Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The AFA Naughty or nice list for 2012

The war on Christmas - except as a December cash cow - continues.  The ruling cabal hate Christ.  They hate the idea of Christmas too, but they love the money they rake in from it.  This presents them with something of a conundrum....  Their solution is to secularize Christmas as much as possible. A Christmas without Christ is their goal.  The American Family Association keeps track of things like this.  The following list they've put together is a helpful guide for the Christian shopper.


Naughty or Nice?

AFA's 2012 listing of top retailers and how they recognize Christmas

Color Code:
BLUE: An AFA "5-Star" rated company that promotes and celebrates Christmas on an exceptional basis.
GREEN: Company uses the term "Christmas" on a regular basis, we consider that company Christmas-friendly.
YELLOW: Company refers to Christmas infrequently, or in a single advertising medium, but not in others.
RED: Company may use "Christmas" sparingly in a single or unique product description, but as a company, does not recognize it.
List updated on 11-12-12
Companies For "Christmas"
AFA Online Store
ACE Hardware
Bass Pro Shops
Bed Bath & Beyond
Best Buy
Big Lots
Collective Brands
CVS Pharmacy
Dick's Sporting Goods
Dollar General
Dollar Tree
H.E.B. Stores
Hancock Fabrics
Harris Teeter Stores
Hobby Lobby
Home Shopping Network
JC Penney
JoAnn Fabrics & Crafts Stores
L.L. Bean
Michael's Stores
Neiman Marcus
Office Max
Pier One Imports
Rite Aid
Sam's Club
Scheels Sporting Goods
Super D Drug Stores
TJ Maxx
Toys R Us
True Value
Companies marginal on "Christmas"
Bath & Body Works
Hy-Vee Stores
Whole Foods
Companies AGAINST "Christmas"
Banana Republic
Barnes & Noble
Family Dollar
Foot Locker
Gap Stores BOYCOTT!
Limited Brands
Office Depot
Radio Shack
Victoria's Secret

We will continually update the list, so check back often.

Criteria - AFA reviewed up to four areas to determine if a company was "Christmas-friendly" in their advertising: print media (newspaper inserts), broadcast media (radio/television), website and/or personal visits to the store. If a company's ad has references to items associated with Christmas (trees, wreaths, lights, etc.), it was considered as an attempt to reach "Christmas" shoppers.
If a company has items associated with Christmas, but did not use the word "Christmas," then the company is considered as censoring "Christmas."

Want to report on a company? Send your detailed report to christmas@afa.net. Please know that we receive hundreds of reports (emails) each day. We are unable to respond to each one personally, but your report will be read by one of our staff.
Note: AFA does not list local or regional companies. Only nationally-recognized companies will be listed. This list only reflects a company's "Christmas" advertising and does not take into account other corporate policies AFA may not agree with.

SPECIAL ALERT! Legal group offers valuable resources
If you hear of instances of hostility toward Christmas expression, please let us know. AFA is working with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) to provide resources for government and public school authorities laboring under the misimpression they must censor Christmas. You can contact ADF at (1-800-TELL-ADF ) for a copy of their legal analysis and memo on rights of seasonal expression at Christmas. We want to inform public officials about the law, and then encourage them to take a stand for Christmas.

Friday, November 16, 2012

Hitchstory 101 - the myth of Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens, for both of you who haven't heard of him, was a journalist, author, supposed contrarian and "anti-theist" (his term). Hitchens' childhood was one of somewhat upper middle class English manners. His father was a British naval officer and his mother doted on Christopher. However, his parents' marriage was unhappy and in 1973 his mother committed suicide along with her lover, a defrocked Anglican clergyman.

Hitchens' rise to fame charted the usual course of a latter day British journalist: campus trotskyite and agitator. He was deeply involved in leftist student causes at Oxford University and his writings on political matters brought him to the attention of the editors of the agitprop magazine, "International Socialism". His polemics made him moderately well known in British left wing circles.

