Month: July 2016

We continue considering that Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne deny free will: find the entire series here.

What could be the parting salvo of Coyne’s Atheistic, materialistic, mechanistic, reductionistic worldview? With a Carl Saganesque cosmos sized non-sequitur:
…our evolved brains…free choice, and even the idea of “me” are but convincing illusions fashioned by natural selection. Further, by losing free will we gain empathy, for we realize that in the end all of us are victims of circumstance — of the genes we’re bequeathed and the environments we encounter. With that under our belts, we can go about building a kinder world. Sure sounds nice but the non-sequitur is that there is nothing in his view that leads, logically or biologically, to that conclusion as one could just as easily state:

…our evolved brains…free choice, and even the idea of “me” are but convincing illusions fashioned by natural selection. Further, by losing free will we lose empathy, for we realize that in the end all of us are victims of circumstance — of the genes we’re bequeathed and the environments we encounter. With that under our belts, we can go about building iron fisted empires and realize that we are not responsible even for our own actions as they are determined.

You see, he also wrote:
…the words and deeds of other people are simply environmental influences that can affect our brain molecules. That’s how love begins. Why not “That’s how love ends”? Perhaps, Sam Harris could write a book titled, “The End of Love,” Richard Dawkins, “The Love Delusion,” etc. True love requires choice but on the Atheist view, “What’s love got to do with it?” And “What is love?” No, it is not, “Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more.” Here are some examples of Atheists in love (or, on love):

Isaac Asimov, “Testicular hormones are why I love you.”

 
Richard Dawkins reduced love to a “manifestation of brain stuff.”
 
Michael Ruse noted, “If all future relationships could be done purely on a cost-benefit analysis, then we would probably be better off without morality. Why fall on a grenade to save your fellows when it hardly pays off for you?”
 
[see Did Isaac Asimov “Tell me why”?] But why this somewhat of an aside from Coyne? Because the issue of free will is inexorably tied to the issue of ethics. As usual, Atheists follow the yellow brick road down which Darwinism takes them. Once they get far enough, they find that they can no longer leave that broad road because they turn it into more than a theory that is supposed to be about biology. Many Atheists turn Darwinism and science in general into worldviews. Yet, when they see just where Darwinism leads they want to stay on the road while also wanting to make a bit of a U-turn but they do not and cannot and so they end up committing non-sequiturs, category mistakes and basically the stuff of which cognitive dissonance is made.

In other words, they want to hold to Atheism, Darwinism, reductionism, materialism, mechanism (call it what you will), they see the dark bottomless pit into which it leads and so they toss out some comment or another about getting along despite.

Now to some particular statements by Sam Harris from his article Free Will (And Why You Still Don’t Have It):
…you tend to feel that you are the source of your own thoughts and actions. You decide what to do and not to do. You seem to be an agent acting of your own free will. The problem, however, is that this point of view cannot be reconciled with what we know about the human brain.
Then he offer the same scientific evidence as Jerry Coyne about portions of the brain lighting up before we are aware of making decisions, etc. Fortunately for Harris, he is involved in a science which consists of aspect that are soft enough to be malleable and which he can thus twist towards his biased ends. For example, via neuroscience we can tell when someone is dreaming but we cannot tell what the dream is. Also, there is much interpretation in neuroscience such as: Portion X of the brain lights up when… Portion X pertains to… Therefore, the lighting up means that…

It is as William M. Briggs notes whilst reviewing Sam Harris’ research “The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief” (which was also reviewed by this Examiner here):

Ignore religion and answer this: do the brains of the affronted and angry operate differently in those heightened states of emotion than in those who are placid, smug, or contented?
Could it not be that the “emotion centers” of the brain light up for Christians in this experiment not because they are Christians but because they have just been repeatedly poked by a sharp rhetorical stick?
The “sharp rhetorical stick” refers to the questions posed during Harris’ pseudo-experiment.

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #SamHarris, #JerryCoyne, #Atheism
Facebook: #SamHarris, #JerryCoyne, #Atheism

To the issue of the lines not being genetic, Enterthe5t4rz replied thusly:

Its about genetics, which is why the GENtiles were the ones who had the snake tiles and corrupted DNA and the Jews maintained the pure bloodline of Jesus. It’s why the genetic reproductive sin had a genetic reproductive punishment. Child bearing and birth pains. Snake had to go on his WOMB and eat dust.

