Will Richard Dawkins debate David Berlinski?

Interesting question, as Richard Dawkins has stated, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Yet, he has stated the following of David Berlinski:

Are there, then, any examples of anti-evolution poseurs who are not ignorant, stupid or insane, and who might be genuine candidates for the wicked category? I once shared a platform with someone called David Berlinski, who is certainly not ignorant, stupid or insane. He denies that he is a creationist, but claims strong scientific arguments against evolution…As I said, he is certainly not ignorant, stupid or insane.

So, in Richard Dawkins’ estimation David Berlinski is not ignorant, stupid or insane—just wicked.
He is wicked, by default, for daring to question the dogmatheism of Dawkins’ god; Darwin. Now, Dawkins has stated that if you doubt, yes even doubt, that human beings are related to bananas and turnips you are to be likened to a Holocaust denier. Yet, David Berlinski—the agnostic Jew—dares to doubt it and his parents escaped from Germany to escape from the Nazis, to escape the Holocaust. What grotesque results ensue from Richard Dawkins’ constant attention getting and emotive remarks.

Well, Richard Dawkins cannot use his catch all (so he thinks) reason (aka excuse) for not debating worthy opponents such as William Lane Craig and Stephen Meyer (see here and here) by stating that he will not debate creationists (a category under which he includes Intelligent Design proponents and any other inconvenient challengers).

David Berlinski is an agnostic and Dawkins can dance around claiming that he is, nonetheless, an Intelligent Design proponent whose arguments Dawkins likens to those of Creationists yet, he cannot simply play the same old evasion game.

david20berlinski2c20intelligent20design2c20true20freethinker-2630627

Atheism

VIDEO: “Atheism Explained and Exposed” intro

VIDEO: “Atheism Explained and Exposed” problem of evil

Was “the Problem of Evil” Solved Before it was Ever Proposed?, part 1 of 2

We Are All “Religious” & “Religion” is the Root of all Evil

We are Atheism – Dawkins YouTube project

What are some popular baby names? How about “Atheist Evolution”?!?!

What do satanism and atheism have in common?

What Happened to Reginald Finley’s Skepticism?

What if Adolf Hitler had repented?

What to do when Atheists demand scientific evidence of God

What Would Atheists Do If God Appeared To Them?

What, really, is materialist / atheist / naturalist morality?

When An Ethereal Hypothesis Beats Out Tangible Proof

When Atheists debated how pushy to be

Who created the creator? Who created God?, etc.

Who made God? Who created God? Who designed the designer?

Why Atheists should convert or, evolutionary argument for Christianity

Why bother praying? Answering skeptics’ objections

Why do Americans still dislike atheists?

Why do Atheist countries lead the production of child pornography?

Why God must be omniscient

Why half of Britons don’t believe in evolution

Why won’t God heal amputees?

William Lane Craig – Various Texts

William Provine – Heavy on Inference But Light on Implication

You can’t make this up – Atheists and Satanists team up on April 1st

“Atheism”: what does it mean?

“Cosmos” fact or fiction? Neil deGrasse Tyson takes over for Carl Sagan

“Religious civilisations survive. Secular civilisations die”

“Rock Beyond Belief” and Atheist soldiers

“The Ledge” movie compliments Christianity

Color Run warning – Hindu ritual in, thin, disguise

CHRISTIANITY
Christianity

Christian Apologetics

Bible

God – Theology

Problem of Evil – Theodicy

Jesus

Nephilim – Giants

Book of Enoch

Serpent Seed

Satanic Serpent & Dragon

Angels

Cherubim & Seraphim

Satan / Devil

Demons

Miracles

Inspirational

Unbelievers Compliment Christianity

Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars, etc.

Gospel of Judas

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

————-
ATHEISM
Atheism

New Atheists

Project-Answering Atheism

Richard Dawkins

Sam Harris

Christopher Hitchens

Dan Barker

Daniel Dennett

Bart Ehrman

Bill Maher

PZ Myers

Quentin Smith

Michael Shermer

John Loftus

Ricky Gervais

Raphael Lataster

Carl Sagan

Atheism’s Public Relations Problems

Atheist Bus Ads and Billboards

Atheist Child Rearing

Atheist Charity

American Atheists

American Humanist Association

The Skeptic Arena

ExChristian.Net

PositiveAtheism.org

Evilbible.com

Science Club of Long Island

Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

Capella’s Guide to Atheism

The BOBA Digest

————-
RELIGIONS
Judaism (Rabbinic, Messianic, etc.)

Baha’i

Islam

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Mormonism

Catholicism

Scientology – Dianetics – L. Ron Hubbard

Unitarian Universalism

Misc. Religions

————-
FRINGE-OLOGY
Transhumanism

UFOs and Aliens

Billy Meier

Whitley Strieber

Robert Temple-Sirius Mystery

Conspiracy theories, Illuminati, New World Order (NWO), etc.

Occult, Witchcraft, Magick, satanism, etc.

Satanic Crime

————-
SCIENCE
Science

Creation Science

Intelligent Design

Cosmology

Evolution

The Wedgie Document

————-
MOVIES & TV SHOWS

Movies

Alchemical Hollywood

Transhuman Hollywood

————-
MISC.
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

The Crusades

Morality / Ethics

Abortion

Rape

Meaning and Purpose

Homosexuality

Postgender Androgyny, Hermaphroditism & Beyond

Debates

Pop Culture and Politics

————-
RESOURCES
Fitness

Audio

Books

TFT essay “Books”

Debate

Links

Video

Find it Fast – Fast Facts

Visuals – Illustrations and Photos

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

VIDEO: Building Yucca Mountain’s deep underground lab

CHRISTIANITY
Christianity

Christian Apologetics

Bible

God – Theology

Problem of Evil – Theodicy

Jesus

Nephilim – Giants

Book of Enoch

Serpent Seed

Satanic Serpent & Dragon

Angels

Cherubim & Seraphim

Satan / Devil

Demons

Miracles

Inspirational

Unbelievers Compliment Christianity

Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars, etc.

Gospel of Judas

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

————-
ATHEISM
Atheism

New Atheists

Project-Answering Atheism

Richard Dawkins

Sam Harris

Christopher Hitchens

Dan Barker

Daniel Dennett

Bart Ehrman

Bill Maher

PZ Myers

Quentin Smith

Michael Shermer

John Loftus

Ricky Gervais

Raphael Lataster

Carl Sagan

Atheism’s Public Relations Problems

Atheist Bus Ads and Billboards

Atheist Child Rearing

Atheist Charity

American Atheists

American Humanist Association

The Skeptic Arena

ExChristian.Net

PositiveAtheism.org

Evilbible.com

Science Club of Long Island

Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

Capella’s Guide to Atheism

The BOBA Digest

————-
RELIGIONS
Judaism (Rabbinic, Messianic, etc.)

