First Degree Atheopathy

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

While we want to reach people with honest inquiries and remove stumbling blocks on Question Evolution Day, those of us who spend any amount of time discussing biblical creation science online encounter furious atheopaths (see atheopath definition in footnote 1, here) and militant Darwinists. While pretending to be harbingers of science and reason, they frequently display little knowledge of either.

When atheists and other anti-creationists want to slap leather with us, they seldom display knowledge of the subject. Such bad logic can be used against them.

Critics of Christianity, the Bible, biblical creation, and so on use social media when they seek to slap leather with us. They know that God exists (Romans 1:18-23. Psalm 14:1, Proverbs 1:7) and presuppose philosophical naturalism. I fully believe that they are intent on validating their rebellion against God and biblical authority (Job 40:8). If someone holds a position that they dislike, the positions are misrepresented; the person is called an idiot and a liar, but they only succeed in displaying their own corruption. As I have said many times, some tinhorns refuse to distinguish between lying and disagreement: if you say something they dislike, you're a liar. 

It is not surprising to find an atheopath who displays vitriol from the safety of a computer keyboard, acting like ridicule somehow proves atheism right and gives them the intellectually superior position. Ironically, atheism as only harmed humanity while Christians are doing the heavy lifting by building hospitals, spearheading relief efforts, and much more.

Click for larger. Count the fallacies. Feel the bigotry.
Those who claim to be "former Christians" seldom exhibit knowledge of theology, and can be unmasked by Christians who actually know and believe the Bible. When creation is attacked, they appeal to their own opinions, baseless assertions, the tendentious "authority" of uninformed and often anonymous sources, outdated material, and so on. Indeed, knowledgeable creationists often have to correct them!

For example, one tinhorn was so desperate to cling to his faith, he provided the long-refuted story of horse evolution as "evidence":

It is not uncommon for angry atheists and evolutionists to attack by machine-gunning a list of objections and complaints (Bill Nye used this stunt in his debate with Ken Ham) and the fallacy of elephant hurling. It is almost amusing that those who pretend to be more intelligent than creationists will consistently display lack of thinking skills, and their "refutations" read like boilerplate material from the Darwin Ranch and Atheopathy Excuses Warehouse. The article linked below illustrates that we do not have to roll over and play dead, and that some complaints of atheists can be used to refute their own incoherent religion.
This week’s feedback is an example of the uninformed misotheistic elephant hurling that we normally don’t publish because it breaks our feedback rules. But we wanted to show the sort of thinking out in cyberspace, and also show that there are good answers to objections to Christianity. The response shows that Christianity has provided the foundation for science, alleviation of poverty and rejection of superstition.
To read the rest of this enlightening examination, click on "Mangling misotheism".