My reply was:

Friend, I am unsure to what you are referring to by “snake tiles” but it is reading into the text to assert that “the Jews maintained the pure bloodline of Jesus” due to Gentiles carrying Satanic genetics. Eve’s curse is directly related to the little we are told about her: she is the mother of all living and so in that capacity she would suffer pain, or increased pain, in childbirth. Also, the womb is inside of the body so the serpent was to go on its belly and eat dust which is a reference, or so it seems to me, to going after humans as there is a correlation between the term for dust or earth and Adam and thus humans.

The very odd reply, which is sadly typical Enterthe5t4rz’s views, was:

Scales fell from Saul’s eyes and he could see. These were the serpent scales. The hexagons, which just so happens to be the shape of snake skin, the cross section of the rods and cones of our eyes and the cross section of the lens of your eye. These were the serpent scales that fell from Saul’s eyes. Jesus removed the curse.

My reply:

Friend, I am flummoxed as I am unsure as to how we go from something like scales falling from his eyes to these actually being scales, which you know were hexagons (and there is no such thing as “the shape of snake skin” as snake skin, specifically the scales, come in various shapes depending on the sort of snake), that it has anything to do with cross sections of the rods, cones, lens etc. The Bible seems to be telling us not much more than what fell from his eyes was the same thing you pick or wash from your eyes every single morning (just perhaps much more of it such as happens to us when we get an eye infection but that is just a guess). FYI: KJV, WEB “AS IT HAD BEEN scales” NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET, RSV, HNV “SOMETHING LIKE scales”

ASV, YLT, DBY “there fell from his eyes AS IT WERE scales”

Enterthe5t4rz’s claim that God’s throne in our brain (if we turn it upside down and cut off the brainstem)

and that thus, God’s throne looks like a gamer’s bean bag

.

The reply simply ignored my evidence in the form of quotations and citations and stated:

Its simple. scales are hexagons. They are in your rods and cones as well as your lens. It surrounds the world, just as it does in real life. The SAME HEXAGONS are in the earth formations and in the dome firmament.

It may be simple but I do not know to what it refers:

So you are referring to hexagonal scales on a snake’s skin which are rods, cones and lenses in our eye which also surround the world and are in earth formations and in the dome firmament? Friend, But friend, I will back up so as to make sure that I understand rather than just saying something like that since I do not understand what you mean then you are mistaken. As I noted, some snake’s scales are hexagons and some are not: this is a simple biological fact. Yet, regardless, what does the shape of (some) scales have to do with Paul and the serpent seed theory?

They reply was:

The base shape of the snake scales are hexagons. The same hexagon on the north pole of Saturn, which is the god Chronos, SINE wave, or TIME. We got locked in the time dimension when Eve sinned. The scale pattern is all around us. The story of Saul was illustrating this scale sickness we have.

As you can tell, this person has clearly gone off the deep end and then went down a bottomless pit. It is tragically sad but this is actually well in keeping with most of that which he states in videos and writing.

Well, friend, it is as simple as this: the Bible’s actual statement is that “there fell from his eyes something like scales.” You ignore that the Bible specifies that they were not scales but “as it had been,” “something like,” “as it were scales” and you claim that the Bible’s statement means that they were snake’s scales, which have something to do with Saturn’s pole, that the planet or the pole or the hexagon or something is the god Chronos and that this means that we got locked in the time dimension when Eve sinned. Clearly, you are making a Tower of Babel out of a grain of sand which is not even a grain of sand but something like a grain of sand.

But please focus on this one issue: you claim that Eve’s sin caused us to get “locked in the time dimension” which, of course, means that we got locked in post fall. Now, please consider the clearly stated words of the Bible. The fall occurs in Genesis 3 so let us look at Genesis 1 which refers to: “the beginning” which is a time stamp. “evening and the morning” is referred to six times which is a time stamp, a way to mark the passage of time. The “lights in the firmament” were “to divide the day from the night” and be “signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years” which are to mark the passage of time. “two great lights…to rule the day…to rule the night” which are to mark the passage of time. “to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness” to mark the passage of time.

“Be fruitful, and multiply” which required a movement in time from copulation to the period of pregnancy to giving birth.

Also, the fact that the historical record of Genesis is sequential means that time is passing. We could do the same with chapter 2. In short, you simply must put aside your personal views on the time dimension and humble yourself before God’s word which states that God established the time dimension before the fall.

