Monday, March 31, 2014

Noah the Movie - Fact vs Fiction

This evening I went to the cinema and watched the movie "Noah" with some of my Christian friends, and I'd like to share some of my thoughts on it.

One online review of "Noah" that I highly recommend is this review from Answers in Genesis. It includes a 42 minute video review (see below) that is scathing and discusses how highly unbiblical the movie is - in fact it's being called the most unbiblical biblical movie ever! I really encourage you to look into the facts and separate fact from fiction.

Noah Movie Review with Ken Ham 
(The review is 42 minutes long, and then they go into a teaching - 'Creation and the Last Days'. I agree with pretty much everything they say, apart from that the movie was boring - I didn't find it boring. If it were possible to set aside the massive theological problems I'd say it was entertaining.)

If you aren't a Christian and think that the whole Bible isn't true - the question for you is - how do you get truth without God? (See my website page on truth). If you are a Christian, my question for you is, do you know the Bible well enough to be able to defend your faith and have a faith that is grounded in biblical truth rather than having your beliefs mixed up with secular ideas?

Some of the Positives

- At times cinematically breathtaking (This review captures that sense)
- Flood depicted as global.
- Wickedness and violence of humanity at that time shown.
- Brief depiction of creation event that shows God's power, however it has an evolutionary / Big Bang overtone to it and seems to be implying millions of years).

Some of the Negatives

- Noah came across as something of a psychopath who believed his mission was to save the animals but not humans.
- Noah had no concern at all for others who would perish in the flood.
- Size of the Ark in the movie was somewhat smaller than the actual biblical dimensions. (Although it looked to be close - the Bible dimensions put the real Ark at 140 metres long.)
- Number of snakes was a bit overdone.
- God (called "the creator") portrayed as distant and unable to clearly communicate with Noah.
- God portrayed as wanting Noah to kill children 
- Noah had to go into some kind of drug induced psychosis to receive his main revelation.
- Stone angelic "Watchers" not biblical
- Methuselah has magic powers
- 6 people on the Ark instead of 8
- The shed skin of Satan has magical powers

So if you do go to see it, don't expect it to be too close to the biblical story! Actually within the first few seconds of the start of the movie they'd already significantly deviated from what the Bible says.

I believe that the real Noah preached to the lost of the impending judgment of God, and that no one believed him - instead they mocked him. There was lots of room on the Ark for more than 8 people, but when the flood came it came suddenly and no one was anywhere near the Ark to be saved, apart from Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their wives.

Likewise, Christians today preach of the impending judgment of God, and that salvation can be found through the "Ark" of Jesus Christ, but most people just mock. If you have not repented and put your trust in Jesus, I pray that you will do so before it's too late. 

Ray Comforts 'Noah Movie'

I highly recommend this movie as being much more biblical than the Hollywood version! (And you can watch it for free here too).

At the end of the Noah Movie here is a short promo for the Ark Encounter, which is a full-size replica Ark project in the USA.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Presuppositional Apologetics - Christianity in Full Retreat?

The video 'Presuppositional Apologetics - Christianity in Full Retreat' has been brought to my attention a number of times now by atheists who consider it to be some sort of devastating critique of presuppositional apologetics. So I took the time to watch it carefully, and found that it was as I had expected it to be - the usual rhetoric without substance. There are 4 YouTube videos that I know of that involve interactions / debates between Sye and Dan, and I've posted them below in chronological order. I intend to update this further at a later date when I have more time.

Dan Courtney vs Sye Ten Bruggencate Debate - June 23, 2012. 

In this debate Dan says that he could be wrong about everything he claims to know, with the exception of his base bedrock axioms. He claims that he knows he exists, but the problem is that without God he can't even justify that. Axioms cannot be proven and he doesn't know for sure that he has the right axioms. Sye points out that just having thoughts doesn't prove existence - the thoughts could just be floating around in the ether somewhere! Sye also points out that knowing that one exists does not provide a foundation for knowledge, and asks Dan what else he knows for certain, but Dan has no answer.  Dan also says that he is not making knowledge claims, but when asked if he knows that he isn't making knowledge claims Dan avoids the question and simply restates his knowledge claim that he isn't making knowledge claims!

Presuppositional Apologetics - Christianity in Full Retreat - Dec 9, 2012.

Dan argues that presuppositional apologetics is Christianity in full retreat, which is simply not true. The Bible calls unbelievers fools and does not give evidence to those who argue that the Scriptures are not true. It's foolish to present evidence to someone who can't account for the concept of evidence and is foolishly arguing that God does not exist. Christians are also commanded to not put God to the test, and to follow the example of Jesus who when tempted by Satan to prove he was the Son of God using evidence by turning a stone into bread - Jesus rebuked Satan and quoted Scripture. This was not Jesus retreating, but advancing the kingdom by refuting Satan. My comments, and the things that Sye said in the above debate apply to this video too - Dan has no way of knowing or proving any axioms, and therefore can't know anything within his worldview.

In the final video Sye refers to this video and calls it so bad that it's a cry for help! He points out that the infinite regress is not ended by appealing to ones senses - because the question is how do you know your reasoning is valid?

Down the Rabbit Hole - a talk with Sye Ten Bruggencate. Dec 19, 2012.

This 37min video is by Dan.

Sye Ten Bruggencate and Dan Courtney Talk. Dec 27, 2012 

This 1 hr 8 min video by Sye is the same video as above but with the 35 minutes of the video edit put back in. It makes me wonder why Dan took so much of his video out. Note that Dan admits that he cannot know that he is not insane (which was not in Dan's edited video!). His attempted justification for his axioms is the impossibility of the contrary - but Dan has no answer as to how he knows this and why his axioms are impossible to deny.

Surfer Brendan vs Atheist Lee - Part 3

This is a response to Atheist Lee and her latest blog post Presupposition Guy Comes Back and “Wins”
(Which is a response to a number of blog posts that have been going back and forth between us. See my first blog post about her here, and the follow-up here)

 I think if someone could invent a custom keyboard like the one below Atheist Lee would be able to benefit greatly from it, as it would save her a lot of time. As you'll see below her response is full of logical fallacies, ranting, condescension, put-downs, etc. Remove the emotionally biased language question begging epithets from her response and it would virtually cut her response in half. I guess that Atheists don't have much else, so they have to resort to those kind of underhanded tactics.