Hitchens moved from one British magazine to another, as a writer and editor. However, his star didn't really commence its great ascending until he moved to America in the early 80's. Once here, he became a critic of most things American. His favorite targets being Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush.  He also took to sniping at Mother Teresa.

He finally landed at the pop culture magazine, Vanity Fair. His anti-religious streak found a warm home at Vanity Fair and he authored many articles attacking religion.  All Religion was detestible in Hitchens' mind.  And while he  loathed Islam, he had an especially hot spot in his heart for Christianity. He began speaking about his anti-theism - as well as writing on it.  This public outspokeness eventually turned into formal debates with theists of various stripes.

As an apostle for atheism Hitchens found his great calling.  He excelled as a public debater. Not for the coherence or cogency of his arguments, which were often digressive, irrational and/or irrelevent, but for his charisma, wit, sexy baritone and posh English accent - which he never lost despite living in the US for some thirty years and becoming an American citizen.

As a much in demand debater, Hitchens barnstormed the country preaching the gospel of atheism. Becoming along the way America's favorite atheist. University students in particular loved him.  His chatty, somewhat boozy, persona set them at ease. His suave English voice and effortless verbosity made them, osmosis-like, feel intelligent too. He was a singularly impressive speaker - though considerably less so to those who held knowledge on matters he spoke of and/or who analyzed his arguments.  His main impact on the world was that of a gifted wordsmith.  His thoughts however were another matter: beneath the veneer of eloquence, civility and wit crouched a sadly disordered mind and soul.

Hitchens was a dishonest man. Not in the occasional sense that most of us are.  Hitchens was actively dishonest.  He drank deep from the well of dishonesty - then spewed it all back out. However, he was highly intelligent and covered his dishonesty with a swarm of multisyllabic words delivered in English upper class tones. His debates were bravura performances.  Hitchens actually had read some of the Bible and knew some of its stories and verses. However, like a Jehovah's Witness, he knew only a few that seemed to support his arguments, and then misrepresented these.

Being a supernatural as well as historical record the Bible can be read different ways.  Hitchens always applied his materialistic worldview to any reading of it. He would then attack his reading of it. The university audiences seemed to rarely noticed this straw man deception.  

Despite his popularity among fellow atheists - who like to crow about how Hitchens "destroyed" this or that religious position, Hitchens' debates were actually masterpieces of illogicality, factual misstatement and outright lying.  Cheap potshots for the most part that barely scratched let alone destroyed religion. When one reads his words, rather than just hears them, the flaws in his thinking become more apparent. When one looks into his assertions it becomes clear that some of what he says is quite wrong.  In some instances he just lies.

In one supposed lambasting of Christianity Hitchens' states, "Stalin was a seminary graduate."  In truth, Stalin (who was known as Josef Djugashvili in those days) was EXPELLED from his seminary.

He also claimed, "Fascism has only arisen in Catholic countries."  First, we must note he doesn't say what "fascism" actually is.  Hitchens just raises a bogeyman to excite feelings in his audience.  Second, the US certainly meets much of the accepted criteria for "fascism": nationalism... authoritarianism... government/industrial collaboration....  Is the US a "Catholic country"?  What about pre-WW2 Japan?  What about Indonesia under Suharto?  Here and elsewhere Hitchens commits what is called the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy.  This fallacy is often seen in children and animals: something follows another, therefore it was caused by the former.

In a debate with the mathematician philosopher, Dr. John Lennox, Hitchens sniffed: "What is more likely: that a "virgin" would conceive "miraculously", or that she conceived in the usual way?" He then goes on to attack the virgin birth of Christ as a "bronze age myth" - even though the iron age had been in full swing for nearly 1200 years by the time of Jesus' birth. 

Here he commits several interesting fallacies.  First, he quotes the Bible as his authority - in order to disprove the Bible!