In the next segment, we will consider Cain as serpent seed of Satan with Enterthe5t4rz.

For my entire serpent seed of Satan section see here.

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Enterthe5t4rz, #Serpentseedine, #Bible
Facebook: #Enterthe5t4rz, #Serpentseedine, #Bible

Enterthe5t4rz also wrote:

If you reject the serpent seed, you reject the struggle between good and evil and why Jesus had to spill his blood. In order for a person to make a proper judgement on this topic, they need to see the 4 videos I’ve uploaded around this one. The bible is CLEAR. Only one verse challenges the doctrine and I address this seeming contradiction. The punishment fit the crime. Sexual, reproductive sin equals sexual reproductive punishment. CHILD BEARING.
You see, religious programming has hidden the truth from you. And, you wield their weapon of choice. To discredit the source, rather than address the issues raised.

Here is my reply:

Friend, I am saddened to see that you have obviously not read the article I wrote to which I referred you, the one published in a Christian apologetics journal (search online for “Serpent Seed of Satan article in a Christian Apologetics Journal”). If you read it you would see how I back up my statement that the two lines are not based on genetics but on actions. This is what the Bible teaches and this is proof that I do not reject the struggle between good and evil. You would also know that the Bible tell us just how “The punishment fit the crime” and that it was not “Sexual, reproductive sin equals sexual reproductive punishment. CHILD BEARING.” Rather, the Bible shows us that what we are told about Adam and Eve is directly related to their curses: pre fall he was to keep the garden but post fall he had to work the land, pre fall she was to be the mother of all living but post fall she had to experience pain (or increased pain) in childbirth.

I having written 48 articles plus the one published in a journal on the serpent seed theory from various angles and dealing with the views on the issue by proponents on the theory who have been around for much longer than you or I. Thus, you simply cannot tell me that I have sought to “discredit the source, rather than address the issues raised” as I have addressed very many issue raised relating to this subject. Just because I oppose a view that I have researched very, very carefully does not mean that I am a victim of religious programming. That is just a cheap manner whereby to seek to shrug off my statements while ignoring my published research.

Enterthe5t4rz’s reply was:

I know what you are saying ad it is no different than the religious paradigm. I challenge that based on the scriptures

Mine was:

Friend, you only sort of “challenge that based on the scriptures” as you also added lots of picking and choosing out of numerous definitions for any given root word. Also, referring to the shape of snake skins, Saturn, Chronos, etc. is not biblical. If you stick strictly to the text of the Bible you will find that serpent seed theory much more difficult and actually impossible to defend. I do not reject is because I do not like it, I reject it because I looked up every text to which serpent seed theorists point me (and then some) and they simply do not say what I am told they say.

Enterthe5t4rz’s claim that God’s throne in our brain (if we turn it upside down and cut off the brainstem)

and that thus, God’s throne looks like a gamer’s bean bag

.

Enterthe5t4rz noted:

It’s actually very easy to prove. The ONLY scripture that seems to contradicts it is Genesis 4:1. And I Have addressed that scripture in another video.

Here is what I stated:

Well friend, it seems to me that, for example, if I invent a theory that the Bible does not teach such as that ancient aliens from Alpha Centauri created life on Earth you I could not then legitimately claim that this is actually very easy to prove. The ONLY scripture that seems to contradict it is Genesis 1:1. And I Have addressed that scripture by pointing out that when the Bible says “God” it really means aliens from Alpha Centauri. It is not up to the Bible to disprove it and not even up to you to use not use the Bible to prove it, as that often leads to reading into text, but to see if that is what the Bible teaches on its own. What you will find is that in every case where we are supposed to conclude serpent seed you will find that the text does not speak of genetics but of actions.

For example, in the relevant parables of Jesus (as you can see from my article) or very specifically 1 John 3 tells us very clearly to not be like “Cain, who was of that wicked one” but how was he “of that wicked one” by genetics? Because that wicked was his dad? No, rather because Cain “slew his brother” and then we are even told why he slew him “And wherefore slew he him?” because he was Satan’s son who carried his satanic genetics? No, “Because HIS OWN WORKS were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” It is about actions and not genetics.

His reply was simply:

Alpha Centauri?

Since I do not know what he is asking for, I replied with:

Alpha Centauri?

In the next segment, we will consider Enterthe5t4rz’s claim that we can draw closer to Yeshua via serpent seedine of Satan theory.

For my entire serpent seed of Satan section see here.