As usual I'll put Lee's comments in // and bold, with my responses in normal type below each comment.

//I created this post with new atheists in mind. Back when I first came to this position, I was a bit worried about talking to other people because I didn’t know if I could really articulate my reason for non-belief. I was worried they’d have super awesome arguments and I’d feel like an idiot.
It turns out those worries were unwarranted.//

Or it turns out that you no longer easily recognise the foolishness of your professed atheistic beliefs because you've been lying to yourself for so long.

//One thing I wanted to present to the new atheist is the presupposition argument.//

It's actually technically the 'transcendental argument' but has become known as the presuppositional argument. There is also no one specific presuppositional argument, but different forms of it. All of them presuppose the Bible as the ultimate authority and presuppose that everyone knows that God exists.

//This was recently presented to me by YouTube user Surfer Brendan. He runs a blog called “God or Absurdity”, which is actually a great way to look at his view: either a god (for which no evidence if provided) totally made everything, or magic nonsense absurdity magic’d everything magic nonsense.//

You forgot to mention that I've also got a website Evidence is provided for the existence of God on my website, but even the concept of evidence is evidence for God because it presupposes knowledge and truth, and you can't get those without God - as has been made obvious by your inability to account for knowledge other than positing a deity that you don't believe in. As for the magic thing - yes your worldview is nonsense and absurd, but my argument asks you to account for things like knowledge, truth and logic - something you've yet to do.

//You may recognize this as pure arrogance//

Knowing the truth is often confused as arrogance.

//mingled with abject ignorance to suggest something he believes and can’t even provide evidence for is somehow the only answer and any other answer —including one supported by scientific research— is “absurdity”.//

Ignorance presupposes knowledge, and ironical you've yet to account for how you can know anything according to your worldview. As for scientific research - science cannot show anything to be true. (See my blog post 'Why Science is Always False'.) You've also got a massive double standard because you say you can't believe in God because it's unsupported by science, but then you seem happy to believe in atheism despite their being no scientific evidence to support it. The belief that all things must be scientifically verified in order to be true is self-refuting, because that belief itself cannot be scientifically verified. You can't put a belief into a test-tube.

//The reason I bring to you the presupposition argument is to show the annoying way the pressupositionalist argues so you can save yourself the time. The first part of this blog is found here, which is a response to the horrible “argument” Brendan presented to me.// 

Yes, the truth has a way of being annoying to those who can't handle it. Calling it 'horrible' is another question begging epithet. But I can understand how it must feel horrible to be unable to refute the truth that God exists - because that means you're accountable to God and need to repent.

//It turns out he replied via another blog, and I opted to not read the reply at all. When you’re dealing with the presupposition argument, there’s simply no point in talking to these people because they literally base their entire belief system on an unsupported guess.//

You didn't even read my reply in my blog post response? And then you've got the audacity to say that you've refuted me and write a blog saying how what I said was nonsense and lies? You're confusing my worldview with yours. I've provided proof that God exists, and have a solid basis for my beliefs via revelation from God. Your atheistic belief system is based on the unprovable assumption that God doesn't exist. Atheism also includes the implied assertion that the universe, knowledge, logic, and truth can all be accounted for without God. I'm still waiting to hear any real accounting for any of these things. I asked a number of questions related to these in my previous post, and you've not answered them. Questions like: How do you get truth without God? How do you know you're not a brain in a vat? How do you know anything to be true in your worldview? If truth is what corresponds to reality, how do you know the true nature of reality to any degree within your system of beliefs? What is your basis for the future being like the past (which is what science relies on).

//If you want an exercise in annoying bullshit, check out Proof That God Exists, a website that Brendan actually used in support of his argument in his first blog. Yes, that terribly flawed website is something he considered proof to back up his beliefs.//

And yet you've not been able to refute it, and all you seem able to do is avoid questions, and make emotionally biased statements that you have no way of knowing are true.

//Anyway, Brendan was unaware that I don’t have time to read all my comments on my videos and posted this: 
"I’m still waiting for a response to a number of questions I asked you in relation to an earlier video. It makes me wonder if you are really serious about all of this or just have no answer to difficult questions and cannot properly defend your atheism. I guess all of your atheism is just built on assumptions that have no evidence." He followed this with a link to his new post, entitled Response to Atheist Lee’s Response.//

I'm still waiting to hear any real evidence supporting your atheism.
//Watch what happens when I tried to discuss this with him:
Me: “I’m not on YouTube all the time, and I receive a lot of comments and do not read them all. I only see this one because I’m going through comments on this video.
Now you’re asking me to spare more time and comment on your blog, and this is after I already read and utterly tore to shreds your first blog. Your first entry was laughably horrible. There are not enough words to express just how absolutely silly, ignorant, arrogant, self-serving and just lazy your post is.//

Back to pressing the "angry atheist keyboard" again I see. I could make a lot of money selling those to atheists. Who needs substance when you can just rant and make arbitrary assertions?

//I even had Christians telling me that what you wrote was an absolute joke.//

Please feel free to put those "Christians" in touch with me, as either they aren't saved, or they don't know their Bibles.

//You wasted my time. The only reason I bothered to reply at all was because I could turn it into a blog post and it had been a while since I made a blog post, and I could do so very quickly because your “arguments” were that easy to refute.//

Sounds pretty self-centered to me. I can't have wasted too much of your time as you said that you didn't bother to read my blog post response. And again more arbitrary assertions. A quick look back at the blog posts already written make it clear to the unbiased observer that you're making things up.

//I half-believed you were just trolling me because your post was seriously that bad. It was laughable. It was ridiculous…and you apparently wrote a follow-up? Yeah, noooo thanks.//

Back to pressing the "angry atheist keyboard". How do you know that something is 'bad' if you don't know what objective good is? You can't know that something is crooked unless you know for certain what 'straight' and true is. How do you  get truth without God?

//You don’t have an argument. Your entire viewpoint is based on running with an unfounded, unproven premise and pretending that’s the same thing as having evidence in your favor. It’s a joke.//

More arbitrary assertions and question begging epithets. I'm provided proof that God exists - without God you can't prove anything. But proof and persuasion are two different things.

//As for the ‘all of your atheism is just built on assumptions that have no evidence’, this shows incredibly clearly that you have absolutely no idea what my position is//

Your worldview is built on the assumption that the future will be like the past, and the assumption that you know things, but you've yet to account for either of those things.

