Every Dumb Village Atheist Argument in 1 Vlog Post

Check this kid out. It brings a new meaning to LULZ:

This pretty much sums up every dumb, cartoonish argument Village Atheism has to offer against Christianity.

Are Atheists really this dumb?

I'd love to see this guy try to have a serious argument about why this has any bearing on the existence of God.

That would be hilarious.

Atheism IS A Belief, Simply Explained

Atheists are insistent that Atheism is non-belief or non-faith. Philosophically, this is illogical.

For the statement "God exists" (GE) to be true, "God doesn't exist" (GE-not) would be the opposite and untrue.

For GE to be not true, GE-not would have to be true. That makes GE-not a positive assertion, subject to the same burden of proof as GE.

Atheists counter with "You can't prove a negative. That's illogical." DING! That's the very atheistic definition of "faith"... believing in things you can't prove.

The Atheist will counter, "but belief in non-existence is the 'default position'".

Wrong.

Agnosticism or ignorance is. Atheism is a stand which claims the polar opposite, theism, is false.

Atheism is a positive truth claim, and not an end in itself.

It is all explained quite simply in four essays by a philosopher. Check it out:

http://philosophyotb.com/w/why-atheism-is-illogical-part-one-atheism-is-a-belief-and-a-truth-claim

Revelations From A "Rationalist"

I was reading a hit piece against Bill O'Reilly and Christianity on the Salon.com blog. It was the typical smear piece bashing O'Reilly, with a bit of Ann Coulter thrown in, and which took a moment to link a tired old study from 2012  to paint all Fox News viewers as ignorant.

But there closing paragraphs from the author, Jeffrey Tayler, are worth noting as they exemplify the snark and condescension of the Atheist Left:

"The one thing both O’Reilly and Coulter do get right is that there is a war going on, but it’s not between hapless Christians and “vicious” atheists. It is between rationalists who seek to live in ways they reason to be best, and the faithful cleaving to fatuous fables and Paleolithic preachments inscribed in ancient books that should be pulped, or at best preserved as exhibits for future students majoring in anthropology, with minors in mental derangement."

So now we have Atheist relabeling themselves as "rationalists", suggesting that believers are irrationalists.

Ironically, the philosophical definition of a "rationalist" is one who believes that truth is a priori as well as empirically understood. Rationalists often argue in favor of the existence of God.

Sadly this self-proclaimed "rationalist" suggests "pulping" religious books, after his criticism of Christians for similar acts in the past:

"Few need reminding that the Vatican formalized the suppression of free speech with its infamous Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books), which included the works of the Enlightenment’s key luminaries and many other intellectual giants, and which was abolished only in 1966."

The difference here is that the Vatican finally recanted its position. If there were to be a public burning of Bibles, I get the feeling Mr. Rationalist would show up, roast marshmallows, and pass out s'mores.

He finished with this:

"O’Reilly and Coulter, we who care about doing all we can to make this life better for humanity will continue to speak up against the unreason you propagate.

The gloves are now off."

Mr. Tayler, if you care about making your world a better place for humanity, might I suggest you get off your bottom, go to a 3rd World country, and help dig a well so that the locals can have clean, infection-free water. There you will be joined by individuals who were motivated by "fatuous fables and Paleolithic preachments inscribed in ancient books that should be pulped". I'm sure those missionaries will be more than happy to talk with a "rationalist" like you about the "mental derangement" that convinced them to give up a normal life and sacrifice themselves to a worthy cause.

The gloves are off? Big deal. Jesus showed us how to deal with people that slap your face.

Slap away.
.

Was Jesus Really A Liberal?

I read comments from Left Wing Liberals all the time, claiming that Jesus was a "liberal" (which is funny,

coming from people that deny Jesus' existence and who call believers fools). I'm assuming this is based on Jesus' notoriety as a compassionate person who helped the poor and sick, which is what modern liberals claim they're are all about.

However, there is one big difference between Jesus and the present-day Left-Winger: Jesus actually lived what He taught and he physically served the needy as an example to others. Your average Liberal thinks he or she are doing their part by voting for "Progressive" representatives who will support taxpayer funded public welfare programs for which everyone is compelled to "chip in".

I've searched the Bible and I have yet so see a command from Jesus to "go forth and create massive entitlement programs and use 50% of all the funding to cover the administrative costs." Yet, it is goal of Progressives to see private charity become obsolete and the Government hold the monopoly on

compassion.

In times past, people tithed to their churches, and the churches distributed to the needy. The church was accountable to its members.

The modern Liberal expects everybody to tithe a piece of their paycheck to an agency which demands more money every year and is accountable to virtually no one. This what they call "compassion", and if you are critical of Government welfare then you "hate the poor".

Jesus never intended for Man to circumvent God in either the motivation or the mechanism for caring for the poor and sick.

Jesus was nothing close to what a modern liberal is today.

"Nuff said.