Baha’i

Islam

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Mormonism

Catholicism

Scientology – Dianetics – L. Ron Hubbard

Unitarian Universalism

Misc. Religions

————-
FRINGE-OLOGY
Transhumanism

UFOs and Aliens

Billy Meier

Whitley Strieber

Robert Temple-Sirius Mystery

Conspiracy theories, Illuminati, New World Order (NWO), etc.

Occult, Witchcraft, Magick, satanism, etc.

Satanic Crime

————-
SCIENCE
Science

Creation Science

Intelligent Design

Cosmology

Evolution

The Wedgie Document

————-
MOVIES & TV SHOWS

Movies

Alchemical Hollywood

Transhuman Hollywood

————-
MISC.
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

The Crusades

Morality / Ethics

Abortion

Rape

Meaning and Purpose

Homosexuality

Postgender Androgyny, Hermaphroditism & Beyond

Debates

Pop Culture and Politics

————-
RESOURCES
Fitness

Audio

Books

TFT essay “Books”

Debate

Links

Video

Find it Fast – Fast Facts

Visuals – Illustrations and Photos

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

VIDEO: DARPA & transhumanism – Annie Jacobsen interview with Bill Handel

CHRISTIANITY
Christianity

Christian Apologetics

Bible

God – Theology

Problem of Evil – Theodicy

Jesus

Nephilim – Giants

Book of Enoch

Serpent Seed

Satanic Serpent & Dragon

Angels

Cherubim & Seraphim

Satan / Devil

Demons

Miracles

Inspirational

Unbelievers Compliment Christianity

Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars, etc.

Gospel of Judas

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

————-
ATHEISM
Atheism

New Atheists

Project-Answering Atheism

Richard Dawkins

Sam Harris

Christopher Hitchens

Dan Barker

Daniel Dennett

Bart Ehrman

Bill Maher

PZ Myers

Quentin Smith

Michael Shermer

John Loftus

Ricky Gervais

Raphael Lataster

Carl Sagan

Atheism’s Public Relations Problems

Atheist Bus Ads and Billboards

Atheist Child Rearing

Atheist Charity

American Atheists

American Humanist Association

The Skeptic Arena

ExChristian.Net

PositiveAtheism.org

Evilbible.com

Science Club of Long Island

Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

Capella’s Guide to Atheism

The BOBA Digest

————-
RELIGIONS
Judaism (Rabbinic, Messianic, etc.)

Baha’i

Islam

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Mormonism

Catholicism

Scientology – Dianetics – L. Ron Hubbard

Unitarian Universalism

Misc. Religions

————-
FRINGE-OLOGY
Transhumanism

UFOs and Aliens

Billy Meier

Whitley Strieber

Robert Temple-Sirius Mystery

Conspiracy theories, Illuminati, New World Order (NWO), etc.

Occult, Witchcraft, Magick, satanism, etc.

Satanic Crime

————-
SCIENCE
Science

Creation Science

Intelligent Design

Cosmology

Evolution

The Wedgie Document

————-
MOVIES & TV SHOWS

Movies

Alchemical Hollywood

Transhuman Hollywood

————-
MISC.
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

The Crusades

Morality / Ethics

Abortion

Rape

Meaning and Purpose

Homosexuality

Postgender Androgyny, Hermaphroditism & Beyond

Debates

Pop Culture and Politics

————-
RESOURCES
Fitness

Audio

Books

TFT essay “Books”

Debate

Links

Video

Find it Fast – Fast Facts

Visuals – Illustrations and Photos

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Signature in the Cell,” “Signature of Controversy” and the Signature of Pseudo-Scientific Sloth, part 2

Until quite recently, no completely satisfactory synthesis of the pyrimidine nucleotides has been available. The existence of a synthetic pathway has now been established (Matthew W. Powner et al., “The synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions,” Nature 459, pp. 239–242). Questions of pre-biotic plausibility remain. Can the results of Powner et al. be reproduced without Powner et al.? It is a question that Powner raises himself: “My ultimate goal,” he has remarked, “is to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment.”…

Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce…began with what they needed and purified what they got until they got what they wanted.

There it is again, the intelligently designing scientist has an “ultimate goal” in mind and manipulates the experiment in hopes of getting what they wanted.

Here are more examples:

he himself [John Sutherland] solved the so-called chirality problem in origin-of-life chemistry by intelligently selecting a single enantiomer, i.e., only the righthanded sugars that life itself requires… Sutherland himself intervened to purify the chemical by-products of the previous step by removing undesirable side products. In so doing, he prevented—by his own will, intellect and experimental technique—the occurrence of interfering cross-reactions, the scourge of the pre-biotic chemist… Sutherland followed a very precise “recipe” or procedure in which he carefully selected the reagents and choreographed the order in which they were introduced into the reaction series, just as he also selected which side products to be removed and when.

Such recipes, and the actions of chemists who follow them, represent what the late Hungarian physical chemist Michael Polanyi called “profoundly informative intervention[s].” Information is being added to the chemical system as the result of the deliberative actions—the intelligent design—of the chemist himself….

The Lincoln and Joyce experiment that Falk describes approvingly does not solve this problem, at least not apart from the intelligence of Lincoln and Joyce…Lincoln and Joyce themselves intelligently arranged the matching base sequences in these RNA chains. They did the work of replication. They generated the functionally specific information that made even this limited form of replication possible…
even the capacity for partial replication of genetic information in RNA molecules results from the activity of chemists, that is, from the intelligence of the “ribozyme engineers” who design and select the features of these (partial) RNA replicators.

dna2c20intelligent20design2c20steven20meyer2c20signature20in20the20cell2c20true20freethinker-7617928

Lastly, note that Robert Shapiro notes that such experiments are indeed intelligently designed due to the fact that, for example, “one of the ‘assumed starting materials is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth ‘could be considered a fantasy.’’” He also noted that, “this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth.” Also, “a pro-ID chemist” noted, “The work was very carefully done. The problem is that it was very carefully done.”

The Times Literary Supplement (TLS) proclaimed Signature in the Cell as a “book of the year” stating, in part:

[A] detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter—something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin…by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.

This brought, “howls from Darwinists who made no effort to pretend they had even weighed the 611-page volume in their hand, much less read a page of it….Jerry Coyne complained that they hadn’t ought to let such an opinion even appear in the august columns of the TLS”:

“Detailed account”?? How about “religious speculation”?