Next he commits a denying the antecedent fallacy: "If virgins could conceive we would see more of it. We don't see more of it. Therefore, virgins don't conceive."  Next to raise its ugly head is an argument from ignorance fallacy: "What is more likely: that a "virgin" would conceive "miraculously", or that she conceived in the usual way? Therefore, there is no reason for believing that a virgin could conceive miraculously."  Except for the historical record....

Also, nature shows that unfertilized females can and do conceive.  It's called parthenogenesis:


Hitchens, ever the evolutionist, either didn't know this acknowledged fact, or he ignored it because it didn't suport his pre-"conceived" notion.  Ergo, he was speaking ignorantly and/or dishonestly. 

He argued that Isaiah, which speaks of a "virgin conceiving" is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew, "In Hebrew it says a young woman shall conceive." Here he is ignorant of, or ignores, the fact that the Hebrew Bible, some 150 years before Jesus, was translated by seventy-two Jewish scholars into Greek:  the Septuagint. The seventy two scholars agreed that "virgin" was the correct translation from the Hebrew.  Of course, Hitchens being the self endorsing polymath he was, knew the Bible more than they ever could have....

One could go on a long time about this vain and devious man, but life is short.  Hitchens' unquestionable gifts were corrupted by his bloated ego. He still enjoys a considerable following among gullible, porn loving university types - who see him as a sort of atheistic demi-urge.

Hitchens died in December 2011, of esophageal cancer.  Esophageal cancer gives early warning signs of its presence, but Hitchens ignored them, preferring to pour himself another whiskey sour. He ignored the signs his own body was giving him exactly as he ignored the signs God was giving him. Considering all the distilled dishonesty he imbibed, then vomited back up, it is perhaps not too ironic that things would end for him as they did.


Monday, November 12, 2012

Some atheistic logical fallacies

"They aren't fools because they say, 'there is no God.'  They say there is no God because they're fools."

At its core, atheism is a logical fallacy called, "denying the antecedent".  Denying the antecedent proceeds like this:  A. If God exists then I would see Him. B. I do not see Him.  C. Therefore, God does not exist. This isn't to say that many religious people don't embrace philosophical fallacies themselves, most do, but ALL atheists do.

Though atheists like to posture as paragons of reason and intellect, the truth is very different: they think irrationally and often childishly.

Tautologies: While not a logical error per se, a tautology is an explanation that contains no real information. A tautological statement merely references itself:  most, if not all atheists are darwinists. The darwinian principle is: "Survival of the fittest!" Who survives?  The most fit. Who are the most fit?  Those who survive!

Bare assertion fallacy: The atheist will say something with no evidence, let alone proof, to support it.

Shifting the goal posts: The atheist demands evidence for God.  When you give him the evidence the atheist will dismiss it out of hand as inadequate, then demand "better" proof.

Begging the question fallacy: The atheist says, "there is no evidence for God." You might reply, "Why do you say there's no evidence for God?" The atheist has the answer: "Because there is no God!"

Ad hominem fallacy: "You're a Christian idiot!"

Guilt by association fallacy: "You're a Christian, so you're an idiot!"

Masked man fallacy: "People once believed that thunder meant the Gods were speaking. This has been disproved by science. Therefore, science shows there is no God."

Genetic fallacy: "Religion began because people were afraid of nature. Nature had to be appeased; and this appeasement of nature eventually turned into deification."

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) fallacy: "There is no scientific evidence for God. Therefore, there is no reason for believing in God."

Fallacy of the undistributed middle: "Theists are stupid. Tom is stupid. Therefore, Tom must be a theist."

Argumentum verbosium: The arguer uses verbosity and/or a plethora of complex words to make himself appear highly intelligent and informed. The opponent struggles to understand what is being said, while the audience is swayed in the arguer's favor because they won't admit they don't know what he's talking about. A favored tactic of neo-atheist, Christopher Hitchens.

Circular reasoning fallacy (akin to begging the question): "There is no God because there is no proof of God; and there is no proof of God because there is no God.

Denying the antecedent fallacy: "If God were good there would be no suffering. There is suffering. Therefore, God cannot be good."

