Skeptripe #11: "Evil"

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.

One of the really amazing thing about Athiests and "Skeptics" is how they'll claim that they deny God and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit in one breath, but then they'll affirm their existence in the next. One of the best examples of this is when Athiests talk about "Evil." On one hand, you might say that Athiests should be experts on Evil, since the Holy Bible clearly says "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). Since no Athiest does good, they must have more experience with evil than anyone else!

And that's certainly true, but remember that Satan is the Great Deceiver, and that God has written morals on each of our hearts. That moral writing is the only thing that keeps True Christians from running around murdering babies and sodomizing our neighbors and torturing Jews until they repent. When someone chooses to reject God and be an Athiest, God goes out of them and He takes that moral sense with Him. Without that barrier, Athiests are free to commit those sins that we all want to do, and they have nothing to keep them from acting that way! "Good" and "evil" have no meaning to an Athiest, since they no longer have God to tell them which one is which!

But then they'll turn around and talk to good Christians about the "problem of evil." This is very revealing, because it shows us that even in the most hard-hearted dumb Athiest "Skeptic" Big Scienceist, there is still something of God left (after all, He is everywhere and in everything!) behind. This little remnant of God reminds Athiests, somewhere deep in their knighted minds, remember what it was like to have all of God inside them. And so they have a God-shaped hole in their hearts, and that hole longs, yearns, and pulsates to be filled once more with God's white-hot perfect Love. Some part of them remembers what it was like to know the difference between right and wrong, and they know that evil is a problem. Obviously, if God didn't exist, they wouldn't know that there was such a thing as good or evil at all, but since they do, they're showing that they know the Truth!

Unfortunately for them, they're deceived by Satan and they don't have that God-part that tells them what evil is, so they say things like "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" If they still had their God-part intact, they'd know that the answer is simple: Satan does it. It's Satan's influence and the Fall of Man that allows evil and sin to happen in the world. That's the definition of evil: what Satan does.

"But," says the Athiest, "didn't God make Satan? Doesn't God know the future?" Well, of course, on both accounts. God made everything. And so God knows that eventually, Satan will take over the world, and then God will finally destroy him for all eternity. God knew that all from the very beginning, and He knew that this method would result in punishment of the wicked souls and rewarding the virtuous souls with watching the wicked souls get tormented for all eternity. If the Athiest still had their God-part, they'd understand that this is all part of God's perfect plan and perfect justice, which we can't understand, unless we have God in our hearts.

In other words, the only "problem of evil" is that Athiests have a problem understanding what "evil" is.

Skeptripe #10: "Circular Reasoning"

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" and Athiests like to accuse Christians of using "circular reasoning" in arguments. As usual, this is due to "Skeptics" and Athiests' inability to see the obvious. Yes, God wrote the Bible, that's why the Bible is the only perfect book in existence, with no plot holes, errors, inconsistencies, or boring parts, unlike all those Athiest books. How else could a book written by one divine source have so many authors? It rained for 40 days and 40 nights before the Great Flood, and the Jews wandered through the desert for 40 years, and Jesus was in the desert for 40 days to be tempted--and there are Ten Commandments times Four Gospels, which equals 40! How could such divine math happen without God? And since the Bible is perfect, and the Bible says all these things happened, then we clearly know they happened, because God can't lie!

All these things are obvious, and yet the "Skeptics" will say "that's circular reasoning," as if that ends the argument! Guess what, Athiests: what's obvious is obvious, no matter what you call it. God's existence and the Bible's perfection are self-evident, and there are hundreds of arguments by clever theologians which prove that!

But let's say that the Athiests are right, and we're using "circular reasoning": so what? The circle is a perfect shape, and since the only other perfect things are God and the Bible, then "circular reasoning" must be perfect reasoning! "Circular reasoning" is God's reasoning! As usual, Athiests are trying to point out flaws in God's perfect creations, but circles are flawless, so the only way they can deny them is by Expelling these perfect arguments!

So the next time an Athiest says "that's circular reasoning," say "That's right, and therefore it's perfect. You'll never find a better argument for God."

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 #4: "Just Words"

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" often like to use dirty words and vulgar language, then say that it doesn't make their arguments wrong. "The words I use don't matter," the "Skeptics" will say, "only the facts and evidence and the reasoning behind them."

As usual, the "Skeptics" are dead wrong. Their claim doesn't even make sense! Of course it matters what words you use in your argument! If I say "The Bible is the inerrant Word of the Almighty God," I'm making a true argument. By the "Skeptic" logic, if instead I used the words "Lap Mart force blob demilitarized Toad men sex Underwear Poltroon," it would be just as valid an argument, because the facts and evidence and reasoning behind Biblical inerrancy are all that matter. This is obviously absurd: those words are nonsense, therefore it clearly matters what words I use in my argument.

"Skeptics" want to have their cake and eat it too; they want to look smart because they're all snobby intellectual elitists, but they also want to use the language of the bums in the gutter and the sailors in their bell bottoms and little capes. They need to pick a side--either pretend to be better than everyone and talk like it, so we can see what you are, or recognize that you're the fallen Godless waste of society and talk like that.

I think it boils down to Godlessness as usual. The "Skeptic" Athiests don't understand that God made language Himself, but (like everything else) it was corrupted by Man's sins, which is why He had to split it up at Babel. When sin entered language, it caused things like confusion and offensiveness, and vulgar words are like pure sin in letter form. God wants us to use higher words, words that are closer to the ones He created. He can't stand to hear sinful words, and neither can Godly people. When "Skeptics" use naughty words, they're saying "I am a sinful being, fallen away from my Creator, and my words are sinful words designed only to separate others from God." I know I don't need to tell you that the only proper course of action is to stop reading then and there, and to express your sincere offense to that sort of talk. Remind them that people who have to resort to such language are of lower intelligence (otherwise, why wouldn't they have accepted God?) and that it shows how angry and desperate they are.