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Enterthe5t4rz, #Serpentseedine, #Bible
Facebook: #Enterthe5t4rz, #Serpentseedine, #Bible

If, when speaking on Christianity and the Bible Prof. Richard Dawkins is speaking on those religious subjects with which he is well acquainted one can only wonder what his statements would be if he spoke outside of his scope of knowledge. We should mention that there is something to be said about reserving our strongest of opinions for subjects with which we are well versed. However, this can also become as excuse for lazy, if not complete lack of, scholarship. On p. 254 of The God Delusion Prof. Richard Dawkins provides an asterisk at the end of a paragraph which leads to the following statement “You may not know the meaning of ‘tribulation saints’ in this sentence. Don’t bother: you have better things to do.” This should be read as “The less you know about what I’m criticizing the easier it is for me to lead you around.” Prof. Richard Dawkins wastes a lot of time, not to mention ink and trees in the form of paper, arguing against caricatures of religion, Christianity and the Bible. We do not state this because he has obviously not read all religious literature that mankind has produced nor because he has not read some of the basic classics in the field. Interestingly, there are various people who are willing to come to the defense of Prof. Richard Dawkins’ ignorance. The point is not that Prof. Richard Dawkins is somehow required to know something but that he should be well versed in that which he is criticizing. His defenders not only excuse his ignorance but furthermore actually encourage ignorance. One such example is Edmund Standing who is supposed to be an educator who holds a BA in Theology and Religious Studies and an MA in Critical and Cultural Theory:

“Must Dawkins and others undertake an arduous trawling through centuries of theological waffle in order to reject religious belief? Absolutely not…Theologians can continue to write endless books and articles using dense and ‘learned’ tones, but there really is no need for atheists to read them as they all boil down to the same ultimate beliefs, beliefs that atheists, quite rightly in my view, reject on the basis that they do not have intellectual or moral credibility.”1

Consider the following example which serves to demonstrate that Prof. Richard Dawkins not only lacks knowledge of religious minutia, something for which we do not criticize him, but lacks basic information. Prof. Richard Dawkins wrote, “three ‘great’ monotheistic religions (four if you count Mormonism).”2 Many would find this statement odd. The three religions being Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Some would categorize Mormonism as a Christian denomination which would not necessitate referring to them as a fourth religion. Others would categorize Mormonism as a pseudo-Christian group in which case they may be said to be their own religion and hence a fourth. Yet, and this is our point in referring to Prof. Richard Dawkins’ lack of basic information: Mormonism is not monotheistic, they are polytheistic or, more precisely, henotheistic (two essays on this topic are found here and here). Therefore, even if there are counted as an independent religion, they ought not be counted as a monotheistic religion.

Prof. Richard Dawkins has already defended himself against the charges of lazy scholarship. In fact, The God Delusion is virtually a very large bibliography and anytime that Prof. Richard Dawkins is speaking of that which he claims to know well he is actually citing the writings of other who not only selectively quote the Bible but tell Prof. Richard Dawkins what to think about it. Below we provide the specific example of Prof. Richard Dawkins’ adoration of one such infallible interpreter-the anesthesiologist Prof. John Hartung. Prof. Richard Dawkins makes it clear that he is relying upon “Hartung’s interpretation of the Bible” (let us keep in mind that all interpretations are not created equal and hermeneutical techniques in general). We dare state that perhaps, like Mr. O’Casey, Prof. Richard Dawkins appears to be more concerned with poetry than logic; more with shoulder-heaving laughter than with back-bending research. Or perhaps more concerned with voluptuous besmirchments than logic; more with shoulder-heaving cynicism, pessimism and attacking straw men than with back-bending research. In fact, and upon further research, Prof. Richard Dawkins may have discovered that Mr. O’Casey referred to atheists as “those who, trying to get rid of God, plant Him more firmly on His throne.”3

Before embarking upon a survey of Prof. Richard Dawkins’ various example of the Bible’s immorality please keep in mind constantly that he ends up justifying them. No, we do not mean that he ends up justifying his criticisms. He justifies the very actions that he attempts to discredit as immoral-as we shall see below, after the conclusion of our survey.

