Skeptripe #9: "Quote-Mine"

Welcome back to "Skeptripe," where I expose words and phrases used by so-called "Skeptics" and Athiests that are overused, misused, or just plain stupid.

Sometimes "Skeptics" will accuse their opponents of using "Quote-Mines," which are little quotes so potent that they explode the "Skeptic's" argument, like a mine on a battlefield. "Skeptics" claim that this is some kind of dirty, dishonest trick, but what else do you expect from whiny liberal peaceniks?

The best way to avoid being whined at like this is to just not use any quotes anywhere, but sometimes you can't avoid it. My only usual exception is with quotes from the Bible: I hope that if I use enough Bible quotes, exposing the "Skeptic" Athiests to God's Holy Word a little at a time, the Holy Spirit will build up in their hearts until eventually it'll be too much for even them to deny. It hasn't happened yet, but I have Faith that it still might.

Anyway, "Skeptics" who complain about quote mines usually talk about how the words are taken out of context, or how they don't mean what we say they mean. This is obviously absurd: words have specific definitions that were made by God and written in His Divine Dictionary on our hearts. The meanings of words don't change, regardless of what other words are around them. I can go to any passage of the Bible, pick out any string of words, and find that it means the same thing as it does when I read the whole chapter, and it's just as profound. I'd be tempted to say that "Skeptics" just don't understand how reading works, but I think it just relates back to their fears. They're afraid of their Athiest and Big Scienceist heroes being Godly men, or showing that Athiesm is stupid, so they claim we're taking those people's anti-Athiest quotes out of context, and that they actually meant something else. The "Skeptics" are afraid of looking stupid and silly, so they lie about us misrepresenting their arguments. They're afraid to admit that we're right, so they try to mangle God's words to mean other things.

"Skeptics" live their whole lives in fear because they don't have God to rely on. So next time a "Skeptic" accuses you of using "Quote-Mines," just imagine them as they are: a scared, sad little Athiest trapped in the middle of a minefield, shivering and hoping no one hears them praying. There are no Athiests in foxholes, whether on the battlefield, or on the blogosphere.

Skeptripe #8: "Null Hypothesis"

Welcome back to "Skeptripe," where I expose words and phrases used by so-called "Skeptics" and Athiests that are overused, misused, or just plain stupid.

Athiests and Big Scienceists often pull out the "Null Hypothesis," usually with reference to "Occam's Razor." What it means is that they start off any study assuming that whatever their opponent talks about doesn't exist. They claim that it's a fundamental idea in reason, but I think it really just exposes the Godless Athiestic (lack of) values at the heart of Big Science.

What it boils down to is that, if you tell an Athiest Big Scienceist something, their first instinct is to not believe you. I know, I know, Athiests not believing something--shocking, right? I don't know about you, but I trust people. If you tell me something, I tend to believe you, unless I find out that you're bearing false witness.

But Athiests don't have that kind of Faith, in God or their fellow people. They know that, since they don't believe in God, they're all liars, so they assume everyone else lies all the time too. Their first reaction to any person is to assume that that person is just as sad, pathetic, and depraved as they are. I guess if they realized that the rest of us were good people, destined for Heaven and the glory of God, they'd probably be even more depressed.

The "Null Hypothesis" isn't Science, it isn't reason, it's just more Athiest depression and depravity.

Skeptripe #7: "Theory"

Welcome back to "Skeptripe," where I expose words and phrases used by so-called "Skeptics" and Athiests that are overused, misused, or just plain stupid.

"Theory" is one of those words that "Skeptics" just love to redefine. I mean, we all know what "theory" means. Like all words, its meaning was written by God on our hearts at Babel thousands of years ago; God doesn't change and neither do His definitions. When I say "I have a theory about what "Way of the Master" will be about this week," it doesn't mean "I did years of experiments and found fossils and lied and faked a bunch of things" like "Skeptics" want you to think it does. It means "I'm totally guessing, and this is pure speculation." It's not something I pretend to be sure of; if I watch WOTM and it's nothing like my theory, then I'm going to shrug and say "well, it was just a theory."

Contrast that with the kind of certainty you feel when reading the Bible or listening to a sermon or hearing the Voice of the Holy Spirit. You know that those things are true, because you feel it in your heart. When you make up a theory about what's going to be on your favorite TV show or which car is going to win the Nascar race, you don't have that knowledge in your heart, you just have a guess in your head, and you know it could be totally wrong.

Well, Athiest Big Scienceists and "Skeptics" don't believe in the Bible or the Holy Spirit, so they never get to feel that from-the-heart certainty. All they have is their head-guesses--their "theories"--so they have to pretend that those theories are more than just pure speculation. When you call them on it, on redefining the word "theory," they always get so upset--and why not? You're trying to take away the only thing they have left, this pretend certainty that they try to have in place of real Godly confidence. You really have to pity a mind so fragile that it would cling to such a flimsy delusion instead of looking at the real world.

In any case, don't pull any punches. If you take away the security blanket they hide under, exposing them to the full and awesome glory of Almighty God and his Absolute Truth, maybe they'll actually see the light.

Or maybe, like all such things, they'll hiss and skitter back into the darkness. But you have to try; it's your God-given duty.

Skeptripe #6: "Occam's Razor"

Welcome back to "Skeptripe," where I expose words and phrases used by so-called "Skeptics" and Athiests that are overused, misused, or just plain stupid.