Remember, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (Jhn. 1:1). When "Skeptics" and Athiests use bad words, they are attacking God Himself. And they say that words don't matter.

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.

Skeptripe #2: "Quantum Physics"

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics."--Richard Feynman, Athiest Physicist.

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.

Today, we're tackling "Quantum Physics," which is a subject that some "Skeptics" and Big Scienceists like to pretend they know a lot about. Well, as the quote above says (probably taken from that Athiest Big Scienceist in a moment when he was compelled by the Holy Spirit to tell the truth for once), nobody actually understands Quantum Physics, except God.

Taking a moment here, look at how Feynman said it; he called it "Quantum Mechanics," not "Quantum Physics"! Not only don't they know what it is, they don't even know what name they made up for it!

But the real reason he uses the word "Mechanics" is because Athiests think the universe is a big machine, which breaks down in places. They don't see the obvious--that a machine needs a machine builder--and so they use made-up Science things to try to fix the places where the machine breaks down. Of course, that's not something science can do; God built the machine and only God can fix it. That's what miracles and "mutations" are: God giving the machine of the universe a tune-up!

Anyway, what Athiest Big Scienceists have discovered on with Quantum Physics is the way God created the universe. That's why they can't understand it--man cannot know the mind of God, or the toolbox he used to make everything! So they try to invent things like extra dimensions (I guess "Sliders" is science fact now) and tiny invisible quirks and strings and cells to explain it all and fix the breakdowns, but if they had FAITH they'd know that all those invisible things are actually God's Angels, working to separate the universe machine from the void waters (Gen. 1:2, what Big Scienceists call dark matter) and sin that gunk it up.

But even though we can't understand Quantum Physics doesn't mean we can't use it. God made us in His Holy Image, and so we can use the same tools He used to create the universe ourselves. It's like when a baby gets into his dad's toolbox and finds a hammer. He doesn't know how to use it, but he can still hit things with it, and that's what hammers are for. We can do the same thing with Quantum Physics: we don't know how it works, but we can use it to create our own little universes in the big universe that God made! All you have to do is concentrate really hard.

Concentrating is basically just like praying, except you don't have to put your hands together or say Amen at the end. When you pray for things, sometimes God doesn't hear you, or He doesn't want to do those things for you, because he's too busy doing other things in the universe, like teaching all the poor aborted baby souls how to walk and talk in Heaven so they can get around like all the other souls. So, he put his tiny invisible angels in the universe to do work for him. Quantum Physics is when you concentrate, and the angels hear you and remake the universe the way you want them to; it keeps God from having to do it Himself! How convenient!

So, remember when "Skeptics" tell you that you're wrong about Quantum Physics that what Quantum Physics really says is that none of us can know anything (Uncertainty) unless God tells it to us. So, really, they're the ones who are wrong, because they say they understand it and that there's only one right answer, and they don't even believe in God! And then you can just concentrate and make your own universe without stupid "Skeptics."

Skeptripe #1: "Evidence"

Welcome to "Skeptripe," a series of articles I'll be running to deal with words and phrases used by so-called "Skeptics" and Athiests that are overused, misused, or just plain stupid. Because we've all been in conversations with "Skeptics" who were just plain stupid, talking about things like they couldn't just see the truth, written on the face of the world by the Almighty.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Today, we're going to start with the word "evidence." Chances are, if you get into a conversation with a "Skeptic," this is going to come up pretty early. "Skeptics" like to talk about "evidence" as if they're trying to convert you to some crazy religion, where you worship "evidence" and pray at an altar of "proof" and sacrifice "facts" to the great heathen god of "evidence" and everything is all just based on "evidence." They're like, two steps away from having books and pamphlets explaining the "good news" of how important evidence is and why you should believe it.

But then, that's something that you never really hear "Skeptics" talking about--why should you believe evidence? "Skeptics" never seem to realize that "evidence" is a totally arbitrary and unreliable standard for believing things! For one thing, they can't even get the definition straight. I was talking to some nut the other day who was towing the "party line" on LCD (Loose Change Day--9/11/01 Never Forget!), saying that the "airplane parts" and "charred bodies" at the Pentagon were "evidence" that an airplane, not a missile, hit the building. But then the next day I was talking to a Darwinist who said that "homogamous features" and "vertical organs" were "evidence" that animals evolved, and weren't created by a loving and wonderful God. Well, which is it, "Skeptics" and Darwinist Athiests? Is "evidence" airplane parts, or is it vertical organs? It can't be both!

You can see why they aren't consistent, though. If they were, they'd have to admit that because there are no "airplane parts" in the human eye, then it must have been created by the Lord God Almighty.

Besides that, "Skeptics" don't seem to understand that "evidence" can be faked! They just dismiss the things that can't be faked, like eyewitnesses and feelings and faith. It would be so easy for the Government to fill a missile with a bunch of airplane parts and burnt bodies, then shoot it into the Pentagon. But they can't fill it with eyewitnesses! It would be easy for God to make fake "homogamous features" in animals to test our faith, but He can't just make new human witnesses, because they wouldn't have any sin, and we'd notice that they were naked and glowing and didn't die!

But feelings can't be faked--have you ever seen someone pretend like they're angry or happy or surprised? You can tell! And faith can't be faked, because faith comes from inside me, and from God, and God can't like, and I know I'm not lying, so it must be true!

For "Skeptics," "evidence" is god. Me, I'd rather trust people (who can't be faked) and the REAL God!