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

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

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

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

“I’m an atheist because I think of the universe as a natural, material system… I’m perfectly sincere and definite

in my belief that there is no God

”
—Philosopher Crispin Sartwell

When your first sentences is in error there may not be much hope for the rest of the article and this one notes that while “Religious beliefs are remarkably various…sometimes it can seem that there is only one way to be an atheist: asserting, on the basis of reasoned argument, that belief in God is irrational.”
The article in view is Crispin Sartwell’s “Irrational Atheism – Not believing in God isn’t always based on reasoned arguments—and that’s okay,” The Atlantic, October 11, 2014 AD; God help us, he teaches philosophy at Dickinson College.
There are two main problems here actually 1) it is well known to anyone who touched upon this topic that there are sects or denominations of Atheism (see here) and 2) it is presupposed that Atheists conclude that “belief in God is irrational” “on the basis of reasoned argument” when there are very many reasons for coming to some such conclusion; I chronicled some of these within this video:

It is also asserted that “The aging ‘new atheists’…pit reason against faith, science against superstition, and declare for reason and science” when it is just as true that they pit faith in Atheism (faitheism) against faith in God, arguments from authority against superstition, and declare emotive reactions and pseudo-scientific scientism.

The article’s second paragraph is even worse and yet, extremely important and elucidative of the issue:

It pictures the universe as a natural system, a system not guided by intelligent design and not traversed by spirits; a universe that can be explained by science, because it consists of material objects operating according to physical laws. In this sense, atheism embodies a whole picture of the world, offering explanations about its most general organization to the character of individual events.

It would be a non-sequitur to conclude that the natural or material is all that exists just because the universe is a natural system. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of and misuse of science to observe that the universe is a natural system and merely assert that ergo it is not guided by intelligent design and not traversed by spirits to which, and this is the key, science has no access. Science is an intelligently designed tool that performs the function of only exploring the material realm and it can thus not be employed towards the desired end that there is no non-physical existence.

Consider concluding that there is no such thing as the cell as a result of exploring the heavens with a telescope. Conversely, consider concluding that there are no celestial bodies as a result of exploring biological specimens with a microscope. In this way, you get the picture of the folly of using the wrong tool for the wrong job and thus, coming to wrong conclusions. When an Atheist claims that “belief in God is irrational” because there is no scientific evidence for God, you know that they know not of what they speak.

The very premise upon which science was based, its method and fields, is that a rational being (the God of the Bible) created a rational creation which functions upon a rational interaction of cause and effect and populated it with rational beings who could therefore rationally discern the material creation.

Now, the article goes on to make a very, very important point which is:

Ironically, this is similar to the totalizing worldview of religion—neither can be shown to be true or false by science, or indeed by any rational technique. Whether theistic or atheistic, they are all matters of faith, stances taken up by tiny creatures in an infinitely rich environment.

Let us dichotomized the claim that “neither can be shown to be true or false” 1) “by science, or indeed” 2) “by any rational technique.” 1) is accurate as I just elucidated however, 2) is an assertion and nothing more. Rational merely refers to being “based on or in accordance with reason or logic” and since reason or logic are not restricted to the observable material realm, they have greater reach.

Romans 1 notes:

…that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things…changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

One of the most tragic statements in the article is Crispin Sartwell’s declaration that “I’m an atheist because I think of the universe as a natural, material system.” By now, you realize what an utter non-sequitur it is to claim that the material realm is a material realm therefore, there is no non-material realm.

Sartwell goes on to state “I think of it, on the basis of my own extremely limited experience, as an infinitely replete but morally indifferent thing” whatever that means. He then notes that “It isn’t bent on saving me, or damning me” which is all but irrelevant and something that no one has ever claimed. He also states that “It just is” which is, actually, the ultimate Atheist answer to any and every question that humanity has ever considered transcendently meaningful.
He follows upon this by becoming emotive rather than rational, “I find comfort in that, as well as pain; wonder as well as loathing. That’s my experience, and my atheism is a reflection of that experience. But it’s not an argument; it’s an interpretation.”

He then states “I have taken a leap of atheist faith. There is more than one way to skin a god. And there are many ways to be an atheist” and from the above considered disaster of attempted reason, he goes on to encourage Atheist to embrace “Irrational Atheism” as “Not believing in God isn’t always based on reasoned arguments—and that’s okay.” Atheism is, primarily, an anti-Christian support group which, statistically, consists of young, White, males, see here.
Atheists, particularly the “New Atheists” realized that they did not need to do much in the way of science or logic but merely had to appeal to youngsters who are already naturally rebellious. For example, they go to colleges where 1) youngsters have just gotten far enough away from mommy’s apron strings to feel a sense of freedom, 2) they are rebelling against daddy’s authority, 3) their hormones are raging and they are in a coed environment, 4) they take classes from liberal Pagans who view students as a captive audience whom they impress with their arguments from authority and along come the Atheists to encourage them to rebel against the ultimate daddy figure, God, and tell them that there are no absolute morality and that their ultimate purpose is to reproduce their DNA: you do the math—actually, you do not have to because Atheist already have.

