old, and that “it wasn’t impossible” that the Bible used figurative language, and assuming (or rather ignoring that I wasn’t) a newbie to science, literature or religion, pointed me to the figure of speech page on Wikipedia. So, his assumption that some verse/s(?) somewhere in the Bible (couldn’t be bothered to read it himself of course), because it was possible figurative language, made me wrong, and for that my first reply below was REMOVED (but I wasn’t banned) and then what? Remove three more times despite there being no replies to them, and Nick’s reply was also removed. And for reposting my first reply, I was repeatedly banned (why, if it didn’t get me banned the first time when everyone saw it and it stayed for 24 hours?). And here is the first reply that stumped, embarrassed and humiliated the weak minded moderators and anti-creationist members of PhysicsForums:

The problem with the big void of smaller density leading to apparent dark energy term is that we have to be very close to the center of the void, otherwise everything will look anisotropic. Being close to the center is HIGHLY improbable, much more improbable than being in a void at all.

Why is shoutingly HIGHLY improbable? Because you said so? NO! BECAUSE YOU ARE DELUDED, REPEATEDLY IGNORING THE DESIGN OF GOD ALL AROUND YOU AND PRETENDING IT’S RANDOM. Nothing is impossible for God, except lying. What a contradiction too: Do you think the Big Bang was HIGHLY probable? How about it being HIGHLY probable let alone at all, despite evidence repeatedly being found against it, and pointing towards a 6,500 year old universe? And where are you instincts?: You think it’s probable regardless of the repeated contrived explanations to get rid of giant problems like the billions of light years wide void in space?

What about this contradiction: It’s highly unlikely we live in the center of a void, of the universe, but it is for light of countless many kinds, countless many types, randomly, by unknown means, with many distinct emotions, a heart, desires, mind, will, self-awareness, conscience, soul, extremely complex DNA, beauty of countless kids and types wherever you look, sometimes astonishingly beautiful, life that dances, sings, sleeps (something which has been a mystery for thousands of years or millions if you believe the Big Delusion) imitates for fun, has humor (a very hard to explain thing), plays games (came up with chess, for which no perfect solution has yet been found), tries to solve everything (to various degrees), even how to create other life with understanding of how exactly to do so from start to finish, can naturally/supernaturally reproduce in three different ways: cloning, sex, and self fertilization, can withstand all kinds and types of damage, and REPAIR themselves without knowing how, and still live and flourish, on a planet on which food and drink of all kinds exist, and useful poison, with material that can form countless useful things, and though being recombined in endless ways still be beautiful, forms of life which rely on each other, help each other, and even love each other, and able to communicate in thousands of different languages or more.

Also explain to me how it is probable that various flies evolved to look almost exactly like bees, despite the upheavals all over the world that were so great they magically got rid of the trillions of transitional fossils that should exist. Please explain the fly I saw, which hovered and turned like a machine, which when I first saw thought was a Cecada Killer, but as I concentrated on, saw was a giant fly (a small strip of forest in Reston, VA). So a fly, evolved, over billions of years, to look like a somewhat related animal, with superior flying ability? That’s probable?! And not just one fly, but there is mimicry of all kinds! Even bacteria and viruses have mimicking abilities DESIGNED to fool the things they live on. And is it probable that seeds from plants would germinate after thousands of years, or millions? I haven’t looked, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone has or will discover a seed in millions of years old strata that germinates.

And though life is often very hostile and even self-destructive, it’s flourished, with all the kinds life forms that existed in the past, still existing. And life has flourished so much, that many humans even fear “overpopulation” and come up with evil schemes to murder most people rather than schemes to populate other planets (because they are silly and evil morons with little conscience and morals). And we’ve even succeeded in going to other planets. And, there are obviously spirits, many of which clearly hate us, and though clearly having the ability destroy us, are obviously being prevented from doing so, by what are clearly good spirits, which sometimes show their presence in some way when they save a life or lives. It’s also clear, unless you’re stupid or ignorant or a stubborn God-hater, that aliens are visiting us every day, or if not visiting, having bases on Earth or nearby, and sight-seeing, even showing off to some degree I would guess. Why are there very beautiful light-up jellyfish at the bottom of the oceans? Are chameleons and cuttlefish that can also camouflage themselves AND LIGHT UP in various ways probable? What about octopi that can camouflage themselves and hide themselves in a cloud of blackness? Is it probable that life is able to flourish at the very bottom even underneath the oceans of the world? Is it probable that there would be life living in boiling ocean water at the bottom of oceans, or boiling tar, or that could survive extreme heat then extreme cold then extreme radiation, and in space? How probable was it that the Crotoniidae mite would “reevolve” the ability sexually reproduce after millions of years? What are the odds of that happening after an alleged millions of years? Yet ALL OF THAT is probable to you, from randomness? And just how many random universes do you know of that existed before to imply we are probable? And if you believe i random universes exiting before, then why would you say it’s HIGHLY improbable that we live in the center of a void? Confused much? In addition to all that, you think that all is probable, even with living “fossils” repeatedly being found, inferior in design to their giant armored forms WHICH DIDN’T SURVIVE while the smaller weaker forms did, and giant ones like Brontosaurus with inferior armor to other dinosaurs still surviving (and/or living comfortably) in the Congo, and unarmored snakes, even giant ones, surviving despite having no legs or arms or wings and a massive body exposed to easy damage? And not only have many snakes that grow to giant size survived, but can live for many decades. How do animals know how to reproduce, eat, find food, sing, dance, protect themselves, walk, fly, glide, climb, dig, slither, and some, even birds, can make tools. Is that probable? Is it probable that insects and cats have brains faster than the fastest publicly known super computers? Can you explain why dolphins, cuttlefish, octopi and parrots are as intelligent as they are? Can you explain how the Lyre bird evolved its ability to imitate any sound? How did the Bombardier beetle evolve? How do skunks know that its musk glands will repel other animals? And how do flowers know when to bloom, the beauty and scent of many which attract man to spread more of them?