Nagel is a respected philosopher who’s made big contributions to several areas of philosophy, and this is inexplicable, at least to me. I have already called this to the attention of the TLS, just so they know. No doubt the editors appreciated his letting them know they had erred by printing a view not in line with the official catechism. Coyne then appealed for help. Not having read the book himself, while nevertheless feeling comfortable dismissing it as “religious speculation,” he pleaded:

Do any of you know of critiques of Meyer’s book written by scientists? I haven’t been able to find any on the Internet…

John C. Walton wrote:

It is an amusing irony that while castigating students of religion for believing in the supernatural, [Fletcher] offers in its place an entirely

imaginary “RNA world” the only support for which is speculation!

Are you noticing a pattern here at all? All the people who hate Meyer’s book appear not to have read it. So too we have the complaint of Darwinian-atheist agitator P. Z. Myers, a popular blogger and biologist. Myers explains that he was unable to read the book, which he slimes as a “stinker” and as “drivel,” due to his not having received a promised free review copy! But rest assured. The check is in the mail: “I suppose I’ll have to read that 600 page pile of slop sometime…”…

So you know when he evaluates a book and calls it “slop,” a book on which he has not laid on eye, that’s a view that carries weight. In all seriousness, what is this with people having any opinion at all of a book that, allow me to repeat, they haven’t read and of which, as with Jerry Coyne, they admit they haven’t so much as read a review?….

P.Z. Myers directed readers of his heavily trafficked blog to a call for negative reviews of Signature—while simultaneously declaring, “I suppose I’ll have to read that 600-page pile of slop sometime…”…
Seeing that their leader was publicly attacking a book he hadn’t read, P.Z.’s fans felt justified in doing the same. Amazon.com saw a sudden spike in short, negative one-star reviews of Signature in the Cell that had little to do with any of the arguments in the book….

P. Z. Myers caricatured the book by stating, “I know what is in this book—’ooooh, it’s so complex, it must have been . . . designed!’”

dna2c20intelligent20design2c20steven20meyer2c20signature20in20the20cell2c20true20freethinker-2117928

PZ Myers ended up “calling Signature in the Cell ‘Discovery Institute Bulldung,’ and proclaiming that “Stephen Meyer lies.”… While readers of P. Z.’s blog generally cheer on his every invective.” Sadly, expecting maturity and integrity from PZ Myers is sort of like…well…it is sort of like expecting maturity and integrity from PZ Myers.

This, by the way, is the same—positive-affirmation-of-God’s-non-existence-without-evidence-atheist—PZ Myers who stated that atheism and science are “inseparable.”

This, by the way, is the same PZ Myers who critiqued Vox Day’s book The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens having, at least, read parts of it. Yet, subsequently, and repeatedly, he has refused to debate Vox Day on the issue of evolution or God’s existence for that matter and has done so, repeatedly, via a barrage of childish and abusive ad hominems (see Speaking of Assiduous Absconders…Yet Again, Vox Day Challenges PZ Myers to Debate).

PZ Myers did hit one nail on the head by admitting that even though he had not read the book upon which he was commenting, “I know what is in this book—’ooooh, it’s so complex, it must have been . . . designed!’” Well stated indeed professor!

If you ever actually listen to or read Intelligent Design proponents you will note that they are constantly begging the media, their opponents and children of all ages to stop misrepresenting and mischaracterizing Intelligent Design as being the position that it’s so complex that goddidit or some such wordage. Thus, PZ Myers proves why such misrepresentations and mischaracterizations continue unabated by evidence or pleas.

Chris Mooney likewise discredits himself by claiming that Stephen Meyer “throws up his hands, and says, it’s so improbable, God must have done it.”

Jerry Coyne joined the club as well:

Isn’t it strange, though, that for all the persistent attacks on Meyer, in quite personal terms, Professor [Jerry] Coyne hasn’t dared to actually read Steve’s book? That’s obvious because Coyne’s throwaway summary of its contents—Signature “maintains that cells must have been designed by God because they’re too complex to have evolved”—is an absurd misrepresentation. Even someone who had only read reviews of the book would know as much…This is the same Dr. Coyne who earlier characterized Steve Meyer as a “young-earth creationist,” which of course he’s not.

Also, much like PZ Myers, a commenter responded to a belligerent statement written by Jerry Coyne by stating, “Meyer seems like a lot of things—including smart—but I don’t think he is a deliberate liar…” and yet, another “reviewer” wrote, “The question is settled, and attempts to keep

pursuing it are just lies from the ‘Dishonesty Institute.’”

But why is it misrepresenting and mischaracterizing to refer to Intelligent Design in general and Stephen Meyer in general as arguing it’s so complex that goddidit? Stephen Meyer’s argument is, in part, that:

intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question.

Wicca, the goddess, Witchcraft, Paganism and History

Perhaps the most difficult essay I have ever written is Sacred Abortion. It was emotionally and spiritually draining to read, muse and write about people who sought to turn the brutal and painful murder of beautiful, innocent and defenseless human babies into a blessed sacred rite.

In that essay I noted:

…a reference to a mythical matriarchal society in which, since women ruled, everything was perfect. This society is utterly unsubstantiated by history and archaeology and even feminists have spoken out against this myth pointing out that falsehood does not help the cause of feminism.

In the light of this fact and as it pertains to Wicca, the goddess, witchcraft and Paganism I wanted to quote, in full, the text of an article by Charlotte Allen entitled The Scholars and the Goddess published in The Atlantic and subtitled, “Historically speaking, the ‘ancient’ rituals of the Goddess movement are almost certainly bunk.”

Following is the text of the article which will be followed by a relevant quote from C. S. Lewis:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wicca, sometimes known as the Goddess movement, Goddess spirituality, or the Craft, appears to be the fastest-growing religion in America. Thirty years ago only a handful of Wiccans existed. One scholar has estimated that there are now more than 200,000 adherents of Wicca and related “neopagan” faiths in the United States, the country where neopaganism, like many formal religions, is most flourishing. Wiccans-who may also call themselves Witches (the capital W is meant to distance them from the word’s negative connotations, because Wiccans neither worship Satan nor practice the sort of malicious magic traditionally associated with witches) or just plain pagans (often with a capital P)-tend to be white, middle-class, highly educated, and politically involved in liberal and environmental causes. About a third of them are men. Wiccan services have been held on at least fifteen U.S. military bases and ships.