//and you’re referring to me in a generic way in order to…I don’t know, get some attention? Attract more people to your blog by using my name? I don’t know, I don’t really care at this point.//

I'm motivated by the love of God, who calls all Christians to always be ready to share their faith and give answers as to why they know the Bible is true. If engaging with you gets more people to my blog then I'm happy because it's more people that can be exposed to the truth. As for the generic accusation - atheists generically assert that God probably doesn't exist, and to this I've responded.

//You fail to support your own position with anything other than make-believe, and then you fail to even understand the very, very basics of my position. It is not often that I run into an argument so profoundly stupid.//

Back to the angry atheist keyboard again. The sad thing for you is that you can't refute a "profoundly stupid" argument.

//You have wasted enough of my time. I’m sure you’ll pat yourself on the back and consider this a “win” for you because you’ve demonstrated you’re happy to literally make up whatever the f#&% [Surfer B's edit] in order to make yourself feel better. Have fun with that, I guess. Reality isn’t that bad, you should try it sometime. You don’t have to live in a world of make-believe.”//

Ironic given that you've not accounted for how you can know the true nature of reality to any degree.

//Brendan: "Ok, that’s your call. I’ll edit my post to note that you were unable to answer my questions, and could only resort to name calling as a response." Brendan (again): "I had a large number of questions which totally destroyed her worldview. I’ve copied and pasted her response and my response and added it to the original blog."
Me: “'I'll edit my post to note that you were unable to answer my questions'
I totally called it, you’re pretending this is some kind of “win”. Why do you have to resort to lying?//

A. I didn't lie. B. Why would lying being wrong in your worldview? To call lying or anything 'wrong' you need to have an absolute standard of morality, otherwise it's just your arbitrary opinion akin to saying 'I don't like chocolate flavored icecream'.

//Why not edit your post and write, “Lee Lemon addressed every single one of my baseless assumptions and unsupported bias in my first entry, so she refused to waste her time and even read this one.” That’s what happened. The way you’re wording it makes it seem like I read your blog post and golly gee it was just so full of facts and truth I couldn’t answer your questions.//

You've not addressed my questions but have just responded with a whole lot of emotional ranting. I guess that's all you've got and need to add in the emotional stuff because without it everyone would realise you don't have a basis for your argument.

//Now you know why I don’t want to waste my time with you: you’re a liar. You are literally making shit up just to make yourself feel better.
Protip: when you have to lie to support your points, you should reevaluate why you believe in those points.//

A. I've not lied or made things up. B. Why is lying absolutely wrong in your worldview? Why is anything wrong? You could say that it's wrong to lie because it hurts other people. So what? Maybe it's good to hurt others and necessary for the "evolutionary process"?
Protip: if you've got no real argument just put words like 'liar' in bold, and make up a whole lot of sentences with other emotionally biased words, and hope that no one notices that your actual argument is flawed.

//'I had a large number of questions which totally destroyed her worldview'
What “worldview”? //

It's absurd that many atheists deny that they have a worldview. A worldview is a set of beliefs through which we interpret or view everything. To deny you've got a worldview is to commit the fallacy of pretended neutrality. You have a professed atheistic worldview, although in reality the way you live your life and many of the things you assume are Christian beliefs - such as that lying is wrong, the reliability of your senses, the uniformity of nature etc. So in a sense it could be said that all atheists are schizophrenic between what they say they believe and what they actually believe in connection with how they live their lives. The things that you take for granted are the very things that presuppose God.

//Again, you don’t even have a very, very basic grasp of my position at all. Your comments are generic, uninspired and addressed at any ol’ atheist. I think the reason you’re coming to me is because you feel I’ll reply and you want some extra attention so you feel posting it on a semi-popular channel will get you more traffic.//

How do you know anything according to your worldview, let alone what my motives are? If I get more traffic to my websites, then great. If I don't then I don't mind. I just want you and others to know the truth, and feel sad when I see people like yourself saying things online that I know aren't true. If I were to say 'your mother is a whore' and made videos about it, I'm sure that you'd be angry and would defend the reputation of your mother. When you say that God isn't real, and all of the other nonsense you say against God, you're blaspheming God - the God I love - and so I'm not going to sit idly by and do nothing while you and others like you spew out blasphemous nonsense online.

//None of the points you made had any basis in reality, nor did they apply to me specifically. You’re just defaulting to such general (and terrible) arguments.
tl;dr - You’re a liar. You’re dishonest in your support of your worldview and twice now you have just flat-out lied about me in order to support your point.

Is this the kind of publicity you’d like? Here, I’ll even write on your blog! ^_^ Get you that extra boost.”//

You are confusing lies and truth, and again, in order to call someone a liar you have to know what truth is - and you've yet to account for how you can know anything to be true without God.

//If this seems like an exercise in futility, it is.//

It's futile to fight against God, and by attempting to refute Christianity, you are indeed fighting against God. Of course I'm not God and I'm not saying I'm perfect. But I do know some things for certain by revelation - such as that God exists, that we are sinners, that Jesus died as a perfect sacrifice for sin, and that in order to be saved one needs to repent and trust in Jesus.

//I fully knew that Brendan wouldn’t accept the systematic destruction of his original blog post or someone pointing out the very simple concept that his entire worldview is based on nothing more than a guess that he turned into an assertion and somehow adopted as fact. It is completely and entirely without merit.//

Again, ironic that you use words like 'fact' when you've yet to account for how you can know anything to be true in your worldview.

//Yet, when I point this out and explain that it is futile for me to respond to him and that his blog will be a further waste of my time, he ended up considering this a “win” for him. He apparently changed his blog in order to make it look like I read the blog, was overcome with truth and had no reply to his points, which is exactly the opposite of what happened for the first blog and nothing close to what happened for this second blog. It is a lie, making Brendan another person for whom Twitter specifically has the tag of #LyingForJesus.//

That's your spin on things, but you've got your fingers on the scales.

//That is the problem with the presuppositionalist. He doesn’t value facts.//

Is that a joke? You've yet to show me how you know even one "fact".

//His entire system of belief is without them. Why would he value facts when presented by you or me or anyone else? He won’t.//

How do you know even 1 thing to be true in your worldview? Tell me 1 fact about anything, let alone one fact that supports your atheism.