Can you also tell me how probable it was for all life on the planet to have evolved into its many forms over billions of years, with everything else I mentioned? How probable also is it that when Daniel Tammet hit is head that he acquired god-like calculation and communication abilities? How does evolution explain Euler, Ramanujan and Tesla? And no doubt there are other such geniuses, who get no where because their minds have been filled with science-hindering lies and liars who go around making stupid insults to scare them into submission like, “God did it (so no need to learn anything)”. No, “evolution did it, so rape doesn’t matter, nor murdering the unborn, BUT, Christians are EVIL who dare judge that that rape and child murder are evil, and that unnatural sex which leads to population decline, which leads to fewer minds to save the world from murderous atheists and pagans. How dare they believe an old book full of contradictions and missing books! How dare they continue knowledge and preserve it! Why can’t they just forget like us and come up with new things that might be true and faith that they are true? Let’s rape and encourage pornography and abuse and murder children. Or, let’s just drink more beer and play games while trying to save the world by letting it kill itself off, so that there is less carbon dioxide, because, I don’t want to evolve to live under the ocean.” And do you think all of that is probable, including man’s extreme stupidity despite his extremely intelligent mind with it’s massive umber of neurons all interconnected (why is man so stupid and why does he do such great evil despite his intelligence and a common programmed conscience aware of good and evil), which in mentally healthy people will “burn” when they do wrong – you think all that is probable along with the fine-tuning necessary for that to all be possible?:

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48937152.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

I would also like to know from you: How likely is it that giant amphibious or fully aquatic dinosaurs have come to live in small bodies of water in the USA, far away from oceans? Jacque Cousteau knows at least one exists in Lake Tahoe. Or how is it that shrimp came to live in the middle of a desert, on a large rock structure, in Australia, extremely far any ocean? How about the fish of Death Valley, and note the word “death” in the name of that valley? How did a giant structure, broken in two, in the shape of Noah’s Ark, get on mount Ararat? “More improbable” for your random universe: why is the impression of the shape of the bottom of a ship doing at the foot of that mountain? How do you explain the many out of place artifacts in the world” (2)? Are they probable too in this billions of years old universe of your invention?

More popular is the other theory that the dark energy is apparent due to the cumulative effects of the light passing through many voids. That avoids the need for us to be in a center of a spherical void.

And why might it be more popular, TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU (NOT EVERYONE), who ignores the obvious all around you and takes it out of context in a world of people who hate God for not doing whatever they want him to do, like you? Can you make a correct guess, based on evidence, and not mere faith, so called “blind faith” by atheists and agnostics?

What a sad world atheists and pagans have made for themselves. What to choose, a life realizing how sad their lie is, and being hated for not pretending it’s truth, or joining the lie at the risk of ending up tortured and murdered by one of the liars? Who to trust, those who when they kill your body can do no more to you, or the one who can destroy both body and soul in Hell, while continuing their suffering forever and can also give eternal peace to those who trust in him? Temporary vs. eternal. What is the logical choice to make to survive, and live?

There clearly is a corrupting being that causes stupidity and evil among us, making us much worse than seems logical, and there clearly is a being that only does good and will not give in to evil, and restrains it.

Why God would isolate Earth from the rest of the universe, why he would make it difficult for the rest of his intelligent creatures to find us, why a loving being would not want to see Hell and death spread over billions of light years in all directions, why he would choose to limit sadness and pain? If he was a merciful, compassionate and loving God, it would be understandable. In conclusion, be thankful for what God has shown you, and turn to him, before it is too late, and you no longer see, smell, hear or touch his wonders.

It does not go against reason and learning to say, “In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth,” and that God does what is wondrous in our eyes, but it does when you to try and explain everything away with “Say, ‘It was chance and evolution for why things are the way they are,’ because it’s money that matters, not truth, if you want many friends to have a comfortable life.”

God have mercy on you who hate God, because his hatred is much greater and just, and he is able to carry out anything he wills. And one day, his Son will return, both to save and to destroy.

—————–end—————–

Instead of resorting to mere insults and banning whatever you disagree with, moderators of PhysicsForums, how about be scientific and honest? How about showing the truth, instead of hiding it and accusing everyone else who disagrees with your attitude and feelings and opinions as being crackpots, trolls, making “noise” and having an attitude? If you resort to mere insults and banning along with it, doesn’t that show that you have an attitude that needs to be “canned”? Why are you above your own rules? Is that logical to attack and condemn others for/as being, doing and having those things when you yourselves make mere insults and have an “attitude”? How about you stop with the double standards, lies, and hypocrisy and encouraging immorality by claiming or implying that there is no absolute truth or morality? It is absolutely wrong to abuse and murder babies and children, why can’t you agree with that? Why does that deserve mere insults and banning? You’re not experts in religion, the Bible, God or Christianity, merely because you have some great amount of knowledge in math, biology, or physics, or are a moderator of PhysicsForums, that doesn’t make you God or my Judge does it? Promote true science and peace, not hatred with your evil attitude and cowardly anonymous attacks.

Related Information:

Characteristics of the Mainstream Science Cult and How it Imprisons the World

An Alien Base (Or Ship, Or Ancient Human-made Structure) On the Moon

“…their ships were far superior to ours, both in size and technology – Boy, were they big!… and menacing! No, there is no question of a space station… – Neil Armstrong, NASA astronaut, one of the first humans on the moon in the modern age

Atheists Fail at Logic

The Corrupt Logic of Anti-Christian Atheists

Recently, while studying logic and trying to find references, I’ve noticed that Google has been giving biased search engine results by entirely showing logic fallacy lists that are only supportive of atheism as a whole. For example, about.com lists its logic fallacy list within in atheist web page; how is it NOT a logic fallacy to associate atheism with being logical and theists illogical MERELY BECAUSE AN ATHEIST IS REPEATING LOGIC FALLACIES AND ONLY OR ALMOST ENTIRELY PREJUDICES THE EXAMPLES AGAINST THEISM, TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS IF THEISTS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO MAKE MISTAKES? Aren’t those acts indicating circular reasoning and ad hominem within the minds of those copying and pasting these lists? Isn’t that deliberately conniving, bitter, deception? IT’S CALLED “LYING”.