Many come to Wicca after reading The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Great Goddess (1979), a best-selling introduction to Wiccan teachings and rituals written by Starhawk (né Miriam Simos), a Witch (the term she prefers) from California. Starhawk offers a vivid summary of the history of the faith, explaining that witchcraft is “perhaps the oldest religion extant in the West” and that it began “more than thirty-five thousand years ago,” during the last Ice Age. The religion’s earliest adherents worshipped two deities, one of each sex: “the Mother Goddess, the birthgiver, who brings into existence all life,” and the “Horned God,” a male hunter who died and was resurrected each year. Male shamans “dressed in skins and horns in identification with the God and the herds,” but priestesses “presided naked, embodying the fertility of the Goddess.”
All over prehistoric Europe people made images of the Goddess, sometimes showing her giving birth to the “Divine Child-her consort, son, and seed.” They knew her as a “triple Goddess”-practitioners today usually refer to her as maiden, mother, crone-but fundamentally they saw her as one deity. Each year these prehistoric worshippers celebrated the seasonal cycles, which led to the “eight feasts of the Wheel”: the solstices, the equinoxes, and four festivals-Imbolc (February 2, now coinciding with the Christian feast of Candlemas), Beltane (May Day), Lammas or Lughnasad (in early August), and Samhain (our Halloween).

This nature-attuned, woman-respecting, peaceful, and egalitarian culture prevailed in what is now Western Europe for thousands of years, Starhawk wrote, until Indo-European invaders swept across the region, introducing warrior gods, weapons designed for killing human beings, and patriarchal civilization. Then came Christianity, which eventually insinuated itself among Europe’s ruling elite. Still, the “Old Religion” lived, often in the guise of Christian practices.

Starting in the fourteenth century, Starhawk argued, religious and secular authorities began a 400-year campaign to eradicate the Old Religion by exterminating suspected adherents, whom they accused of being in league with the devil. Most of the persecuted were women, generally those outside the social norm-not only the elderly and mentally ill but also midwives, herbal healers, and natural leaders, those women whose independent ways were seen as a threat. During “the Burning Times,” Starhawk wrote, some nine million were executed. The Old Religion went more deeply underground, its traditions passed down secretly in families and among trusted friends, until it resurfaced in the twentieth century. Like their ancient forebears, Wiccans revere the Goddess, practice shamanistic magic of a harmless variety, and celebrate the eight feasts, or sabbats, sometimes in the nude.

Subject to slight variations, this story is the basis of many hugely popular Goddess handbooks. It also informs the writings of numerous secular feminists-Gloria Steinem, Marilyn French, Barbara Ehrenreich, Deirdre English-to whom the ascendancy of “the patriarchy” or the systematic terrorization of strong, independent women by means of witchcraft trials are historical givens. Moreover, elements of the story suffuse a broad swath of the intellectual and literary fabric of the past hundred years, from James Frazer’s The Golden Bough and Robert Graves’s The White Goddess to the novels of D. H. Lawrence, from the writings of William Butler Yeats and T. S. Eliot to Jungian psychology and the widely viewed 1988 public-television series The Power of Myth.

In all probability, not a single element of the Wiccan story is true. The evidence is overwhelming that Wicca is a distinctly new religion, a 1950s concoction influenced by such things as Masonic ritual and a late-nineteenth-century fascination with the esoteric and the occult, and that various assumptions informing the Wiccan view of history are deeply flawed. Furthermore, scholars generally agree that there is no indication, either archaeological or in the written record, that any ancient people ever worshipped a single, archetypal goddess-a conclusion that strikes at the heart of Wiccan belief.

IN the past few years two well-respected scholars have independently advanced essentially the same theory about Wicca’s founding. In 1998 Philip G. Davis, a professor of religion at the University of Prince Edward Island, published Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality, which argued that Wicca was the creation of an English civil servant and amateur anthropologist named Gerald B. Gardner (1884-1964). Davis wrote that the origins of the Goddess movement lay in an interest among the German and French Romantics-mostly men-in natural forces, especially those linked with women. Gardner admired the Romantics and belonged to a Rosicrucian society called the Fellowship of Crotona-a group that was influenced by several late-nineteenth-century occultist groups, which in turn were influenced by Freemasonry.
In the 1950s Gardner introduced a religion he called (and spelled) Wica. Although Gardner claimed to have learned Wiccan lore from a centuries-old coven of witches who also belonged to the Fellowship of Crotona, Davis wrote that no one had been able to locate the coven and that Gardner had invented the rites he trumpeted, borrowing from rituals created early in the twentieth century by the notorious British occultist Aleister Crowley, among others. Wiccans today, by their own admission, have freely adapted and embellished Gardner’s rites.

In 1999, Ronald Hutton, a well-known historian of pagan British religion who teaches at the University of Bristol, published The Triumph of the Moon. Hutton had conducted detailed research into the known pagan practices of prehistory, had read Gardner’s unpublished manuscripts, and had interviewed many of Gardner’s surviving contemporaries. Hutton, like Davis, could find no conclusive evidence of the coven from which Gardner said he had learned the Craft, and argued that the “ancient” religion Gardner claimed to have discovered was a mélange of material from relatively modern sources.
Gardner seems to have drawn on the work of two people: Charles Godfrey Leland, a nineteenth-century amateur American folklorist who professed to have found a surviving cult of the goddess Diana in Tuscany, and Margaret Alice Murray, a British Egyptologist who herself drew on Leland’s ideas and, beginning in the 1920s, created a detailed framework of ritual and belief. From his own experience Gardner included such Masonic staples as blindfolding, initiation, secrecy, and “degrees” of priesthood. He incorporated various Tarot-like paraphernalia, including wands, chalices, and the five-pointed star, which, enclosed in a circle, is the Wiccan equivalent of the cross.

Gardner also wove in some personal idiosyncrasies. One was a fondness for linguistic archaisms: “thee,” “thy,” “’tis,” “Ye Bok of ye Art Magical.” Another was a taste for nudism: Gardner had belonged to a nudist colony in the 1930s, and he prescribed that many Wiccan rituals be carried out “skyclad.” This was a rarity even among occultists: no ancient pagan religion is known, or was thought in Gardner’s time, to have regularly called for its rites to be conducted in the nude. Some Gardnerian innovations have sexual and even bondage-and-discipline overtones. Ritual sex, which Gardner called “The Great Rite,” and which was also largely unknown in antiquity, was part of the liturgy for Beltane and other feasts (although most participants simulated the act with a dagger-another of Gardner’s penchants-and a chalice). Other rituals called for the binding and scourging of initiates and for administering “the fivefold kiss” to the feet, knees, “womb” (according to one Wiccan I spoke with, a relatively modest spot above the pubic bone), breasts, and lips.

