The list goes like this (very condensed, with my comments appended):
11. (He goes backwards, no comments on that, please). Introduce the kids to Atheist blogs. [They need to learn expletives and ridicule from the pros].
10. Teach them science. [Uncontroversial unless he really means Scientism.]
9. Watch Science shows on TV. [They will be presented as absolute truth, too.]
8. Encourage questions; use the Socratic Method [except give Materialist answers instead of Socratic method of more questions.]
7. Learn about mythology. Also uncontroversial [unless one uses it as a Fallacy of Guilt by Association.]
6. Watch anti-christian movies, like Agora and Religulous. [make sure you don’t mix in any Christian movies, not that there are that many]
5 Listen to a comedy recording by Julia Sweeny who makes fun of Christianity.
4. Learn magic tricks. Uncontroversial [unless magic is erroneously equated with other things which are not provable.]
3. Teach them about optical illusions. Uncontroversial [unless falsely equated with other things which are not provable.]
2. Lots of Atheist and FreeThought stuff on YouTube.
1. Books, from evolution to Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris.
I pointed out that there were no logic books or logic training in this agenda. That’s when the Atheists came out to play. One actually denies the value of logic (it's just language which is riddled with incomprehensibility). And another one says that truth is not "absolute truth".
There's much more entertainment there, too.
11 comments:
1) New Atheism - A New Religion where many of its most faithful adherents seek to turn children into human discrimination machines (discriminate all religions and spirituality altogether) :P
They're making the same mistakes some religious denominations are. I hope some are not that touchy, but that's the Irony.
2) I think, as a simple conjecture and humble opinion, that Scientific research would be more proficient if:
--> Materialism as a philosophical concept is broadened or,
--> Materialism as the actual philosophical concept is ditched.
Kind Regards.
Nice play-acting, Storm. If your atheist self doesn't have anything rational to say, why don't you just run along and let the adults have a conversation? Or do you think that engaging in foolish and utterly transparent caricatures somehow brings credit to your side?
Storm,
I'm interested in your position that the earth is only "thousands of years old". The reason is that there is ample visual, non-scientific evidence to the contrary.
My favorite is the Grand Canyon. Just by looking at the features of the topography it can be seen that slow erosion created the canyon, not a sudden release of water, as from a dammed lake bursting loose, which would have washed everything smooth. And the standing mesas in the canyon show hundreds if not thousands of sedimentary horizons. That alone seems to falsify the notion of only thousands of years for the existence of earth.
Another piece of evidence is the Rocky mountains, on top of which seashells and sea fossils are found. There is evidence that the existing Rockies are the third such mountain range to have arisen and then fallen, to rise again.
And I must say that I disagree with the harshness of your judgment on Atheists; I was one. This blog is focused on logic as the currency of conversation, and I hope you can join in with that tone in mind.
Matteo - just a heads up. Storm is not an atheist acting foolish. He is a Christian, not a poe.
What he has stated on this blog is what he truly believes.
Enjoy the company of this monumental intelligence!
If what you say of Storm is true, I'd like to know the independent evidence for it.
Matteo -
You can check out his blog:
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.com/2011/12/more-atheist-intolerance.html
You can also see Stormy in action on Ray Comfort's blog. Look for posts by Stormbringer
Looks like the circus has camped here for a while. I was unfamiliar with this site until I backtracked from my site meter and saw the fake comment from an imposter. (Of course, there are many people online using the nom de net of "Storm" and/or "Stormbringer.) Too bad "Nonny" didn't put in some of my more interesting commentaries on atheism, especially the ones with links.
So many atheists that are willing to lie, slander, libel, misrepresent and blindly accuse.
Guess what? I am not the "Storm" that left that comment. Give me a little credit, willya? If I have something to say, I say it.
Stormbringer,
Welcome,
Stan
Hi, Stan.
By the way, I saw your comments to the spurious "Storm". One thing he did state correctly about me, I am a Biblical (i.e., "young Earth") creationist. But I am not going to debate that in Weblog comments areas. If you're interested, though, I have a site that refutes evolution, promotes creationism and Intelligent Design (with a minimum of Bible and a maximum of science). This includes evidences that suggest a young earth and young cosmos.
That site is here.
Stormbringer,
Can I beseech you to read The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism by Edward Feser? It's by far the best defense of theism I've ever read, and it's quite strong. However, the suggestion in it is that Intelligent Design theory concedes too much to the materialists. It would be a good challenge to your ID/creationist worldview from a very strong THEISTIC perspective, which IMO offers a much better defense of theism than anything ID can offer.
Stormbringer--
Thanks for confirming my suspicions. I did take a look at your site as someone suggested and it just didn't read like the drivel that "storm" was posting.
Post a Comment