Here is another example, a blatant one, in which a former psychology professor at Shippensburg University, George Boeree, copy-pasted a fallacy list and contradicted one of the fallacies using hate speech against theists, which Shippensburg University has sanctioned by hosting:

“We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.”

But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior? Of course not!

This hack philosopher, WITH NO DEGREE IN PHILOSOPHY LET ALONE LOGIC, who copied and pasted a fallacy list and made it anti-theistic, made a circular argument himself: he’s making a personal attack against religion (ad hominem) and is committing the fallacy of “appealing to obviousness” by his weasel word: “of course not!” and committing the fallacy of “appealing to emotion” by using an exclamation mark. He’s also indirectly committing the fallacy of “appealing to authority” by implying that his mere word as a former professor with a degree in psychology and whatever works he’s written (which are obscure, and not authoritative, so he’s being a vain hypocrite on top of all this). On top of that, this moron is obviously ignorant about religion BECAUSE his statement is grammatically nonsensical: worship is apart of religion, and he spoke as if they were two entirely different things. His error is analogous too this statement, “But does eating apples and apple pieces actually produce nutrients in the body?” On top of that he even showed with the biased example he thought up, that he understands religion and worship to be intertwined, because the example doesn’t say, “religion”! Talk about eating your own words! Some professor eh? As usual, the accusations of Satan’s children punch them right back in their deceiving mouths.

The oldest logical fallacy list on the Internet is hosted by Georgia State University, from 1992, notice it makes NO REFERENCE TO GOD, which shows that it was deliberately used for propaganda by atheists (I put the title in bold):

LOGICAL FALLACIES

I’ve been bothered for a number of years, really for most of my adult life, by how poorly individuals will construct their arguments in everyday life and in academic debate. Along the way, I stumbled upon a collection of fallacies (see references) that I’ve found to be a convenient yard-stick by which to critique others’ arguments. They are offered here in a hypertext form that I originally wrote to be read by my PalmPilot personal digital assistant (PDA).. – Art

Fallacies of Relevance

Accident
Affirmation of the Consequent
Argumentum ad Antiquitam
Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force)
Argumentum ad Crumenam
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive)
Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial)
Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (argument from ignorance)
Argumentum ad Lazarum
Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity)
Argumentum ad Nauseum
Argumentum ad Novitam
Argumentum ad Numeram
Argumentum ad Populam
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority)
Bifrucation
Complex Question
Converse Accident (hasty generalization)
Denial of the Antecedent
Dicto Simpliciter – Sweeping Generalization
Fallacy of Interrogation
False Analogy
False Cause
Hasty Generalization
Ignoratio Elenchi
Non Causa Pro Causa
Non-Sequitur
Petitio Principii (begging the question)
Plurium Interrogationum – Many Questions
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Quaternio Terminorum
Red Herring
Reification
Shifting the Burden of Proof
Special Pleading
Straw Man
Tu Quoque – Two Wrongs Make a Right

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Equivocation
Amphiboly
Accentus – Accent
Composition
Division

Fallacies of Correlation

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Affirmation of the Consequent.

Description: An argument from the truth of a hypothetical statement, and the truth of the consequent to the truth of the antecedent. In the syllogism below, P is the antecedent and Q is the consequent: P implies Q Q is true <– Affirming the consequent ______________ Therefore: P is true.

Argumentum ad Antiquitam.

Description: A fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is old; that is, because “that’s the way it’s always been.”

Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force).

The arguer appeals to force or the threat of force to compel acceptance of the conclusion.

Argumentum ad Crumenam.

Description: Fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right.

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive).

“The phrase argumentum ad hominem translates literally as ‘argument directed to the man.'” The abusive variety occurs when one attacks the other person rather than the other persons argument.

. Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial).

In this case, one tries to convince the opponent to agree to the conclusion based on the opponents circumstances. For example (from Copi), a hunter may claim an anti-hunter must say hunting is acceptable since the anti-hunter is not a vegetarian.

Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (argument from ignorance).

* “The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that there aren’t any.”
* The argument that something must be true simply because it hasn’t been proved to be false, or vice versa.

Argumentum ad Lazarum

Description: A fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or more virtuous than one who is wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the informal fallacy “argumentum ad crumenam.”

Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity).

The arguer appeals to pity where the conclusion is a matter of reason and not one of sentiment, e.g. referring to a murder suspect’s dependent family.

Argumentum ad Nauseum.

Description: The incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An “argumentum ad nauseum” is one that employs constant repitition in asserting a truth.

Argumentum ad Novitam.

Description: A fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer than something else. Or that something is better because it is newer. This type of fallacy is the opposite of the “argumentum ad antiquitam” fallacy.

Argumentum ad Numeram.

Description: A fallacy that asserts that the more people who support or believe a proposition then the more likely that that proposition is correct; it equates mass support with correctness.

Argumentum ad Populam.

“the attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the emotions and enthusiasms of the multitude, rather than by appeal to the relevant facts.”

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority).

This is especially the appeal to authority outside the field of that authority’s expertise. In the field of the authority’s expertise, “this method of argument is in many cases perfectly legitimate, for the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of that authority’s competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence. … Although it does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it.”

Accident.

“The fallacy of accident consists in applying a general rule to a particular case whose ‘accidental’ circumstances render the rule inapplicable.” For instance, while generally one should not exceed the speed limit, it is acceptable for emergency vehicles to do so.

Bifrucation.

Description: Also referred to as the “black and white” fallacy, bifurcation is the presentation of a situation or condition with only two alternatives, whereas in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.

Complex Question.

* This is a question of the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” variety.
* Arguing based on a response, or assumed response, to a complex or “loaded” question, where no simple yes or no response is reasonable — “have you stopped beating your wife?” “will you vote for the Republicans and prosperity?”

Converse Accident (hasty generalization).

Making a general rule based on a few atypical cases. For instance, considering the effect of alcohol only on those who indulge to excess, and concluding that liquor is harmful and should be outlawed.

Denial of the Antecedent.

Description: An argument in which one infers the falsity of the consequent from the truth of a hypothetical proposition, and the falsity of its antecedent. P implies Q Not-P ____________ Therefore: Not-Q.