Hutton effectively demolished the notion, held by Wiccans and others, that fundamentally pagan ancient customs existed beneath medieval Christian practices. His research reveals that outside of a handful of traditions, such as decorating with greenery at Yuletide and celebrating May Day with flowers, no pagan practices-much less the veneration of pagan gods-have survived from antiquity. Hutton found that nearly all the rural seasonal pastimes that folklorists once viewed as “timeless” fertility rituals, including the Maypole dance, actually date from the Middle Ages or even the eighteenth century. There is now widespread consensus among historians that Catholicism thoroughly permeated the mental world of medieval Europe, introducing a robust popular culture of saints’ shrines, devotions, and even charms and spells. The idea that medieval revels were pagan in origin is a legacy of the Protestant Reformation.

Hutton has also pointed out a lack of evidence that either the ancient Celts or any other pagan culture celebrated all the “eight feasts of the Wheel” that are central to Wiccan liturgy. “The equinoxes seem to have no native pagan festivals behind them and became significant only to occultists in the nineteenth century,” Hutton told me. “There is still no proven pagan feast that stood as ancestor to Easter”-a festival that modern pagans celebrate as Ostara, the vernal equinox.

Historians have overturned another basic Wiccan assumption: that the group has a history of persecution exceeding even that of the Jews. The figure Starhawk cited-nine million executed over four centuries-derives from a late-eighteenth-century German historian; it was picked up and disseminated a hundred years later by a British feminist named Matilda Gage and quickly became Wiccan gospel (Gardner himself coined the phrase “the Burning Times”). Most scholars today believe that the actual number of executions is in the neighborhood of 40,000. The most thorough recent study of historical witchcraft is Witches and Neighbors (1996), by Robin Briggs, a historian at Oxford University.
Briggs pored over the documents of European witch trials and concluded that most of them took place during a relatively short period, 1550 to 1630, and were largely confined to parts of present-day France, Switzerland, and Germany that were already racked by the religious and political turmoil of the Reformation. The accused witches, far from including a large number of independent-minded women, were mostly poor and unpopular. Their accusers were typically ordinary citizens (often other women), not clerical or secular authorities. In fact, the authorities generally disliked trying witchcraft cases and acquitted more than half of all defendants. Briggs also discovered that none of the accused witches who were found guilty and put to death had been charged specifically with practicing a pagan religion.

If Internet chat rooms are any indication, some Wiccans cling tenaciously to the idea of themselves as institutional victims on a large scale. Generally speaking, though, Wiccans appear to be accommodating themselves to much of the emerging evidence concerning their antecedents: for example, they are coming to view their ancient provenance as inspiring legend rather than hard-and-fast history. By the end of the 1990s, with the appearance of Davis’s book and then of Hutton’s, many Wiccans had begun referring to their story as a myth of origin, not a history of survival. “We don’t do what Witches did a hundred years ago, or five hundred years ago, or five thousand years ago,” Starhawk told me. “We’re not an unbroken tradition like the Native Americans.” In fact, many Wiccans now describe those who take certain elements of the movement’s narrative literally as “Wiccan fundamentalists.”

An even more controversial strand of the challenge to the Wiccan narrative concerns the very existence of ancient Goddess worship. One problem with the theory of Goddess worship, scholars say, is that the ancients were genuine polytheists. They did not believe that the many gods and goddesses they worshipped merely represented different aspects of single deities. In that respect they were like animistic peoples of today, whose cosmologies are crowded with discrete spirits. “Polytheism was an accepted reality,” says Mary Lefkowitz, a professor of classics at Wellesley College. “Everywhere you went, there were shrines to different gods.” The gods and goddesses had specific domains of power over human activity: Aphrodite/Venus presided over love, Artemis/Diana over hunting and childbirth, Ares/Mars over war, and so forth. Not until the second century, with the work of the Roman writer Apuleius, was one goddess, Isis, identified with all the various goddesses and forces of nature.
As Christianity spread, the classical deities ceased to be the objects of religious cults, but they continued their reign in Western literature and art. Starting about 1800 they began to be associated with semi-mystical natural forces, rather than with specific human activities. In the writings of the Romantics, for example (John Keats’s “Endymion” comes to mind), Diana presided generally over the woodlands and the moon. “Mother Earth” became a popular literary deity. In 1849 the German classicist Eduard Gerhard made the assertion, for the first time in modern Western history, that all the ancient goddesses derived from a single prehistoric mother goddess. In 1861 the Swiss jurist and writer Johann Jakob Bachofen postulated that the earliest human civilizations were matriarchies. Bachofen’s theory influenced a wide range of thinkers, including Friedrich Engels, a generation of British intellectuals, and probably Carl Jung.

By the early 1900s scholars generally agreed that the great goddess and earth mother had reigned supreme in ancient Mediterranean religions, and was toppled only when ethnic groups devoted to father gods conquered her devotees. In 1901 the British archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans excavated the Minoan palace at Knossos, on Crete, uncovering colorful frescoes of bull dancers and figurines of bare-breasted women carrying snakes. From this scant evidence Evans concluded that the Minoans, who preceded the Zeus-venerating Greeks by several centuries, had worshipped the great goddess in her virgin and mother aspects, along with a subordinate male god who was her son and consort. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s archaeologists excavating Paleolithic and Neolithic sites in Europe and even Pueblo Indian settlements in Arizona almost reflexively proclaimed the female figurines they found to be images of the great goddess.

The archaeologists drew on the work of late-nineteenth-century anthropologists. A belief that Stone Age peoples (and their “primitive” modern counterparts) did not realize that men played a role in human procreation was popular among many early British and American anthropologists. Female fertility was an awesome mystery, and women, as the sole sources of procreation, were highly honored.
This notion-that hunter-gatherer societies couldn’t figure out the birds and the bees-has since been discredited, but “it was very intriguing to people mired in Victorianism,” according to Cynthia Eller, a professor of religious studies at Montclair State University, in New Jersey, who is writing a book on the subject. “They wanted to find a blissful sexual communism, a society in which chastity and monogamy were not important,” Eller says. It was the same general impulse that led Margaret Mead to conclude in the 1920s that Samoan adolescents indulged in guilt-free promiscuity before marriage.