Thus, merely by labeling oneself an “Atheist” one can instantly assume and assert that they are smarter than the room; they need do no more than childishly make fun of people whilst elbowing their buddies in the ribs.

In the next section, we will consider Crispin Sartwell’s encouragement to embrace “Irrational Atheism” and with that, Atheists further become caricatures of themselves.

One of the great oddities with regards to issues pertaining to Atheism is the ongoing debates about the definition of the term “Atheism” (and thus, “Atheist” as well).

Often, individual Atheists will concoct their own definitions, demand that the definition applies to all Atheists and authoritatively demand that their definition be adhered to as the only true one.

Such is the case with the popular definition of Atheism as a mere lack of belief in god(s). Well, the Atheist author of that most unscholarly website EvilBible (see here) wrote that Atheists who define “Atheism” as such are a “few morons” who are “so damn stupid” for doing so.

Then there are Atheists such as Michael Newdow who claims that Atheism is a religion (see video here; he is the Atheist activist known for attempting to have “In God We Trust” removed from US currency).

Of course, the primary definition or rather, identification of “Atheism” is that it is an anti-Christian support group.

For details on such matters see the following:
History of Atheism

Definition of “Atheism”

Variations of Atheism

Atheisms Sects

Herein we seek to add to understanding the definition of Atheism by appealing to online, and therefore readily accessible, definitions.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary:
the belief that God does not exist

Merriam-Webster on Atheism:
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
   b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Merriam-Webster on Atheist
one who believes that there is no deity

Dictionary.Reference on Atheism: based on the Random House Dictionary:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Dictionary.Reference on Atheist:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The Free Dictionary quoting The American Heritage Dictionary:

The Free Dictionary also quotes Ologies & -Isms:
the absolute denial of the existence of God or any other gods.

The Free Dictionary also provides a definition based on Princeton University:
Noun 1. atheism – the doctrine or belief that there is no God

The Free Dictionary also quotes Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary:
the belief that there is no God

The fascinating thing to note is that these definitions are contradictory to the trendy definition of pop-Atheism which claims that Atheism is merely a lack of belief in god(s) and does not positively assert God’s non-existence.
Yet, academic scholarly sources do, indeed, define Atheism as such an assertion as the definitions make is clear that, to review, Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, the doctrine that there is no deity, one who believes that there is no deity, the doctrine or belief that there is no God, a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings, Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods, The doctrine that there is no God or gods, the absolute denial of the existence of God or any other gods, the doctrine or belief that there is no God, the belief that there is no God.

The issue is that (as some definitions above had as an option) for example, Dictionary.Reference also provides the World English Dictionary definition which is “a person who does not believe in God or gods.” Not believing in God is not the same as positively asserting that God does not exist.

The assertion which is clearly stated within academic scholarly definitions means that Atheism is the position of claiming to know that God does not exist. The problem is threefold: 1) On this issue, Atheists prefer to run away from academic scholarly definitions and invent their own (or, appeal to weak aka negative aka implicit atheism). 2) The academic scholarly definitions require that Atheists provide evidence so as to prove that God does not exist.

3) Such proof would require Atheists to be omniscient (possessing all knowledge) but since omniscience is a characteristic of deity (it would identify one as a deity) then someone who is omniscient could not prove that God does not exist as via the omniscient claim, they would actually prove the existence of God namely, themselves as they are exercising a characteristic of God.

Encyclopedia Judaica 15:1244,

In the Bible there is no text unanimously understood to affirm explicitly the eternity or non-abrogability of the Torah; However, many laws of the Torah are accompanied by phrases such as, ‘an everlasting injunction through your generations’ (Lev. 3:17, et al.)_.the Rabbis taught that the Torah would continue to exist in the world to come (e.g. Eccles. R. 2:1), although some of them were of the opinion that innovations would be made in the messianic era (e.g. Gen. R. 98:9; Lev. R. 9:7)_.
[Saadiah Gaon] interpreted the verse, ‘remember ye the Torah of Moses_behold, I will send you Elijah_’ (Mal. 3:22-23), as teaching that the Torah will hold valid until the prophet Elijah returns to herald the resurrection (Beliefs and Opinions 3:7).