Dicto Simpliciter – Sweeping Generalization.

Description: Sweeping Generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation in which the features of that particular situation render the rule inapplicable. A sweeping generalization is the opposite of a hasty generalization.

Fallacy of Interrogation.

Description: The question asked has a presupposition which the answerer may wish to deny, but which he/she would be accepting if he/she gave anything that would count as an answer. Any answer to the question “Why does such-and-such happen?” presupposes that such-and-such does indeed happen.

False Analogy.

* Description: An analogy is a partial similarity between the like features of two things or events on which a comparison can be made.
* A false analogy involves comparing two things that are NOT similar.
* Note that the two things may be similar in superficial ways, but not with respect to what is being argued.

False Cause.

* This is mistaking a event to be the cause of some other event.
* Arguing that one event causes another on the basis merely that it occurs earlier, or more generally mistaking what is not the cause of something as its cause. For instance, arguing that beating of drums causes the sun to reappear after after an eclipse by citing that every time drums have been so beaten the sun has reappeared.

Hasty Generalization

Description: An argument in which a proposition is used as a premise without attention given to some obvious condition that would affect the proposition’s application. This fallacy is also known as the “hasty generalization.” It is a fallacy that takes evidence from several, possibly unrepresentative, cases to a general rule; generalizing from few to many. Note the relation to statistics: Much of statistics concerns whether or not a sample is representative of a larger population. The larger the sample size, the better the representativeness. Note also that the opposite of a hasty generalization is a sweeping generalization.

Ignoratio Elenchi.

* Description: An argument that is supposed to prove one proposition but succeeds only in proving a different one. Ignoratio elenchi stands for “pure and simple irrelevance.”
* An argument which supports one conclusion is made to prove a different conclusion.
* Copi’s example is a legislator who, in discussing a housing bill, argues only that decent housing for all is desirable, rather than whether the bill in question would achieve that goal.

Non Causa Pro Causa.

Description: An argument to reject a proposition because of the falsity of some other proposition that seems to be a consequence of the first, but really is not.

Non-Sequitur.

Description: An argument in which the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. Another way of putting this is: A conclusion drawn from premises that provide no logical connection to it.

Petitio Principii (begging the question).

* The conclusion of an argument is contained in one of the premises assumed.
* Assuming the truth of one’s proposal as a premise for the conclusion one is trying to prove.

Plurium Interrogationum – Many Questions.

Description: A demand for a simple answer to a complex question.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

Description: An argument from a premise of the form “A preceded B” to a conclusion of the form “A caused B.” Simply because one event precedes another event in time does not mean that the first event is the cause of the second event. This argument resembles a fallacy known as a Hasty Generalization.

Quaternio Terminorum.

Description: An argument of the syllogistic form in which there occur four or more terms. In a standard categorical syllogism there are only three terms: a subject, a predicate, and a middle term.

Red Herring.

Description: A fallacy when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue being discussed, such that everyone’s attention is diverted away from the points being made, and toward a different conclusion. It is not logically valid to divert a chain of reasoning with extraneous points.

Reification.

Description: To reify something is to convert an abstract concept into a concrete thing. Reification is a Fallacy of Ambiguity. Reification is also sometimes known as a fallacy of “hypostatization”.

Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Description: The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of “argumentum ad ignorantium,” is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

Special Pleading.

Description: Special pleading is a logical fallacy wherein a double standard is employed by the person making the assertion. Special pleading typically happens when one insists upon less strict treatment for the argument he/she is making than he or she would make when evaluating someone else’s arguments.

Straw Man.

Description: It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else’s position for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.

Tu Quoque – Two Wrongs Make a Right.

Description: Two wrongs never add up to a right; you cannot right a wrong by applying yet another wrong. Such a fallacy is a misplaced appeal to consistency. It is a fallacy because it makes no attempt to deal with the subject under discussion.

AMBIGUITY.

Description: An argument in the course of which at least one term is used in different senses. Also known as equivocation. There are several types of “fallacies of ambiguity,” including REIFICATION, EQUIVOCATION, AMPHIBOLY, COMPOSITION, DIVISION, and ACCENTUS.

Equivocation.

* Using the same word in two different senses.
* A fallacy arising from the ambiguity or multiplicity of possible interpretations of a repeated word or phrase. “An elephant is an animal, therefore a small elephant is a small animal”.

Amphiboly.

* Arguing from premises which are ambiguous due to their grammatical construction.
* An argument whose premises contain statements with grammatical constructions capable of being interpreted in more than one way. Classical example: “if Croesus went to war with Cyrus, he would destroy a mighty kingdom”. Based on that advice Croesus went to war with Cyrus and in so doing destroyed a mighty kingdom: his own.

Accent.

* Stressing a word in a sentence which thereby changes the meaning.
* An argument based on a change in meaning through emphasis or accent. “we should not speak ill of our friends”, unaccented, may be valid, while by accenting the last word the implication is added that it may be acceptable to speak ill of others. Similarly, quoting or emphasizing something out of context (“the captain was sober today”).

Composition.

* Attributing to the whole the properties of the parts.
* Reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole itself: “all of the parts of this machine are light, therefore the machine itself is light”. Or, to infer that what may be said of a term distributively may be said of the term collectively: “a bus uses more gasoline than a car, therefore buses use more gasoline than cars”.

Division.

* Attributing to the parts the properties of the whole.
* The reverse of composition: reasoning from the attributes of a whole to the attributes of its parts, or inferring that what may be true of a term collectively is true distributively. “HP is a very important company; I am an HP employee; therefore I am very important”; “Dogs are frequently seen in the streets; Afghan hounds are dogs; therefore Afghan hounds are frequently seen in the streets”.

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Description: A fallacy of correlation that links events because they occur simultaneously; one asserts that because two events occur together they are causally related, and leaves no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. This fallacy is similar to the “post hoc” fallacy.