//Hopefully, you can recognize the signs of the presupposition argument. If you can’t as a new atheist, don’t worry: just ask the theist to provide actual evidence.//

Just don't forget that at a foundational level atheism doesn't need facts or evidence and you'll be fine.

//If they try to give you a logical argument, don’t let them fool you with special wording.//

Yeah, that logic thing - don't let logic fool you. Um. Atheist Lee, how do you know that you aren't fooling people with your "special wording"?

//That’s the flaw in a logical argument: something can be logically true but factually false if the premises are built on lies. Theists tend to adopt this in some way, but the presuppositionalist lives on this. The worldview is literally built on a lie.//

You've yet to explain how you know objective truth in your worldview, therefore have no grounds to call anything a lie. Lies presuppose truth, and truth presupposes God because you can't get truth without God.

//Unlike with other theists, the presupposition argument entirely and completely throws out facts, so no matter how many facts you bring, you’ll always lose because the presuppositionalist simply cares about his own ego and opinion, which he views as more valuable than silly things like facts and evidence.//

Facts and evidence are great. Presuppositionalists don't throw them out. There's lots of facts and evidence supporting God, but it's foolish for a Christian to look at specific facts and evidence with professed unbelievers who can't account for the general concepts of facts and evidence. So presuppositionalists go straight to the foundational issues of knowledge and truth, because it is precisely there that the professed unbeliever has no basis for their beliefs.

So I'm still waiting to hear how you know anything to be true in your worldview Atheist Lee. I hope that in any future responses you will actually take the time to read and answer my response and  refrain from the emotionally biased language you've resorted to here. Try to stick to the facts, rather than your arbitrary and emotionally biased opinions.

The Absurdity of Atheism - You could be a Brain in a Vat

I was inspired to make this Brain in Vat (BIV) meme after listening to the following YouTube discussion / debate between Sye and Mathew Steele.

It's really worth taking the time to watch it, as it goes really deep and makes it clear why revelation from God is the only way you can't know that you aren't a brain in a vat. Sye uses the analogy of a mansion with 1000 rooms, and 999 of them are the BIV scenario, and only 1 of the rooms is a normal room where the person is actually experiencing reality as it is.

The reality experienced by a real person and a BIV would be exactly the same. A BIV would look at his hands and say "I've got hands" but in reality they don't have hands and the hands they think they see would just be computer generated illusion.

You could say that you are 99.99% sure that you aren't a BIV, however, where did you get that percentage of certainty from? You've just made that figure up based on your feelings. Given the fact that the reality experienced by a person who is a BIV would be identical to that of what we consider normal reality you've got 0% certainty that you aren't a BIV. Without God you can't even be 1% certain that you are not a BIV, in the Matrix, or in some other illusory reality.

God enables us to know with certainty by revelation knowledge that we are not brains in vats, or in some kind of weird reality that is illusory, because if we were the Bible would not be true, and nothing could be true.

The critic might say that God could be deceiving us to make us think that reality was real, but actually that is just part of the deception. But God cannot lie or deceive. (See The Deceptive God Argument Refuted).

The fact that professed atheists and professed unbelievers cannot know they aren't brains in vats shows the absurdity of unbelief. If you can't know you aren't a brain in a vat you can't know anything. You can't know the true nature of truth or reality to any degree!

 If you don't know that you aren't a brain in a vat, then you can't know that anything even exists outside of your own consciousness, as Negation of P admitted. He's not even sure if his own wife exists! 

Everyone assumes that they are not a brain in a vat, but without God they can't account for knowing they are not, or knowing the true nature of reality for certain to any degree. This shows that everyone does know that God exists but they are suppressing the truth about God. (Romans 1). Professed unbelievers are  willfully ignorant and deliberately forgetting God. (2 Peter 3:5).

Based on the certainty of God's existence and the truth of the Gospel I can echo the words of Paul in Acts 17 where he says that God "commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed." That man is Jesus Christ, and he died as a sacrifice for your sins. If you have not yet repented and trusted Jesus, don't leave it too late.

P.S. This is one atheists response...

My response is - how do you know that? What is considered common sense to some cultures is considered wrong in other cultures. For example in most countries it's considered "common sense" to not leave your bag and valuables unattended for more than a few seconds, but in Japan they often leave their valuables unattended without fear because the rate of theft is much much lower.

Common sense presupposes an ultimate standard of truth, and you can't get truth without God. It's not "common sense" to assert that there is no God - it's foolishness. In saying that something is "common sense" you are asserting the logical fallacy that truth is determined by majority opinion. While the majority is often right on simple issues, they can often be wrong too. If the majority of people in the world agreed that the Bible was true, would you then accept that it was true?

Monday, March 24, 2014

Why I Left Christianity and Became a Satanist - Atheistic Satanism

Today I came across this video, and felt it was worth sharing and reviewing. The 15 minute video is by the YouTube user "Styxhexenhammer666" who claims to have been a Christian in the past and then became an atheist before eventually converting to Satanism. (He uses the term 'Agnostic Independent Satanist' to describe himself.) He says that he lost his faith when he was at college as a result of his independent research. This neglects to take into account the overall influence of being at a secular college where teachers and information sources are wrongly assumed to be neutral. (Total philosophical and intellectual neutrality is in reality impossible - we all have biases and the same thing goes for all books and textbooks - information is always included, excluded, and interpreted in the light of peoples presuppositions.)

One objection he has to Christianity is the false claim that it's done far more harm than good in the world and caused wars. In reality nearly all wars down through history have been non-religious wars. (Is Religion the Primary Cause of War?