"Skeptics" love to pull out "Occam's Razor" as if it's their John 3:16. The principle says that "the simplest answer is always the right one." This might seem strange to you, given what you likely already know about "Skeptics." I mean, when have you ever heard a "Skeptic" give a simple answer to anything? "Evolution is the process of how fish came from rocks and mud and..." and that's about when I fall asleep. Obviously the simplest answer is always "God." I don't know why "Skeptics" don't understand that.

But I do know why "Skeptics" like this "simplest answer" stuff: they're dumb. They like to look smart, to use big words and long sentences, but they just can't understand anything particularly complex. It's part of why they don't believe in God--they can't understand Him, so they just say He doesn't exist.

If you encounter this "Occam's Razor" in argument, just remind the "Skeptics" which answers are the really "simple" ones. "God" vs. "evolution by natural selection and..."--one word with three letters, or a whole paragraph of big made-up Science words, which is simpler? "Government Conspiracy" vs. "a decentralized Islamic terrorist organization who infiltrated the country..."--yes, "government conspiracy" is pretty long and has a bunch of syllables, but it's still simpler than their answer. "The Bible says so" vs. "there's no such thing as absolute morals and so we can make them up ourselves"--it should be obvious by now.

"Occam's Razor" is just like the "Skeptics" who love it so much: dull, blunt, and disposable.

Skeptripe #5: "Ad Hominem"

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." Psm. 53:1

Welcome back to "Skeptripe," where I expose words and phrases used by so-called "Skeptics" and Athiests that are overused, misused, or just plain stupid.

"Skeptics" will often complain about "ad hominem" attacks in arguments. They'll say that "just because someone is an Athiest doesn't mean that they're untrustworthy or evil," or "just because someone is an anonymous person online doesn't mean they're wrong." They claim that a person's character doesn't matter as long as they give a valid argument. As usual, these "Skeptics" are missing the point entirely.

Just as it says in Psalms, none of the Athiest "Skeptics" who shun God do any good things. People who don't believe in the Bible have nothing to keep them from committing all sorts of sins: lying, stealing, murdering. Of course we care about their personal character: why would we want to listen to a liar and a murderer? If you're talking to an Athiest, chances are that they're both, or worse. It doesn't do any good to argue with someone who's lying to you--their argument is going to be full of lies!

Good people do good things and bad people do bad things--that's obvious! If someone's a bad person, it means they do bad things; how could anyone, even an Athiest deny this? It only makes sense for us to find out if someone is a good or bad person before we try to argue with them, because at least that way we know what we're getting into--an intelligent discussion with a good, godly person, or a bitter war with a sinful lying Hellbound God-hating Athiest.

Yes, we look ad hominem--to the man--in order to see how close the man comes ad deo--to God.

Skeptripe #3: "Straw Man"

Welcome back to "Skeptripe," where I expose words and phrases used by so-called "Skeptics" and Athiests that are overused, misused, or just plain stupid.

"Skeptics" like to accuse their opponents of using "Straw Man Arguments." They say that we're arguing against an easy target, but it really isn't our fault that they're such terrible debaters.

Seriously, though, what the "Skeptics" find so hard to understand is that we aren't arguing against a "Straw Man," we're simplifying their arguments. "Skeptics" like to pretend that they're smarter than everyone else, so they write long, rambling arguments where they over-explain everything in complicated language. By using these unfamiliar terms and long paragraphs, they hope to confuse their opponents. That way, when they're backed into a corner, they can always say "you're using a "Straw Man," this is what I was really saying!" It's a cheap stunt, but it might fool naive opponents who are arguing with "Skeptics" for the first time.

"Skeptics" like to pad out their arguments in a couple of major ways:

1. Defining things: "Skeptics" like to give definitions for random words and terms in their arguments. This takes up lots of space, and is clearly an attempt to talk down to their opponents. As if we don't know what the words mean! But more than that, "Skeptics" like to redefine words to mean things that help them make their arguments, rather than using the definitions that God gave those words at the Tower of Babel. You can just ignore these passages, though you might want to tell the "Skeptics" that you aren't falling for their stupid re-definitions.
   
2. Examples: "Skeptics" love to make up stories to help support their points--that should be obvious, why else would most of them believe in evolution? They spin out long "hypothetical" fables about fictional people or fantasy animals, or they explain long examples that supposedly support their points. More often than not, these stories are totally fictional. How can a fictional story help their point? The answer: it can't. These are just distractions, and you can skip right over them.
   
3. Quotes and Links: If there's anything "Skeptics" love more than telling stories, it's talking about their "sources." They'll throw out link after link, long quotation after long quotation, all in an effort to pad out their argument and make them look smarter. The truth is, anyone can find anything to support them online; if I don't believe one "Skeptic's" story, why would I believe the story of some other "Skeptic" on some other site? If you were to click and read every link and quote in a "Skeptic's" post, you'd be gone for hours, reading more and more bloated arguments that go nowhere. Just ignore any links or quoted bits of text, and whatever you do, never listen to the "Skeptics" who try to get you to give links and quotes like them. Once again, they're just trying to distract you, so they don't risk being convinced by your arguments.

The best thing to remember when dealing with these "Skeptics" is to have faith in yourself. Your first impression of their arguments is usually the right one, and just ignore them when they try to tell you that you're "misrepresenting" or "misinterpreting" what they said. When you stick to your guns and never waver, they'll just get more and more angry that you aren't falling for their tricks. Eventually they'll snap, and you can just sit back and declare victory.

"Skeptics" like to think they're smart, but just like another "Straw Man," they're all in need of a brain.