Mellaart’s conclusions were bolstered by the work of the late Marija Gimbutas, a Lithuanian-born archaeologist who taught at the University of California at Los Angeles until 1989. Gimbutas specialized in the Neolithic Balkans. Like Mellaart, she tended to attach religious meaning to the objects she uncovered; the results of her Balkan digs were published in 1974 under the title The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe. In 1982 Gimbutas reissued her book as The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, and she began seeing representations of the Goddess, and of female reproductive apparatus (wombs, Fallopian tubes, amniotic fluid), in a huge array of Stone Age artifacts, even in abstractions such as spirals and dots.

In 1993 Ian Hodder, a Stanford University archaeologist, began re-excavating Çatalhöyük, using up-to-date techniques including isotopic analysis of the skeletons found in the graves. “Your bones reflect what you eat, even if you died nine thousand years ago,” Hodder says. “And we found that men and women had different diets. The men ate more meat, and the women ate more plant food. You can interpret that in many ways. A rich protein diet is helpful for physical activity, so you could say that the men ate better-but you could also argue that the women preferred plant food. What it does suggest is that there was a division of labor and activity”-not necessarily the egalitarian utopia that Goddess worshippers have assumed.

Hodder’s team also discovered numerous human figurines of the male or an indeterminate sex, and found that the favorite Çatalhöyük representation was not women but animals. None of the art the team uncovered conclusively depicts copulation or childbirth. Hodder, along with most archaeologists of his generation, endeavors to assess objects in the context of where they were unearthed-a dramatic change from the school of archaeology that was in vogue at the time of Mellaart’s and Gimbutas’s excavations.
He points out that almost all the female figurines at Çatalhöyük came from rubbish heaps; the enthroned nude woman was found in a grain bin. “Very little in the context of the find suggests that they were religious objects,” Hodder says. “They were maybe more like talismans, something to do with daily life.” Furthermore, excavations of sites in Turkey, Greece, and Southeastern Europe that were roughly contemporaneous with the Çatalhöyük settlement have yielded evidence-fortifications, maces, bones bearing dagger marks-that Stone Age Europe, contrary to the Goddess narrative, probably saw plenty of violence.

Lynn Meskell, an archaeologist at Columbia University who has published detailed critiques of Gimbutas’s work, complains that Gimbutas and her devotees have promoted a romanticized “essentialist” view of women, defining them primarily in terms of fecundity and maternal gentleness. “You have people saying that Çatalhöyük was this peaceful, vegetarian society,” says Meskell. “It’s ludicrous. Neolithic settlements were not utopias in any sense at all.”

Despite their ire, both Starhawk and Eisler, along with many of their adherents, seem to be moving toward a position that accommodates, without exactly accepting, the new Goddess scholarship, much as they have done with respect to the new research about their movement’s beginnings. If the ancients did not literally worship a mother goddess, perhaps they worshipped her in a metaphoric way, by recognizing the special female capacity for bearing and nourishing new life-a capacity to which we might attach the word “goddess” even if prehistoric peoples did not. “Most of us look at the archaeological artifacts and images as a source of art, or beauty, or something to speculate about, because the images fit with our theory that the earth is sacred, and that there is a cycle of birth and growth and regeneration,” Starhawk told me. “I believe that there was an Old Religion that focused on the female, and that the culture was roughly egalitarian.”

Such faith may explain why Wicca is thriving despite all the things about it that look like hokum: it gives its practitioners a sense of connection to the natural world and of access to the sacred and beautiful within their own bodies. I am hardly the first to notice that Wicca bears a striking resemblance to another religion-one that also tells of a dying and rising god, that venerates a figure who is both virgin and mother, that keeps, in its own way, the seasonal “feasts of the Wheel,” that uses chalices and candles and sacred poetry in its rituals. Practicing Wicca is a way to have Christianity without, well, the burdens of Christianity.
“It has the advantages of both Catholicism and Unitarianism,” observes Allen Stairs, a philosophy professor at the University of Maryland who specializes in religion and magic. “Wicca allows one to wear one’s beliefs lightly but also to have a rich and imaginative religious life.”

“Diotima Mantineia,” age forty-eight, is the associate editor of the Web site The Witches’ Voice, found at witchvox.com (she would not divulge her real name, partly because she lives in a southern town that she believes is unfriendly to neopagans). She summed up her feelings on the debunking of the official Wiccan narrative this way:

“It doesn’t matter to me how old Wicca is, because when I connect with Deity as Lady and Lord, I know that I am connecting with something much larger and vaster than I can fully comprehend. The Creator of this universe has been manifesting to us for all time, in the forms of gods and goddesses that we can relate to. This personal connection with Deity is what is meaningful. For me, Wicca works to facilitate that connection, and that is what really matters.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The statement, “Wicca allows one to wear one’s beliefs lightly but also to have a rich and imaginative religious life” reminded me of this statement by C. S. Lewis:

One reason why many people find Creative Evolution [aka Life-Force philosophy] so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences.

When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest.

If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children.

The Life-Force is a sort of tame God.

You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you.

All the thrills of religion and none of the cost.

Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is a list of the relevant books:

Philip G. Davis, Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality

Ronald Hutton, The Triumph of the Moon

Robin Briggs, Witches and Neighbors

Oneness Pentecostalism's Philosophy

Part I:

Oneness Pentecostalism has made it a point to place a negative connotation on the doctrine of the triune nature of God; the Trinity. They claim that the doctrine is not Biblical but rather philosophical. Thus, they will quote, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). They claim that all of their doctrines come from a plain reading of the Bible and so they do not rely on man’s philosophy.

Here we will discuss an instance in which Oneness Pentecostals do indeed rely on philosophy, and this philosophy contradicts the Bible.

The Bible states, “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2). This is the NKJV rendering which includes a footnote at everlasting that reads “Lit. the days of eternity” which is exactly how the NASB: 1995 Update renders it.

Both Jews and Christians have understood this text as referring to the Messiah. Oneness Pentecostals believe in oneness, which is a form of modalism. They believe that God is not three persons who make up one God but rather that God takes different roles or modes; He is the Father, then the Son, then the Holy Spirit.

Thus, regarding the verse in Micah (among others that we will not be discussing here) the question posed to Oneness Pentecostals is, you claim that Jesus, the Son, is not eternal but this is exactly what the text is teaching us. This is one of the times when Oneness Pentecostalism does in fact concoct, as it were, a philosophic escape. Their response, to what is really a devastating blow to oneness-modalism philosophy, is that Jesus the Messiah was eternal in the mind of God, as a thought of God, as a plan of God. The problem is that this concept is not to be found anywhere in the whole of the Bible, not even a hint. It is indeed an unbiblical philosophic response to an argument and it lacks any hint whatsoever of hermeneutics.