And of course no diatribe against Christianity would be complete without mentioning the Flat earth myth, which is dropped into the mix along with a number of other false assertions. (Even secular Wikipedia agrees that there never was a time when it was commonly believed that the earth was flat - Myth of the Flat Earth)

I watched some of his other videos too and realised that he does not believe in a literal Satan, but sees Satan and demons as being symbolic forces in the world, so he would seem to fit into the category of Atheistic Satanism. (Also known as LaVeyan Satanism.) If I've understood him correctly he believes in a lot of the things that the Church of Satan believes (founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey) but objects to the idea of having to join an official group and pay a $200 joining fee in order to call himself a Satanist. On one of his videos he boasts that he's become something of a spiritual guru responsible for helping convert so many people to Satanism that he says he's lost count of the number of converts.It was interesting to hear him say in the above video that he basically feels he can make up his own morality and his own truths, and that this makes him a god in a symbolic sense. This is exactly the lie that Satan told Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:5 - "you shall be like God".  He also talks about being expunged of the "false guilt" he once felt. The Bible talks about false teachers with seared consciences like this man in 1 Timothy 4:1-2:

1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

The problem with Styxhexenhammer666 is that he's got no way of knowing anything to be true in his worldview. He admits that the problem with trying to find truth by yourself can lead to error, but does not seem to think this is a big problem. In reality it's a massive problem. Like a dog that is not on a leash he may feel free, but this kind of freedom is extremely dangerous, and ultimately leads to destruction.
In another video of Styxhexenhammer666's called 'Proof that God does not exist' he argues for the theory of an eternal oscillating universe, and the multiverse theory which posits an infinite number of universes. He also brings up the usual accusations that atheists bring up against God related to God supposedly being immoral - but does not attempt to account for where he gets absolute morality from, other than his own flawed logical mind.

To conclude with, Styxhesenhammer666 is obviously a very intellectual young man, and I wonder if things would have been different for him if he'd been exposed to a more intellectually rigorous form of Christianity that could have given him real answers to the deep philosophical and intellectual issues of faith. In my opinion, his story is a reminder to the Church of the urgent need to teach apologetics alongside the Gospel in order to evangelise and disciple effectively, as we are called to do. 

For a great article on Satanism and how it is a natural outflow from atheism and Darwinian evolution see Atheism, Satanism, and Dawkins.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - Atheism in Full Retreat

Over the last few years 'The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster' has grown in popularity. Also known as Pastafarianism, this parody religion is a form of atheism that in reality is mocking Christianity.

The Church of FSM started as a protest against the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools - the reductio ad absurdum argument being that the FSM and 'Theory of Intelligent Falling' are just as scientific as the Theory of ID. 

The reason I say that it is "atheism in full retreat" is because atheists don't actually believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). They think that belief in God is just as absurd as believing in the FSM, but the problem is that the FSM is not their justification for knowledge.

In debates between Christians and Atheists, atheists will often posit some hypothetical deity that they don't believe in such as the FSM, The Ghost That Never Lies, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or other religions gods such as Allah, Krishna etc. The problem with this is that they are abandoning their atheism in order to defend it. As soon as the atheist does this the debate is over. They are showing that they cannot defend their atheism, and in order to try to defend it they are having to posit something they don't believe in.

Today on another post a commenter who I assume is an atheist, said that I should assume that they are a Christian. When I asked this person if they really are a Christian they would not answer the question. So I've refused to continue publishing that persons comments, because they are not being intellectually honest in terms of defending what they actually believe. The reason for this tactic from atheists is because atheism cannot provide a justification for knowledge or rationality. Without revelation from God they have no way of knowing anything for certain. They could be living in a world where everything is illusion for all they know.

In the debate between Sye and The Realistic Nihilist (TRN), Sye refused to debate TRN when he would not defend his actual position. For the purpose of the debate TRN wanted to temporarily adopt an evidentialist worldview. But this kind of jumping around between worldviews is absurd, and it's good for Christians to expose this absurdity and not let professed unbelievers get away with it.

In a different debate between Sye and a group of Atheists, Thunderf00t said that 'The Ghost That Never Lies' was his avenue to certain knowledge. When Sye asked him if he really believed that, Thunderf00t avoided the question. 

As soon as atheists posit something they don't actually believe in, they are in full retreat. They've lost the debate right there, and as Christians it's our job to point this out to them.

For more on the FSM see Jason Peterson's excellent article: Falsifying the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Friday, March 21, 2014

Can Atheists Trust Their Thoughts and Senses?

The above video by the professed atheist and YouTube user 'Venaloid' was recently brought to my attention, and I thought it was worth sharing and responding to. Venaloid admits that atheists cannot know that their thoughts and senses are trustworthy, however, he says it's a "double-edged sword" because Christians can't know that God isn't deceiving them, therefore he argues Christians can't trust their thoughts and senses either.

Venaloid's argument raises the same basic issues that I've already dealt with in my other post 'The Deceptive God Argument Refuted.' (Please read that article if you haven't already as I thoroughly refute the idea that God could be deceiving us.)

I've also dealt with this whole issue here in my FAQ section - How do you know YOUR reasoning is valid? And just below it in the same FAQ section: How do you know YOU aren't in the Matrix?.

Venaloid asks a few specific questions:

//Would God come down and tell you that your thoughts and senses are being deceived?//

He wouldn't need to because he's already revealed himself to us through the Bible and he's promised us that he cannot lie or deceive us.

//Why do we have delusional people?//

This is a separate issue. You know that you aren't in a mental hospital right now the same way I do - by revelation from God. The only difference is I profess to know this revelation from God and you suppress it. We have delusional people because we live in a fallen world where people get sick. This all goes back to Adam and Eve's rebellion against God.


So at the core of your worldview, you can't know if your reasoning is valid and able to bring you to proper conclusions about anything. You can't justify the reasoning of anyone - even the most sane person - from within your worldview.

In contrast, at the core of the Christian worldview, we know that we can trust our reasoning by revelation from God. This is because God made us in his image, and so our minds are basically reliable.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Why Intellectuals Laugh at Atheists - Matt Dillahunty gets Destroyed in Debate

For those who don't know, the atheist in the video is Matt Dillahunty. He's a high profile atheist, and has his own atheist show (

In this video Cliff Knechtle ( exposes the foolishness of Matt's atheism.

Why Intellectuals Laugh at Atheists (Part 16): Blind Faith Atheist

This girls answer is pretty much the same as Matt's answer

Monday, March 17, 2014

How to Make Memes

I've recently started making memes and adding text to photos, and someone asked me how I made them, so here is a post to answer that question with some of the memes I've made.

It's very easy to make memes. I was using (and also MS Paint and the Snipping Tool) but have recently discovered a better website for making memes that can also do double or triple picture memes relatively easily. It's The meme below includes photos I got from a YouTube video that I paused and used the snipping tool to take screen shots.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

"The Realistic Nihilist" (TRN)

In the video below the "The Realistic Nihilist" tries to debate Sye Ten Bruggencate. He even agrees that he is an epistemological nihilist, which means that we can't know anything. But debates presuppose knowledge, and so Sye challenges him that if he wants to debate him he must renounce his nihilism. At first he isn't willing to do this and wants to temporarily adopt the evidentialist worldview, but Sye points out that the debate is over because he has abandoned his nihilism and is unwilling to try to defend it. 