“Arrogability” refers to abolishing by formal means; a formal annulment.

From the Talmud:There is a statement made in the Talmud-Makkot 23b-24a that we paraphrase here:

613 commandments were transmitted to Moses on Mount Siani (365 negative or prohibitions and 248 positive or injunctions) After Moses, David came and reduced the 613 commandments to 11, (Psalm 15:1-5). Then Isaiah came and reduced the commandments to 6, (Isaiah 33:15). The Micah came and reduced them to 3, (Micah 6:8). Then Isaiah came again and reduced them to 2, (Isaiah 56:1). Amos came and reduced them to 1, (Amos 5:4). Habakkuk came and also reduced them to 1, (Habakkuk 2:4). This one commandment is, “The righteous shall live according to his faith.”

Interestingly enough, Rabbis Saul of Tarsus aka the Apostle Paul, being well trained in the ancient Jewish traditions, agrees with this ancient teaching when he states,

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith” (Romans 1:16-17).

Talmud-Hagigah 5b on Jeremiah 13:17 refers to “the pride of Israel, which is why the Torah will be taken away from them and given to the Gentile nations.”

Talmud-Sanhedrin 90a,

R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan’s name: In every matter, if a prophet tells you to transgress the commandments of the Torah, obey him,(1) with the exception of idolatry: should he even cause the sun to stand still in the middle of the heavens for you [as proof of divine inspiration], do not hearken to him.

Footnote: (1) E.g., as in the case of Elijah, who ordered sacrifices to be offered on Mount Carmel.

Talmud-Megillah 70d,

Rabbi Yochanan said, ‘The Prophets and the Writings will be annulled in the future.’ Why? For it is written ‘With a great voice, and it shall not cease.’ (Deuteronomy 5:19) R. Simeon ben Lekish said, ‘Even the Scroll of Esther and the oral laws will not be annulled in the future for it is said, ‘With a great voice, and it shall not cease.” Elsewhere it is said, ‘Nor the memorial of them perish from their seed.’ (Esther 9:8)

Talmud-Sanhedrin 98b,

What is his [the Messiah’s] name? The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come.(1)_The Rabbis said: His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isa LIII,4].

Footnote: (1) “That he might receive the Torah.”

Regarding Eckankar’s Background:

From J. Denosky, “PaulTwitchell Founder of Eckankar: The Ancient Science of Soul Travel,” OM-GURU Saints, Teachers, and Seekers in the Indian Tradition (copyright 1999-2009 J. Denosky. All Rights Reserved):

Paul Twitchell…was interested in Scientology, Yogananda’s Self Realization Fellowship, Theosophy, the New Thought movement, and the Radha Soamis (a group that most closely resembles the mainstream Sikh tradition of Northwestern India)…

Eckankar resembles most closely the Radha Soami tradition espoused by Kirpal Singh…This tradition is sometimes called “neo-Sikhism” because it rejects the declaration by Gobind Singh, the 10th Sikh guru, who proclaimed that he was the last Sikh guru…The Radha Soamis, however, have rejected this approach and continue to have a lineage of living gurus…

Eckankar’s English names for the various planes of existence (Physical, Astral, Causal, etc.) borrow heavily from a similar cosmology described in the Theosophical tradition. However, the corresponding Sanskrit-Hindi names for these worlds are very close or identical to the names used in the Radha Soami writings…

Paul Twitchell’s Eckankar has changed in various ways since his death. For instance, recently it has taken on more of a Christian orientation…

Paul has been criticized for his plagiarism. He copied sections of text almost verbatim from such popular spiritual authors as Julian P. Johnson, H.P Blavatsky, Inayat Khan, Lama Govinda, Walter Russell, and Shiv Dayal Singh without citing them. This intellectual property problem may explain why some of Paul’s earlier books are no longer in print…

For a time, Paul was successful in hiding his connection to the Radha Soamis in order to dissociate himself from the authority structure of that tradition. However, historians of religion have made a strong case that Eckankar was in fact based on this preexisting Indian tradition, which was combined with a variety of adaptations that Paul thought suited Western religious seekers.

‹ ECKANKAR, Religion of the Light and Sound of God, part 3 up