Reference:

1. Message-ID: Sender: netnews@apollo.hp.com (USENET posting account) Nntp-Posting-Host: avatar_r.ch.apollo.hp.com Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 18:05:01 GMT .
2. From: jsanders@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Definition Time — Strawman Date: 25 Apr 1992 10:42:00 -0500 Organization: Kansas State University Lines: 105 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu.
3. From: bcushman@envy.Reed.Edu (Ben Cushman)Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: catalog of everyday fallacies? (long) Message-ID: Date: 26 Apr 92 23:39:51 GMT Article-I.D.: reed.1992Apr26.233951.29296 References: Sender: news@reed.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR.

Update 2/14/2011:

At about 9 AM I decided to study logic a little more. And discovered more evidence of atheists hijacking the original logic fallacy list, from an apparent atheist named Zack Smith, who, I wonder, if coincidentally, is using a .tk domain to direct people to his propaganda website on logic, atheism and religion, which was last worked on in 2010, the year I wrote up this post. More suspicious is that he does not say when he last edited it. It’s suspicious to me because he’s using topics on my website and the redirect is close to the one I use, and hides credit, just like the other atheists who parrot the list. Translation: I wonder if he’s stolen credit from me too. Here is my reply to what I found on the part of his website on with those subjects:

Zack: if information-avoidance (concerning what is morally right from wrong) is a sin in your arbitrary illogical rulebook, (and it is in the Bible: the most popular and most influential spoken and gathered information in the world, which YOU AVOID), why then do you hide your email from your atheism propaganda pages, and not only that, not tell people something as important as to WHERE YOUR TRUNCATED FALLACY LIST ORIGINATED FROM, OR FACTS CONCERNING THE HELPFULNESS OF THE BIBLE FOR LIVING A PEACEFUL, LOGICAL AND PROGRESSIVE LIFE?

And lest you claim you did provide your email, I’ve saved your pages.

And religion isn’t “a mind virus”, it’s a method of worship; it’s a logical fallacy to over-generalize, a fallacy which you illogically and deliberately did not include in “your” arbitrary credit-robbing fallacy list. Further: do you know who the father of biology is, bitter Mr. Religion is Mind Virus? Don’t avoid that information Mr. I Love Truth. Hint: wain’t your father Deluded Darwin who spread is mental virus called Darwinian Evolution which is used as an excuse by every God-hater whether they call themselves Christian or not to lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, covet, blaspheme, forget that God worked to give eternal life freely, and to dishonor their parents. You do recognize those list of wrongs don’t you atheist, Mr. All Religion Is Bad For Your Mind and There is No God? Yeah: none of those things, not even murdering babies or abusing children is wrong, WRONG.

It’s also a false argument when you DO NOT SHOW INFORMATION THAT REFUTES YOURS AND PRETEND THAT YOU ARE RIGHT BY EXCLUDING SUCH INFORMATION.

As for strawmen, why don’t you point out that many Christians don’t claim that atheism is a religion, let alone a spreading one, BUT THAT HUMANISTIC ATHEISM IS? Yet you point out that strawman arguments are bad. And are weasel arguments fallicious in your mind either? If I point out the arguments made by atheists which only have bad grammar or who are very poor in school or who are mentally ill, would I be being a “weasel”? Would I be AVOIDING INFORMATION? Be ashamed you liar. Stop being a bitter, fault-finder and hypocrite and avoiding information and restoring to lies, hiding truth and misleading to make yourself feel better.

Here’s an excellent example of atheists biasing the logic fallacy list, using examples from Zack the infantile copy-paster:

Genetic Fallacy

Here, the source or origin of a claim is discredited or bolstered in order allege that the claim itself is false or true.
It comes from the bible and the bible is the word of Yahweh therefore it must be true.
That research was done in China therefore it must be full of errors and crap data.

Legitimacy From Effort.

This religion has taken millennia to get built up therefore you should believe in god.
It took years for Microsoft to produce Windows therefore we should use it.
It took years for the seagulls to cover the rocks completely with shit therefore it is pretty like a Jackson Pollack painting.
It took years for such-and-such minority to build up their own separatist subculture therefore members should not interact with outsiders and they deserve respect.

In the Genetic fallacy, Parrot Zack uses an incorrect example, and showing his hatred of those who are religious, blasphemes God’s name to make himself look wise (if you show deep hatred for someone let alone hatred at all while claiming to be teaching the truth, that makes what you say suspect as being false Zack; that’s obvious), which is that to say that if Yahweh said it is true that it must be. Parrot: Yahweh doesn’t lie as is shown by the historical accuracy of the Bible and eye witness testimony to the things it says exist and that still happen. If you’d like to attempt to cure yourself of your insanity of doubt try sleeping next to a knife in various houses haunted by violent demons. Keep in mind that you deserve to die if one of them attempts you; don’t blaspheme after being hurt by one being that it will be your own fault to sleep with demons. Notice also how Parrot Zack weasels in the example of China, a communist dictatorship. Zack, are you aware communist atheists with the silence or aid of humanistic atheists murdered or indirectly murdered 250 million people in the last 100 years, the most killed by any group and in that short a time, AND AFTER THE SUPPOSED AGE OF FREE-THINKING AND ENLIGHTENMENT BROUGHT ON BY ATHEISTS? That’s not evolution Mr. Pretentious Genetics, that’s thinning the genetics humans have to work with to continue to survive and be fit and to adapt. Humanistic Communism is evil Zack, stop denying that murder is wrong, let alone murder of those who disagree with the personal feelings of others. Murder exists Zack, just like Yahweh who forbids. Psychopathic parroting, truth-twisting and disgust won’t change that.

In Zack’s Legitimacy From Effort fallacy he put’s first as an example “This religion has taken millenia to get built up therefore you should believe in god.” How about also adding, “Pagan Roman, Catholic Roman, Muslims, and Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian and Baltic Communist atheists fought to suppress, oppress and murder millions of Christians and those who spoke out against their gods who were no gods, therefore you shouldn’t trust in Yahweh.”? How about these ones: “If it survives it must be fit.” or “If it survives it must be best.” Or “If it survives it must be right.” Or “If it survives it must be just.” Or, “If it took millions of years to evolve it must be best.” Do any of those lines of reasoning sound familiar, hypocrite? Strange you don’t use any of them as examples but rather some arrogant biased rants with a snotty fanboy tone.