Then later he tries to come back and agrees to renounce nihilism. He clearly says that he has decided to renounce it for the rest of his life, and says he will change his YouTube name the next day. (See the video below at 49:50 to 50:50 and the transcript).

Transcript from BTWN Show video 49:50 to 50:50

Sye: But are you a nihilist or are you an evidentialist?
TRN: I’m an evidentialist.
Sye: Well you said you’re a nihilist.
TRN: I’ve renounced that.
Sye: Are you going to be a nihilist tomorrow?
TRN: No. I’ll be an evidentialist.
Sye: You’ll be an evidentialist for the rest of your life?
TRN: For sure.
Sye: Ok, so now you’re an evidentialist?
TRN: Yes.
Sye: Do you employ your senses and reasoning in order to glean evidence?
TRN: Hold on a minute. Hold on. I’m going to explain that to you…
Sye: Let me ask you this question - when are you going to change your YouTube name?
TRN: I don’t know… I’ll do it tomorrow.
Sye: You will?
TRN: Yeah sure.
Sye: Ok. I’ll keep an eye on that.
TRN: Ok.
Sye: I’ll encourage other people to do that too to see if this man is being honest or just playing a game.
TRN: Ok. That’s fine. The realistic evidentialist.
Sye: Great. I’m looking forward to it.

The problem is that now, 6 months later, he still hasn't changed his YouTube name - he's still using the name 'The Realistic Nihilist'. Just 1 week ago he posted another video ranting about how stupid BibleThumpingWingnut is. (He's a Christian and presuppositionalist). (See TRN rant here: Bible Thumping Wingnut is...)

"Realistic Nihilist" - you need to repent of your self-refuting worldview and stop lying. Stop lying to other people, stop lying to yourself, and stop lying to God. I agree with what BTWN said in the bottom video - I don't have anything personally against you - you're a smart guy, but you've adopted a very bad philosophy.

BTWN Show with Sye Ten Bruggencate & Two YouTube "Atheists"

Atheism Exposed - The Realistic Nihilist - The Lying Ghost Show

Top 10 ATHEISTS of 2013

('The Realistic Nihilist makes it to #1 due to his absurd worldview that doesn't care about being self-refuting, contradictory, and inconsistent - those things are "not a problem to nihilism" because he doesn't try and defend it - because he can't - it's too absurd. Nor can he say that Christianity is wrong  and yet he has the nerve to rant about how stupid BTWN is.)

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Response to Atheist Lee’s Response

After writing a response to a video by “Atheist Lee” (see here), I got a response from her (posted on her "Dirty Atheist" Tumblr blog here). This is my response to her response.

I will put Lee’s words inside // and make them bold. My response will follow underneath. Sentences in italics are my words from the initial post.

//Surfer Brendan decided to write a blog post to my video about god answering one’s faith as long as they take a leap of “real” faith. The blog post is here for those that wish to read it in full. I will quote parts and reply to them to show how ridiculously dishonest and lazy the presuppositional argument is.//

Thanks for taking the time to respond. What basis do you have for calling anything dishonest? Dishonesty presupposes an ultimate standard of honesty / truth. How do you get truth without God? I reject the claim that I’ve been dishonest (or lazy), but in your worldview why is it wrong to be dishonest? In your worldview we are just stardust. Who cares what one bunch of stardust does to another bunch of stardust?
//"I question whether or not you had ever really truly repented"
I said the same thing to others.//

Just because you once said this to other people doesn’t mean that you actually had repented. The Bible clearly warns about false converts, and warns that not all who say “Lord Lord” are truly saved. Just because you once said the ‘sinners prayer’ doesn’t mean you were a Christian. The sinners prayer isn’t in the Bible, and I wonder if you even know what a true Christian is?

// There is something called “learning”. It means you firmly believe something to be true and then you learn that perhaps you are wrong. It’s the same with children who believe in Santa: just because they stop believing in him doesn’t mean their belief wasn’t genuine.//

It’s not the same at all – Santa isn’t real, but God is real. I doubt that you’ve ever been down to the mall at Christmas time protesting against Santa lying to the children, but you spend a lot of time online arguing against God. Why don’t you make videos against Santa? Because you know that Santa is not real. In order to know that something is wrong, you have to know what right is. In order to know that you were wrong to believe in God’s existence, you have to have to know what right and truth is, and you can’t get truth without God. What is truth in your worldview? Most people say that truth is what corresponds to reality. But how do you know what is real? In order to know anything to any degree you need to know that your reasoning is valid. How do you know your reasoning is valid? How do you know your brain has correctly evolved in order to know anything correctly? How do you get truth from evolution? You don’t – you just get brain fizz.

//"Given the fact that you’d never actually read the whole Bible"
Is this a joke? Reading the whole bible is what caused me to leave.//

Reading the Bible isn’t what made you lose your faith. You’d already begun the slide into unbelief before that happened. (Possibly you’d even begun to doubt your faith years before you left Christianity.) If your heart was right before God, when you read the Bible it would only deepen your faith, and any difficult questions would be seen as opportunities to deepen your faith and deepen your understanding of God.

//"So a true Christian trusts in God and when they have things they have difficulty understanding they do not lean on their own understanding, but it seems that you were doing just that - leaning on / relying in your own independent reasoning, rather than trusting in God’s Word."
Is this also a joke? This entire video to which you claim this is a response talks about how I pressed into god for understanding, that I prayed and fasted in order to have better guidance.//

No, it’s not a joke. What makes you think that a few prayers and a few missed meals is going to bring you to repentance? (Although praying and fasting is good it doesn't guarantee anything.) What makes you think that that would renew your mind after years and years of evolutionary indoctrination and anti-God biased teaching? (Assuming you went to a public school - although even if you didn't it's almost impossible to escape exposure to evolutionary ideas these days.) You mentioned in the video that you started asking your non-Christian friends for advice about the Bible. Why would you think you’d find truth from those who are spiritually blind?