Straw man fallacy - disregarding what someone says and answering according to one's own spin: Christian: "Christianity has been beneficial to me!" Atheist: "If Christianity is so beneficial then why do Christians go to war and kill one another - and others?  So, Christianity is hardly beneficial!"

Red herring fallacy: "Christianity is beneficial!"  "Not for the slaves that Christians owned."

Appeal to pity fallacy: "Many Christians were slave owners who bought and sold human beings like they were potatoes. So, is it any wonder many people reject it?"

Fallacious appeal to authority. Not all appeals to authority are fallacious, but atheists often use it fallaciously: "Of course, Einstein was an atheist - as well as a genius."

Argument from fallacy, fallacy: Theist: "Tom is good and Tom believes in God. Therefore, God is good."  Atheist: "No! And you just committed an affirming the consequent logical fallacy.  Tom is NOT good. Therefore, God is not good."

The tu quoque (you're another) fallacy.   Similar to a red herring fallacy: "Oh, don't tell me Darwin was a hypocrite! Look at Jimmy Swaggert!"

Shifting the burden of proof: Theist: "Can you prove there is no God?"  Atheist: "No, it's up to you to prove there IS a God."  When debating atheists you'll learn this response is VERY common .  I've debated hundreds of them at this point in time and none have ever straightly admitted that they cannot prove there is no God.  Saying, "There is NO God." is a logical assertion - no less than saying, "There IS a God."  Logical assertions require some substantiation.  But the atheist dodges the question and attempts to put the ball back in the theist's court - thinking he can win by default.  They might as well argue that it's up to others to prove that George Washington lived, not for to them to prove otherwise.  It is very important that theists keep on them and not let atheists dodge this question - as it exposes their core bankruptcy.

Question dodging/evasion: The atheist won't respond to a question with a relevant answer.

Kettle logic fallacy: Using multiple, inconsistent conclusions in order to prove a point.

These are some of the fallacies you'll encounter when debating with atheists.  You can see how logical fallacies will often overlap with others, e.g., tu quoque's with red herrings, circular reasoning fallacies with straw man fallacies. Begging the question with tautologies.  False analogies with appeals to pity.... 


Sunday, November 11, 2012

Arguing God with atheists

"What a fool believes no wise man has the power to reason away."

Arguing God with atheists is something I like to do - a lot. Both in person and over the Internet. It's fun and I've learned some things along the way: atheists come in different flavors.  Not all of them are overt God haters.  Not all of them are overtly anti-religion.  Some are rabid leftists.  Some are rabid anti-leftists. Some are quite intelligent.  Some are very stupid. Some of them are somewhat likable... All of them are fools.

Never forget this: however many degrees they may or may not have, or say they have, when arguing God with an atheist, you're dealing with a fool.  So, don't be a fool yourself.  You and the atheist are not on the same level.  While you may not be on a pedestal, he is definitely in a ditch.

When debating with an atheist, until there are compelling reasons otherwise, treat him as an individual.

Always let the atheist get nasty first - though you don't have to get nasty. When he does get insulting, then you're allowed to respond in kind. The choice is yours. It's been my experience that they usually do get nasty - and pretty fast. Most of them ARE bitter, nasty human beings. This is helpful though, because it means your atheist is emoting rather than thinking. Like a boxer who starts losing his cool in the ring, they become easier to beat when they get mad.

AVOID CITING THE BIBLE! Atheists reject the Bible out of hand and there is no common ground there for you and the atheist to come to terms. They see the Bible (or the Koran, as they dislike Muslims too) as only a book of mad fairy tales for gullible children. Your problem is that it IS a book. Books can't be questioned. But even if you were to open a Bible and it started talking to them, they'd still find some reason to reject it. It's foolish to appeal to religion when arguing with an atheist. You must find other ways of beating him.

However the argument may develop, you should maneuver the atheist into philosophy. At its core atheism is a futile, irrational and "anti-religious religious system". It IS a cult - much as atheists resent that definition.  Philosophy is a mental martial art that, when used correctly, can send the atheist crashing to the floor - judo like. This takes some experience as it involves setting them up, getting them to commit to a position, then using the momentum of their own reasoning to spring your trap on them.