Or how about including these examples somewhere: “A man looks like a monkey, therefore one of them must have come from the other.” Or, “A bird looks like a giant lizard, therefore one of them must have come from the other.” Or, “Because animals look alike they must have all biologically have come from a single thingy.” Or, “If there is a column of animals in the order of little to big big animals then big animals must have come from little animals.” Do you know what types of logical fallacies those fall under, Mr. Logical?

That’s your fallacious logic blind Zack who magnifies his error in his one eye that can see with a false lens.

It’s also a logical fallacy to think that because you point out right from wrong that you must therefore be wise in morality and moral, yet clearly you’re neither, but rather a parasitic parrot.

—-

That’s the end of my reply. I’m trying to finish with a book on logic and arguments against religion which I mostly finished last year, but I wanted to add another argument I remembered about three days ago, refuting in my original version of the book in 2005 or 2006, which was on a justification for homosexuality, and then yesterday I think, remembered another, on God supposedly wrongly treating us like children, which I also refuted. Ironically one of the logical fallacies Zack listed in his list, one which I didn’t remember having read and thinking about is the basis points out the error of this justification for homosexuality (but doesn’t explain why it’s wrong, no surprise being that Zack is merely parroting without little to no understanding or critical after-thought on what he’s talking about). I wasn’t going to mention that I’d never read it because I think I already did in my book, but after commenting about the homosexuality argument and seeing it tied into it; it was too strange to not mention. Divine coincidence I call it. The logic fallacy Zack listed which I’m talking about, I personally call it the The Superiority or Inferiority/Moral Characteristics/Relation by Origin Fallacy, at the moment. If it’s in my book already I don’t remember whatever term I have for it in there. I’ll try to update this post later to point out if I already mentioned it in my unpublished book, for history.

“How do ye say, ‘We are wise, and the law of Yahweh is with us? Lo: certainly in vain made he made it’: rather it is the pen of the scribes that lies.” – Jeremiah 8:8

Some Atheists are Deliberately Ignorant, Truth-hating, Credit-theiving, Hypocrites

Think atheists can be good? Ever wonder why atheists seem to be the most hated and mistrusted group? Here’s a little of the endless evidence as to why atheists might be better off locked up in insane asylums:

Today on a certain stupidity-filled website (it’s for atheists only, so big surprise) I found these two ultra stupid comments:

“why not think Harry Potter is real, there are millions who think god is real and thats just rediculous” from “Atheist Princess”.

For you very young people who don’t know why that is super stupid, besides her trashy spelling and punctuation, this is why:

1) She’s comparing what no one believes is real to what many believe is real, and not explaining what the connection is.

2) She doesn’t say which of her statements is ridiculous: which is ridiculous: not believing that Harry Potter is real or that God is real or both?

3) She didn’t give any evidence as to why whatever she is saying is ridiculous is ridiculous.

4) She didn’t even spell ridiculous right.

On her profile she said this:

Notice she says that she is obsessed with the “fairy tale” Harry Potter, and even made a forum on it? Notice she gives no evidence as to why she became an atheist, and had believes that no Christian teaches, which is that you weren’t to ask any questions about the Bible, when in churches that is done all the time, and when Christians pose them all the time everywhere? Notice she gives no explanation at all as to why she became an atheist, except because certain things didn’t make sense to her, and yet can’t be bothered to say what those things were even though she also says she is trying to convert her sisters to atheism (which having such a hatred for religion, says, “deconvert” in place of convert). She also not many minutes ago posted a video link to a narcissist named Laci Green, who resorted to using a severe sexual insult against Christ and stereotype of Christians, based on her experience on one encounter with a Christian who gave her some short simple preaching in a single encounter, and yet Laci merely said for the video description (and notice the type of facial expression she gave at the end):

My opinion [is] based on science, reason, logic, rationale, and the undiscriminating pursuit of truth. What’s yours based on? ;)

The good things are done by god, and the bad things just….happen. LOL…cute. :|

And what does her last sentence have to do with truth, reality and the previous sentence? Is that logical? No, it shows she is shallow and truth-hating: she chose to joke about some stupid thing she heard, rather than give any evidence to justify her attacks on theists, Christians, or Christ. God makes it clear in Scripture that bad things happen because it is his will, that PEOPLE DISOBEY because it was his will to show mankind fails without fully loving and trusting in him and are “liars” he said. By letting mankind fail Scripture says he proved himself true. It proved God is infallible. It also, as he preplanned, Scripture says, let Jesus glorify himself and prove his infallibility and superior love by suffering and dying for people who hated God and saving them even while they were still sinful as God changed their hearts and caused them to call out to Him for forgiveness.

Atheist Princess, like Laci, merely posted insults as the description for this video, but more direct and severe. She said:

LMAO@ the jesus freaks! Grow up. Don’t you know? Fairytales are for children! Please get a fundamental grasp on science, philosophy, metaphysics, and log[ic]

Notice that she didn’t say, “believe in fairy tales is for children” but rather that they just are. Why then does she obsess on Harry Potter as she admits, even making a thread dedicated to it and commanding others to participate in it? Why doesn’t she acknowledge that making mere insults and ranting with hatred is childish and not “grown up”? Why does she think saying “LMAO” is mature, or that being sexually offensive to theists or Christians is mature, or that getting getting drunk and being stupid and insulting every theist who has existed, insulting the ones whose inventions and music she enjoys to no end and obsesses on and giving them no acknowledgment, no credit, and instead tearing down civilization, why does she think that that is mature, truthful, and logical?

She also thinks that it’s appropriate to claim to “own” Christians, as in slavery. Yet aren’t atheists the ones who attack Christians for promoting slavery? Which is it atheists: is slavery good or bad? You boast about owning Christians, therefore you say it is good, and therefore God will make slaves out of you. By your words you will be judged. She also promoted a thread that claimed Spinoza was among the greatest dead philosophers. Does she know that Spinoza was a theist? Does she know that atheists have lied about what Spinoza thought about God, in order to make Einstein (who was influenced by Spinoza) to look like an atheist? Maybe if she wasn’t so busy getting drunk and being stupid, like so many atheists do and say the love to do.