Part II:

We now point out another instance in which Oneness Pentecostalism employs philosophical reasoning in order to deal with a text of scripture that is problematic to their doctrines.

John 3:16 states, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

In this case, Oneness Pentecostalism mocks Trinitarians as they sarcastically ask, “What kind of God would say, ‘I love them so much that I am going to send you to die for them.'” They can’t understand why Trinitarians would believe that God loved the world so much that He sent His Son to die for us. What possible response could we offer such a charge since that is precisely what the very Word of God states!

Oneness Pentecostals do not deny that the translation is accurate and so we must ask them what the verse could possibly mean according to their oneness doctrine. It would seem that if oneness doctrine were true the verse would read something like, “For God so loved the world that He gave Himself…” or maybe “For God so loved the world that He gave Himself in the mode (or manifestation) of His own only begotten Son, which is He Himself…”

The grammar is all too clear about the fact that there are two persons being referred to in the verse; God is referred to as He and His and God’s Son is referred to as Him. Two persons are referred to, one giving the other. John 3:16 is not awkward to Trinitarian doctrine but it is awkward to oneness doctrine and mocking the clear reading to scripture is no way to construct a doctrine.

Part III:

Jesus said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” Oneness Pentecostals rely quite heavily on this part of a verse in their attempts to substantiate oneness, or modalistic, theology. Yet, the simple context of Jesus’ statement, the simple reading of the text without preconceived notions, explains itself and paints a vivid picture of the circumstance that necessitated such a statement.

Jesus said:

“Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, so that where I am, you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know. Thomas said to Him, Lord, we do not know where You go, and how can we know the way? Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me.
If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also. And from now on you know Him and have seen Him. Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus said to him, Have I been with you such a long time and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The Words that I speak to you I do not speak of Myself, but the Father who dwells in Me, He does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the very works themselves” (John 14:1-11).

Firstly, note that Jesus is equating Himself to God, “You believe in God, believe also in Me…If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also…He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”
Also, far from being the Father incarnate Jesus clearly draws distinctions between Him and the Father-they are two persons, “My Father’s house…no one comes to the Father but by Me…known Me…known My Father also.”
Yet, He clearly draws likenesses-they are one God, “seen Me…seen the Father…I am in the Father and the Father in Me…the Father who dwells in Me…I am in the Father and the Father in Me.”
The Apostles have been walking with Jesus, living with Jesus, speaking to and listening to Jesus, and witnessing all that He did. Yet, still Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father, which to them, being Jews, simply meant reveal God to us. It is as if they are looking all around for God and Jesus is waving His arms and telling them, hey, guys look at me, you want to see God, here I am, don’t you get it?, “Have I been with you such a long time and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”

Thus, Jesus is not claiming to be the Father, He is claiming that to see Him is to see the Father because the Father is in Him and He is in the Father, “I am in the Father and the Father in Me…the Father who dwells in Me.

We should always let the clear teachings of scripture direct our doctrines and not preconceived notions that force the text to become twisted and turned into something that it cannot substantiate.

Answering Atheism – books, page 2 of 3

CHRISTIANITY
Christianity

Christian Apologetics

Bible

God – Theology

Problem of Evil – Theodicy

Jesus

Nephilim – Giants

Book of Enoch

Serpent Seed

Satanic Serpent & Dragon

Angels

Cherubim & Seraphim

Satan / Devil

Demons

Miracles

Inspirational

Unbelievers Compliment Christianity

Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars, etc.

Gospel of Judas

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

————-
ATHEISM
Atheism

New Atheists

Project-Answering Atheism

Richard Dawkins

Sam Harris

Christopher Hitchens

Dan Barker

Daniel Dennett

Bart Ehrman

Bill Maher

PZ Myers

Quentin Smith

Michael Shermer

John Loftus

Ricky Gervais

Raphael Lataster

Carl Sagan

Atheism’s Public Relations Problems

Atheist Bus Ads and Billboards

Atheist Child Rearing

Atheist Charity

American Atheists

American Humanist Association

The Skeptic Arena

ExChristian.Net

PositiveAtheism.org

Evilbible.com

Science Club of Long Island

Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

Capella’s Guide to Atheism

The BOBA Digest

————-
RELIGIONS
Judaism (Rabbinic, Messianic, etc.)

Baha’i

Islam

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Mormonism

Catholicism

Scientology – Dianetics – L. Ron Hubbard

Unitarian Universalism

Misc. Religions

————-
FRINGE-OLOGY
Transhumanism

UFOs and Aliens

Billy Meier

Whitley Strieber

Robert Temple-Sirius Mystery

Conspiracy theories, Illuminati, New World Order (NWO), etc.

Occult, Witchcraft, Magick, satanism, etc.

Satanic Crime

————-
SCIENCE
Science

Creation Science

Intelligent Design

Cosmology

Evolution

The Wedgie Document

————-
MOVIES & TV SHOWS

Movies

Alchemical Hollywood

Transhuman Hollywood

————-
MISC.
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

The Crusades

Morality / Ethics

Abortion

Rape

Meaning and Purpose

Homosexuality

Postgender Androgyny, Hermaphroditism & Beyond

Debates

Pop Culture and Politics

————-
RESOURCES
Fitness

Audio

Books

TFT essay “Books”

Debate

Links

Video

Find it Fast – Fast Facts

Visuals – Illustrations and Photos

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PZ Myers – Transubstantiating from Scientist to New Atheist Activist

FYI: This is the other essay that I wrote before PZ Myers – The Desecration Delusion and in relation to PZ Myers Complements Christianity, but in typical dyslexic (and procrastinative) form am posting now – after the fact, and after the act.

Prof. PZ Myers made the point that “When the Buddhas of Bamyan were dynamited, it wasn’t an atheist who lit the fuse…We aren’t out to eradicate the world of ideas or obliterate the vestiges of our religious history in art and architecture.” I wonder what he means by “We”? Of course, it could be pointed out that, to name one such example, from 1917 to 1969, the Communists destroyed 41,000 of Russia’s 48,000 churches. But my point in mentioning his statements is that I infer that he is stating that there was something wrong with destroying the statues. He appears to think that it is wrong to defame other people’s objects of worship.

buddhas1-5203890buddhas2-2691151

With this in mind, we come to Prof. PZ Myers’ statements, which he posted as “IT’S A FRACKIN’ CRACKER!” about a college student who, as Prof. PZ Myers did not bother pointing out, walked away from a Roman Catholic Mass with a consecrated communion wafer, or Eucharist as a protest against student fees for religious services. Prof. PZ Myers refers to the Eucharist as, “a god****ed cracker.” (I placed asterisks here and will do so again below for the sake of congeniality).