//"I assume you mean you think it was immoral for God to let Job suffer so much? This story has been an incredible blessing to millions of people around the world, because it helps us to realise that God is sovereign and that our suffering does have a purpose and a reason."
The “reason” is that god and satan made a bet. I’m not sure how it’s comforting to know that god will let you physically suffer while allowing all your children to be killed just to prove a point to satan when he is supposedly all-knowing in the first place. Yeah, real comforting stuff there.//

What makes you think you are wiser than God and know what God should or shouldn’t do? For all we know the future of humanity could have been adversely affected if God had not allowed Satan to test Job. God in his wisdom chose to do what he did. You need to check out the ‘God wannabe’ cartoon by 'After Eden'.

Another lesson we can learn from Job is related to tzimtzum - which means the self-restriction of God to achieve a higher purpose. It explains why God sometimes 'sits on his hands'. God isn't like superman. He doesn't have to intervene all the time, but is so powerful he can bring good out of any situation. Sadly many Christians don't understand this concept, and have a self-centered faith that is all about what they can get from God, rather than a biblical faith that is centered on living for God's glory.

//"How do you account for absolute morality without God?"
We evolved morality as social creatures. Humans are not the only social creatures that did this.//

Your answer is woefully inadequate. You’ve not accounted for absolute and objective morality at all. Without God you’ve got no basis for morality and morality just becomes your own personal preference akin to what flavour ice cream you like or dislike. You can say that you don’t like what God did to Job because you find it hard to understand, but you can’t say it was morally wrong. Is murdering people for fun absolutely morally wrong in your worldview? If you say yes, please explain why you think so. You also need to explain why it is ok for animals to kill each other for food, but it's not ok for humans to kill other humans. If we are just evolved animals then why do we send people to jail for murder, but don't send lions to jail for killing antelope? In my worldview I can easily answer that question - we aren't just animals, but are uniquely made in the image of God. But how do you account for this without God?

//"In your research of apologetics, did you encounter Presuppositional Apologetics and the Transcendental Argument for God? Did you watch any of Sye Ten Bruggencate’s videos and go through his website ?”
That’s your evidence? Presupposing something is insanely dishonest,//

You didn’t answer the question. Before you left Christianity, did you study any presuppositional apologetics (PA)? The fact you’ve avoided the question suggests that you didn’t, in which case you missed the most important and most biblical argument for God’s existence and the truth of Scripture. Have you done any significant study of PA at all? You mentioned that a while ago you looked at Sye's website, but from what you said it doesn't seem you spent much time at all there actually thinking about the issues involved. Have you had a look at my website Your response here suggests that you have not really seriously looked at PA and if you have you don’t really understand it at all. As for presupposing things – PA is much more than just that, and the fact is that you are presupposing things too. You presuppose that your reasoning is valid (but can’t account for it being valid without God), and you presuppose that the future will be like the past, and you can’t account for that either without God. Why do you assume that the future will be like the past?

//it’s probably the worst offender of the “god of the gaps”//

Do you believe that 2 and 2 is 4? I’ll assume you do. So you believe in 4 of the gaps then? And “offender” presupposes absolute morality, which you’ve yet to account for.

// reasoning //

How do you account for reasoning and rationality in your worldview?  How does evolution create thinking minds? Evolution can give us brains, but not minds. Are you a materialist atheist? If so, how do you account for immaterial things such as the concept of reasoning, laws of logic, and laws of morality?

//because it’s not just one justification but an entire argument based on an idea you didn’t first show to be true.//

God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility. The proof that God exists is that without him you couldn’t prove anything. But no one needs this proof because everyone, including you Lee, knows that God exists. If you deny God your worldview becomes absurd and you can’t account for anything.

//It’s literally making something up and running with it in order to pretend that you have evidence where evidence is lacking.//

You didn’t reject God because of a lack of evidence, but because it suited you to reject God because you prefer your sin. This isn’t my own idea – I know it by revelation from God in His Word (Romans 1).

//"There is so much evidence for God’s existence that you are without excuse."
Really? What would that be? Oh, you say it in the next sentence!//

Everyone knows that God exists in many ways, such as through creation, innately, and through God’s Word.

//"Even the concept of evidence is proof that God exists because evidence presupposes knowledge and truth, and you can’t get either of those without God."
Ohhhh! I get it! Wow! That’s super convenient to suggest that a god you can’t provide evidence for somehow is shown to be real because we ask for evidence in the first place! See what I mean about the presuppositional argument being so dishonest?//

There is nothing dishonest going on here on my part. I provided evidence – but you’re not convinced because proof and persuasion is not the same thing. But why in your worldview is dishonesty absolutely morally wrong?

//I can literally make up *any* being and make up any claims about him and using the presuppositional argument I can “prove” I’m right. Ready? There’s an invisible [censored] mind-reading monster on Neptune. Oh, you can’t see him? That’s proof he exists because I already said he is invisible!//

Is this invisible monster on Neptune your justification for knowledge? I’m pretty sure it isn’t, in which case your hypothetical monster is only proof of the inadequacy of your worldview to provide a basis for knowledge, because in order to defend your atheism you’re having to abandon it. So are you admitting that your beliefs are woefully inadequate and can’t account for knowledge?

//In this case, you’re claiming that god is the creator of knowledge and reason, and you show this by saying that we want evidence so tada! That proves evidence exists because I just said that god created the concept of evidence!//

You’ve misrepresented my position somewhat. God is the necessary precondition for knowledge and rationality. Evidence presupposes knowledge and truth right? How do you account for knowledge and truth in your worldview? Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know? 

//That is the worst argument to make, and it can be made by anyone of any religion or even people of no religion who just look to make this up. It’s dishonest and it’s incredibly lazy.//

If you held to a different religion I’d be happy to refute it and show why it cannot account for knowledge or truth and leads to absurdity. But as you are an atheist there isn’t much point. Also, the fact is that there are no other gods. I know that God is the only God by revelation from him.
Psalm 96:5 says, “All the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens.”

//"Lee, I pray that you’d stop running from the God you know exists, but for some reason have chosen to rebel against"
Ah, you’re presupposing I know a god now? Oh, that’s nice. That really convenient to write off everything I’m saying and assume you can read minds from across the internet. Awesome.//

No, I know that you know the only God there is. I know this not because I can read minds but because I have revelation from God that all people know God exists but that many “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” as you are doing.