Further, where is the evidence on her twitter wall, that she is someone who is logical and seeks truth?:

# i would totally get into that http://ning.it/dlSjzm 3:10 PM Sep 3rd via Atheist Nexus App

# http://ning.it/c63Zyn I LOVE YOU!!! 10:38 PM Aug 26th via Atheist Nexus App

# I HAVE BEEN ELMIFIED @elmify 11:36 AM Aug 18th via web

# Labels… who needs them! Tear them off, Throw them away, Who cares what size the shirt is! lol 9:06 PM Aug 9th via Atheist Nexus App

# there are no words… http://ning.it/d1q69M 11:33 AM Jul 29th via Atheist Nexus App

# just 4 giggles! http://ning.it/bzcnsJ 8:53 AM Jul 22nd via Atheist Nexus App

# my name is inigo montoya you killed my father prepare to die! 4:22 AM Jul 22nd via web

# Reza1991 #happybirthday daniel radcliffe 3:51 AM Jul 22nd via mobile web Retweeted by AtheistPrincess and 1 other

# you can kiss the lower part of the back of the canister that is my body 4:12 AM Jul 22nd via web

# *insert witty atheist quote here* 10:06 PM Jul 14th via Atheist Nexus App

# because im a follower #HugoChavezSucks 12:00 AM Jul 14th via web

# seekertruthnet #showsweneedback — Legend of the Seeker // saveourseeker.com 10:16 AM Jun 24th via web Retweeted by AtheistPrincess and 100+ others

# go to google type in “lol limewire” and click the “im feeling lucky” button…… Your welcome! 10:51 PM Jun 24th via Atheist Nexus App

# molly ringwald so should have picked duckie!!! http://ning.it/9xlEmP 11:58 AM Jun 23rd via Atheist Nexus App

# loves wearing shorts in 20 degree weather!!! 10:31 PM Mar 9th via a Ning Network

# Bingle bongle dingle dangle yickety doo yickety dah ping pong lippy toppy too tah! 2:31 AM Mar 6th via a Ning Network

# this makes me want to go to Amarillo, TX and start punching mofo’s in the face! http://ning.it/bvf4kK 11:02 PM Mar 4th via a Ning Network

# I am, apparently, the best employee with the best work ethic you’ll ever lay off. (i think i have a thing with sleeping with co-workers) 12:13 PM Mar 2nd via a Ning Network

# Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. 9:21 PM Mar 1st via a Ning Network

# I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it 9:19 PM Mar 1st via a Ning Network

What does any of that have to do with a love for truth and logic, let alone seeking either out? All that shows is a scatterbrained person who is obsessed with themselves, with pleasure and beauty and a hatred for logic and truth and reality in general. It shows she is immature and shallow and has poor self-control.

Then, I found this in the forum:

“What do you believe in?

Posted by Travis Brummett on March 24, 2010 at 10:25pm in Atheism

What stuff do you believe in even though you dont have evidence and are atheist? I believe in aliens and some sort of afterlife. I also believe theres a 4th density that has different laws of physics. The 4th density im talking about is not about time. I believe theres alot of stuff the universe can do that would seem supernatural. I believe in magic and supernatural like powers that humans arent capable of.”

So this atheist doesn’t even know what the right word is for “dimension” and replaces it with “density” and doesn’t realize that most people who have an education in physics believe that a 4th dimension exists: time, or that most people have no problem with it being called a dimension, and therefore acts like he’s believing in something out of the ordinary worth mentioning. On top of that, rather than believing in logic, he trusts in magic, magic being something that happens for no logical reason like in Dungeons and Dragons (or something caused by demons).

Now these are not comments I “cherry-picked” out of many, these were two comments I came across after reading a very few other things on that site, maybe three other pieces of information besides the logo on that site, a little of Atheist Princess’ profile description and two links she posted, one to a video called “I love you” (which was a vain rant from a white guy acting cute for attention and making it seem like it was something profound for him to say, “I love you”, like he was even close to being as loving as God or Christl) and another link to something so stupid I can’t remember what it was.

And these are not unusual experiences for me when I read what atheists say or talk to them: everything almost that comes out of their mouth on religion, is INSANE. Even the wisest atheists I learn about, make severely illogical claims concerning religion and morality, and do very immoral things (stalking for example). Another example of what would appear to be a wise atheist (but turned out to be as mentally ill or as severely illogical as the rest of them), is Kramer, who claimed to have a degree in psychology, and didn’t bother saying where, so as far as anyone knows it’s a cracker jack degree, claimed that theists make the “argument from authority” error, and from the context he said that in, meant that their only evidence is “God did it” or “my god did it”, which only an ignoramus, or truth-hater would say (which includes forgetful people), being that there are millions of theists who refer to evidence for their theism, one which torments millions of atheists: intelligent design evidence. So if he truly had a good education and who was knowledgeable in religion from his life experience (and he looked about 49 from his picture), he had at least no excuse for ignoring ID theory or Christian creationism evidence. In fact: I found him in the same forum I posted comments from above, commenting in a thread on Ray Mcgovern: a Christian who expertly points out the many evidences for a created universe. That makes Kramer, a deceiver.

In addition to that, I’ve noticed that atheists, without giving any credit to the originator, have been copying and pasting logic fallacy lists, and have twisted them to make make Christianity to appear illogical, and not only commit logical fallacies by being deceptive in that way, but even committing the same logical fallacies they claim are fallacies! Take for example this hate speech against theists sanctioned by Shippensburg University, posted by their former professor George Boeree:

“We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.”

But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior? Of course not!

This hack philosopher, WITH NO DEGREE IN PHILOSOPHY LET ALONE LOGIC, who copied and pasted a fallacy list and made it anti-theistic, made a circular argument himself: he’s making a personal attack against religion (ad hominem) and is committing the fallacy of “appealing to obviousness” by his weasel word: “of course not!” and committing the fallacy of “appealing to emotion” by using an exclamation mark. He’s also indirectly committing the fallacy of “appealing to authority” by implying that his mere word as a former professor with a degree in psychology and whatever works he’s written (which are obscure, and not authoritative, so he’s being a vain hypocrite on top of all this).