At its core, atheism is a logical fallacy called, "denying the consequent".  Denying the consequent proceeds thus:  A. "If God exists then I would see Him." B. "I do not see Him."  C. "Therefore, God does not exist." This isn't to say that many religious people don't embrace philosophical fallacies too, but ALL atheists do. Atheists like to posture as paragons of reason and intellect.  The truth is quite the opposite: on the matter of God at least, they think illogically and often childishly.

Atheists also resort to a myriad of other logical ruses: tautologies, guilt by association,the  masked man fallacy, the ad hominem fallacy, the genetic fallacy, the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fallacy of the undistributed middle, circular reasoning, begging the question, argumentum ad verbosum, straw man arguments, proof by assertion, false appeal to authority, lying.... 

They also like to confuse "evidence" (of something that supports *their* pov) with "proof". At the same time they will deny any evidence *you* bring to the table. They'll always demand that you need more evidence to "prove" your case.   If you cite a book about a great miracle in Portugal, they will say the book is a pious fraud. If you bring pictures or video of the miracle to their attention, they will say, "they were doctored".  And if they should see the miracle with their own two eyes they'll say, "it was an optical illusion."  There isn't enough evidence in the known universe to convince such people.

Atheists often resort to denigrating the theist (you?) as some sort of intellectual dwarf compared to themselves. They *love* to think of themselves as intellectuals. Religious people on the other hand, and especially Christians, they deride as mental midgets.  Don't be surprised if they start saying how unintelligent you are. They usually do. The more benign atheists may not overtly say that, but often will imply it. You are a childish fairy tale believer who imagines there's an invisible "sky daddy"... and is sooo unworthy of their valuable time (but they'll still spend *a lot* of time responding to you).

I mentioned "springing the trap" on them. This is very important and there are a number of ways of doing it: dangle leading questions, in the hope the atheist will bite, and get it wrong. When they do jump on it - then pound them with it.  If they come back just keep pounding them with it - while mocking their "jeenyus". Once you're able to do this they usually vamoose. Another way is to catch them in a grammatical error. For some reason this really infuriates them. If they say "your" when "you're" is called for, you can mock them for it, (because they all believe themselves highly intelligent) and they soon and angrily slam the door on their way out.

I always like to ask them,"can you prove there is no God?"  Of course they can't - and it makes them angry to be forced into that corner. They'll reply, "No... it's up to you to prove there IS a God!"  In fact, I can't recall one who's frankly admitted they can't prove there isn't a God. They'd rather be burned at the stake.  Anyway, this flies in the face of accepted science and historical revisionism: those who contradict the accepted story are the ones who must supply their proof/evidence refuting it.

Furthermore, saying "There IS NO God!" is a declarative statement - no less than saying, "there IS a God!" Declarative statements demand back-up.  The atheist simply tries to win by default, thinking, "If theists cannot prove their case then I win and there is no God who'll condemn me to hell."

Basically, the atheist is a spoiled child rebelling against a, "'sky daddy' that doesn't exist" - but whom he hates anyway.


Tuesday, November 6, 2012

What? Another MSM coverup? Trayvon! Trayvon!

The Fresno, California workplace shooter has been identified as "Lawrence Jones".  Mr. Jones had an extensive criminal history for burglary, robbery, etc.  That combined with this cowardly shooting of unarmed co-workers and the fact that the national media reports studiously avoided putting any pics of the perp in their stories made my Jewdar quiver.  I did a Google images search and sure enough:


Stunning predictions for Election Day!

Obama will remain the Prez - and will keep his Nobel Peace Prize!

No incumbent Jew running for office will lose their election.  And every new Jew running for office will win their election.

Media pundits will be naming the winners with fewer than ten percent of the "vote" in - based on "exit polls" that quiz one in every ten thousand "voters".