Prof. PZ Myers wrote:

“There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so god****ed stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion…He [the student] walked off with a cracker that was put in his mouth, and people in the church fought with him to get it back. It is just a cracker! Catholics worldwide became furious. Would you believe this isn’t hyperbole? People around the world are actually extremely angry about this – [the student] has been sent death threats over his cracker. Those are just kooks, you might say…Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane. These people are demented ****wits…It is a culture of deluded lunatics calling the shots and making human beings dance to their mythical bunkum.”

Of interest may be that Prof. PZ Myers ripped a page out of a Bible (see here).
Allow me to agree at this point that “Crazy Christian fanatics” are contradicting the tenets of their faith for making death threats against the student. Although, the fact of this contradiction calls into question whether they can logically be referred to as “Christian.” Moreover, it is sad but true that there are these sorts of fanatics at the bottom of every worldview. I do not know any anti-atheism blogger who have not experienced harassment of all sorts from various kinds of cyber-hacking to death threats and threats of violence against spouses and even children. This proves that this is not a Christian issue nor a “religion” issue but an issue of prejudice in all of its facets.

He continues thusly:

“So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?… if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare…will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart.”

At this point I would like to state that I, being a Christian who partakes in communion, do not believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. One may not be able to talk the faithful out of such doctrines although Prof. PZ Myers’ childish and malicious statements and plans are less likely to succeed than other courses of action. In fact, I have devoted a blog to this specific topic where I deal with the issue from the stand point of logic, history and biblical statements. I have done this with regards to Roman Catholicism’s Doctrine of Eucharist, Roman Catholic Maryology and Roman Catholicism’s Doctrine of Purgatory. There are ways to handle these issues: death threats are not the way and neither are childish and malicious plans to insult people even further.

After his own malicious contribution to the Eucharist fiasco, Prof. PZ Myers further wrote the following:

“So far today, I have received 39 pieces of personal hate mail of varying degrees of literacy, all because I was rude to a cracker. Four of them have included death threats, a personal one day record. Thirty-four of them have demanded that I be fired. Twenty-five of them have told me to desecrate a copy of the Koran, instead, or in some similar way offend Muslims, because – in a multiplicity of ironic cluelessness – apparently only some religious icons must be protected, and I would only offend Catholics because they are all so nice that none of them would wish me harm. I even have one email that says I should be fired, that the author would like to kill me, and that I only criticize because Catholics are so gentle and kind.”

He then asks his screeching monkeys to write the President of the University of Minnesota in order to assure him that Prof. PZ Myers is not so bad after all.Can Prof. PZ Myers really be so clueless? I find myself forced to answer in the affirmative. Let us review his statements:”I have received 39 pieces of personal hate mail”

He had previously stated that “Catholics worldwide became furious,” statistically speaking if “Catholics worldwide became furious” and he got 39 pieces of mail we are talking about fractions of a fraction of a fraction of a miniscule fraction of “Catholics worldwide.”

“because I was rude to a cracker”
Simply read his original statements and it will become self-evident that this was not about being rude to a cracker but about being foul and malicious.

“Four of them have included death threats”
Unquestionably condemnable and contradictory to Christian tenets. Note that I can say that based on absolute Christian morality. But what if an atheist made death threats and even, God forbid, carry them out? On what basis would another atheist condemn their actions? If you know atheism then you know that the answer is personal preference or arguments from outrage. Dennis Prager has rightly stated, “Unhappy, let alone angry, religious people provide more persuasive arguments for atheism and secularism than do all the arguments of atheists.”

“Thirty-four of them have demanded that I be fired.”
What is wrong with people demanded that he be fired? The fact is that Prof. PZ Myers cannot take it yet, he can dish it out. With regards to science teachers and state science standards that do not infer atheism from biology Prof. PZ Myers demanded “the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.”

“Twenty-five of them have told me to desecrate a copy of the Koran, instead, or in some similar way offend Muslims, because – in a multiplicity of ironic cluelessness – apparently only some religious icons must be protected.”
I also thought that it would be a fascinating experiment to see if Prof. PZ Myers had the chutzpa to desecrate a copy of the Koran (aka “Qur’an”) but not, as he erroneously thinks, because only some religious icons must be protected. Rather, because he is obviously being selective. And no, he did not answer as to why he will not desecrate a Koran.

Oh, but he did explain that Catholics are not “all so nice that none of them would wish me harm” because he received a grand total of four death threats out of all “Catholics worldwide” who “became furious.” This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Catholics are so nice that they do not wish him harm.” Ok, we could not say “all so nice that none of them would wish me harm” because “all” means “all” and “none” means “none.” Thus, Prof. PZ Myers would have to state, “all Catholics are not so nice after all and my proof is that out of all the furious Catholics worldwide a grand total of four of them are not so nice.” Of course, this presupposes that the writers were Catholics, or were Christians, or were theists at all. Prof. PZ Myers does not know who they were and I do not either however, I do have an anti-atheism blogger friend who had many, many problems with certain personages claiming to be him while stirring up a ruckus on various websites.

Lastly, we come to a very telling statement that came at the end of his please woo the President post:

“…unlike the religious screeds I’m seeing, you take the time to proofread and send him something that at least looks like a high school graduate wrote it, which will put you way above the level of the hate mail. Be polite and rational, too!”

The fact that he has to make this statement tells you something, tells you quite a bit, in fact. He knows that his monkeys are rabid and as willing to express their prejudice as maliciously and he and so he attempts to pull their reins. Prof. Richard Dawkins also got into the act by begging his readers to Please “WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS“:

“Please take care to write in a good, literate, adult style, in order to increase the contrast between the letters of support and the incoherent, juvenile flaming that will doubtless characterise the letters from the Catholics.”

This is iron sharpening irony. Both of these Profs know that their readership consists, to some large extent, of rabid expressers of malice. Thus, they both have to beg their readers to not behave, or write, as they generally do.

dawkin-1771064
Yet, the ultimate irony is that they are begging their readers, and note this carefully, not to, here it is, not to write as Prof. PZ Myers and Prof. Richard Dawkins are infamous for doing. They have become celebrities, made quite a few shekels and based entire books and lectures on expressing screed, hate, being impolite, irrational, in a non-adult style, incoherent, and juvenile. When this is your modis operandi it only encourages your admirers to act likewise and, sadly, also encourages those who disagree with you to do likewise (at least a statistically insignificant minority of them).