Why in the world, would I convert to atheism, when they are extreme hypocrites, destructive (constantly brutally killing babies, and have killed over 150,000,000 people in the last 100 years, not even counting abortions), who stereotype Christians and tell whatever lie they think of so they don’t look as bad, and so that no one imprisons or executes them as dangers to life, and when it’s pointed out that they are severely corrupt, merely repeat their stereotype in various ways: “Well Christians are hypocrites too.”

Related Posts:

Just have faith: Stephen Hawking says, “Gravity did it.”

Mainstream Science: A Polluted Crowded Stream of Quacks and Cracked Pots

Richard Dawkins: A Narcissist Who Requires Christians to Have “Credentials”

Evolutionist Paleontologist Points Out Lies On the Discovery Channel

Christopher Hitchens says Mother Teresa committed “crimes against humanity” [I’ve linked to archive.org to show this article as of 11/29/2011 upon discovering it was a dead link]

Christopher Hitchens Condemned an Atheism!: The Torturer of the Poor and Dying “Mother” Teresa Turns Out to Have Been an Atheist!

Atheist co-founder of Panda’s Thumb Chastises Christopher Hitchens for Lying About Benjamin Franklin

Evolutionist Wants All Pandas To Die

All Atheist Leaders Were Murderers and Supporters of Mass Murder: Including Hitler

Just Have Faith: Stephen Hawking says, “Gravity did it.”

Stephen Hawking has recently declared that God wasn’t needed to make the universe, because, he says,

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,”

I think that logic should be a required course in Junior High, and High school, and every college, and that if you’ve already taken it, that you should be retested before being allowed into High school and college. No doubt Hawking has come up with some scheme in which gravity, along with other laws, magically decided (just like DNA supposedly decides to be greedy according to Ricky Dawkins) to just assemble the universe, simple is that. He might as well say, “Laws wrote themselves” or “information made itself.” He even said, “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” And whatever he says is true because he spontaneously said so! Who made Hawking and the co author of his book, God? And clearly Hawking is suffering from narcissism disorder as he believes the force of his statements makes him right as he goes on to make this superfluous useless statement: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” So, making statements apart from evidence is “science” according to Hawking and Dawkins.

Hawking also said recently, “The fact that we human beings – who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature”. No, humans are not “mere collections of matter”, Hawking’s should have spent more time leaning biology. We’re not just robots or magically sentient beings with built in error correcting codes and brains more many times powerful than the most powerful modern supercomputers. Rape and child abuse are not, “just concepts humans made up and is only wrong to whoever decides it is”. The rest of his sentence was: “– have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph.” And it’s just a coincidence too! Here’s his evidence that coincidences lead to life on Earth, and it’s such awesome proof!: in 1992 an astronomer found of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun, therefore, he says, “That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions – the single sun, the lucky combination of Earth-sun distance and solar mass – far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings”. In other words, “we found a planet around a sun other than our own, therefore all the precise conditions in the universe including in our solar system and in Earth’s atmosphere, magnetosphere, all the chemicals on and under earth, and all the chemicals and structures needed for the simplest to the most complex living thing on Earth, are also just chance. Why again? “Cuz we found a planet around a star.” HUH?! Could Hawkings also have been psychotic or demon possessed? Using his moronic logic: if you find one ultra complex robot full of life-preserving and life-creating programming and technology, it isn’t proof of intelligent life, and if you find another one, it’s LESS proof of intelligent life. CAN YOU GET ANYMORE BACKWARDS? Again: If you find another Earth with humans on it, or some other planet with sentient beings on it, IT’S LESS PROOF THAT THERE IS DESIGN. Or: If you find one planet, that’s not proof of a designer, but if you find two: it’s LESS proof according to Hawking. That is the kind of insanity that mentally strikes people who hate God and greatly reject him. GOD IS THE SOURCE OF TRUTH, so the farther you get from Truth, the more backwards you become, The more you hate God, the more dishonest the more immoral you become. In a way, you become the opposite of God when you hate him: you become a living lie.

Related Post:

Mainstream Science: A Polluted Crowded Stream of Quacks and Cracked Pots

Atheist vs. Atheist vs. Benjamin Franklin: Co-founder of Panda’s Thumb Chastises Christopher Hitchens (for Lying)

Speaking of evolutionists wrecking their “reputation” and image, I just discovered a few minutes ago, but what I think should have gotten more attention and repeated, it’s last years news, but I doubt it’s gotten much attention, so here it is again:

Hitchens Distorts Franklin’s Religion
by Ed Brayton
4/13/2009/9:09 AM

I saw this Youtube video at Balko’s blog of Christopher Hitchens debating the utterly dense Ken Blackwell about whether this is a Christian nation or not. Balko says Hitchens “annihilates” Blackwell, and that is true. Blackwell babbles like an idiot for most of it. But what jumped out at me was something Hitchens said that just grinds on me because it is so blatantly false and it is being presented by someone who so often speaks for causes I believe in.

Speaking about the Declaration of Independence, when Ken Blackwell mentions the notion of unalienable rights being self-evident, Hitchens says, “The person who put in the words ‘self-evident’ on that committee was Benjamin Franklin, who was undoubtedly an atheist.” But this is every bit as transparent a lie as anything David Barton has ever said.

There is not a shred of evidence that Franklin was an atheist and volumes of evidence from Franklin’s own writings that prove he was not. The most obvious is in a letter that he wrote to Ezra Stiles a mere six weeks before he died in which he laid out his creed:

Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho’ it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm however in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Believers, in his Government of the World, with any particular Marks of his Displeasure.

This certainly is not Christianity, but neither is it deism. And it sure as hell isn’t atheism. Hitchens needs to stop this, immediately. It discredits him and, by extension, the causes he fights for, many of which need fighting for. He will do to the cause of separation the same kind of damage that Barton has done to the other side. Here’s the full video:

Hardball: Ken Blackwell vs. Serverus Snape
(also known as Christopher Hitchens)

Related article on the life of Benjamin Franklin (which includes his Christian Calvinist education yet sinful embracement of rebellion and pandering to the world.

Post link: hitchens.tk