//Your entire blog post is dishonest, lazy and without thought. I was actually reading this aloud to a Christian buddy of mine on Skype and even he felt you’re doing Christians a disservice by side-stepping the evidence issue by conveniently claiming your presupposition argument.//

Is he a Christian like you once were? Because if so, I also question whether he is really a true Christian. The fact that he’s siding with an atheist and against God’s Word is not a good sign. Perhaps though he just doesn’t know his Bible. If he did he’d know that God, Jesus, the prophets, and the Apostles used presuppositional apologetical approaches too. Jesus in particular was a master at posing difficult presuppositional style questions that stumped the Pharisees, and atheists and Pharisees have a lot in common in terms of their denial of Jesus and God and twisting of Scriptures to suit their own agenda.
//It’s always amazing how theists will conveniently ignore things and distort facts (such as claiming I never read the bible when the video he’s replying to says the exact opposite) in order to try to make a point. As I always say: if you have to lie to support your position, your position isn’t worth supporting.//

Using the fallacy of poisoning the well is a pretty low tactic. You are the only one conveniently ignoring things and distorting the facts. I never said that you never read the Bible. As for lying, I reject that accusation as groundless. But did you hear about the lie detector test done on atheists? It confirmed that atheists are the ones that are lying when they pretend that they don’t know God exists.

I’ve asked a number of questions here that you need to answer in order to refute me. Key questions are – Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know? How do you get truth in your worldview? How do you know what is real? How do you know your reasoning is valid? How do you account for absolute moral laws? Why will the future be like the past?

These are all questions that can be easily answered by the Christian worldview, but cannot be adequately answered in your worldview. It turns out that the very things you take for granted, such as your ability to reason, and assuming that the future will be like the past, are the very things that you cannot account for without God – and this exposes one thing – the fact that you know very well that God exists. Every time you use your reasoning, make moral accusations, and assume the uniformity of nature you are showing that you do know God.

I’m assuming that you will respond to this post, and when you do so you will assume that the internet will work the same tomorrow as it did in the past, but why? You will assume that the words you used in the past will mean the same things, and that the computer you’ve used in the past will function in the same way. What basis do you have for these things?

Well, I’ll leave it there for now. I continue to pray that you will repent and stop denying the God you know exists. I hope too that in the future you’ll stop poisoning the well and drop the empty insults falsely accusing me of lying and being dishonest.

Tuesday 25th March 2014 - Lee's Response via Google Plus

//I'm not on YouTube all the time, and I receive a lot of comments and do not read them all. I only see this one because I'm going through comments on this video.//
Not exactly the same situation but pretty apt for Lee

And yet in the last week and a half since posting your first response here you've had the time to make 4 new YouTube videos in the last week, including a very important one about smell shaker cups. I think the problem isn't that you're too busy but that you realise you've got no real answers to support your atheistic beliefs - just blind faith.

//Now you're asking me to spare more time and comment on your blog, and this is after I already read and utterly tore to shreds your first blog.//

The record above stands, and it's pretty clear that the only tearing going on was of your worldview getting demolished.

//Your first entry was laughably horrible. There are not enough words to express just how absolutely silly, ignorant, arrogant, self-serving and just lazy your post is.//

I guess all you've tried and failed at a logical argument and all you've got left is ad hominem, question begging epithets (emotionally biased insults) and shouting (the underlined word was in bold in the original). Ironic that you are calling me lazy when it's you who is too lazy (or too scared) to actually attempt to answer my questions.

//I even had Christians telling me that what you wrote was an absolute joke.//

More question begging epithet stuff, and a faulty appeal to authority - your "Christian" friend. If he's really a Christian and knows the Bible he'd know that your worldview was destroyed and shaken at it's foundations, and wouldn't be siding with you on this. If he really cares about you he'd be agreeing with me and urging you to repent.  

//You wasted my time. The only reason I bothered to reply at all was because I could turn it into a blog post and it had been a while since I made a blog post, and I could do so very quickly because your "arguments" were that easy to refute. I half-believed you were just trolling me because your post was seriously that bad. It was laughable. It was ridiculous...and you apparently wrote a follow-up? Yeah, noooo thanks.//

More nonsense and insults. Your "refutation" fell apart when I scrutinised it and now you're running for the hills.  

//You don't have an argument. Your entire viewpoint is based on running with an unfounded, unproven premise and pretending that's the same thing as having evidence in your favor. It's a joke.//

More logical fallacies and untruths.

//As for the "all of your atheism is just built on assumptions that have no evidence", this shows incredibly clearly that you have absolutely no idea what my position is and you're referring to me in a generic way in order to...I don't know, get some attention?//

I know your position better than you do because I have insight from God through the Bible. (Again, shouting doesn't make an argument logically stronger). At the core of your worldview is the assumption that the future will be like the past, and the assumption that your mind reliable and able to bring you to valid conclusions. You have no  way of knowing these things within your own worldview, and thus can't know anything.

//Attract more people to your blog by using my name? I don't know, I don't really care at this point. You fail to support your own position with anything other than make-believe, and then you fail to even understand the very, very basics of my position. It is not often that I run into an argument so profoundly stupid.//

More insults and arbitrary unsupported statements to try and cover up the fact that you've lost the argument and don't know where to go next.

//You have wasted enough of my time. I'm sure you'll pat yourself on the back and consider this a "win" for you because you've demonstrated you're happy to literally make up whatever the f**k in order to make yourself feel better. Have fun with that, I guess. //

More question begging epithets. It's not about winning, it's about urging people to repent, and sharing the truth of the Gospel with them in the hope that they will come to know God. I can't make you believe. Salvation is a gift from God, but I can pray for you and share the truth. I've provided proof that God exists and shown why you can't know anything without God. But proof and persuasion are two different things. 

//Reality isn't that bad, you should try it sometime. You don't have to live in a world of make-believe.//

In your worldview you've got no way of knowing you are in reality at all to any degree. You could be in the matrix or living in an illusory world for all you know. Well, it looks like this is it. Another Atheist who pretends to want to know the truth, but in reality is a God-hater, and in love with their sin and self-deception. I pray for Lee, that God would open her eyes to the truth and grant her the gift of repentance.

P.S. After writing this post Atheist Lee responded, and I've written a 3rd part to the ongoing series
Surfer Brendan vs Atheist Lee - Part 3.