Month: December 2016

Quotes to Note:The poster is presented in a webpage that quotes Helen Keller to the effect of:

“There is much in the Bible against which every instinct of my being rebels, so much that I regret the necessity which has compelled me to read it through from beginning to end. I do not think that the knowledge which I have gained of its history and sources compensates me for the unpleasant details it has forced upon my attention”

I, for one, could not agree more. I feel the same way about the evening news, particularly the local news.
There is much in the news against which every instinct of my being rebels, so much that I regret the necessity which has compelled me to watch it through from beginning to end. I do not think that the knowledge which I have gained of current events compensates me for the unpleasant details it has forced upon my attention such as the details of the latest murder, rape, child abuse, etc. And yet, I must consider if the news is evil for describing the brutal reality of humanity.

One of the quotations presented to us via the poster is from Thomas Paine and reads thusly:

“After the sermon was ended…I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard….I moreover believe that any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.” [ellipses in original]

As presented, the quotation is far too generic to be of any use. What was the sermon, what was its message? What was revolting: the sermon, its message or the recollection? In other words, did the sermon reveal some bit of unpleasant truth about Thomas Paine’s own heart and soul?
The statement about his believing “that any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system” is a purely arbitrary argument from outrage and a non sequitur.1 I may state that a child was shocked by being taught that she is a glorified animal whose ancestors were apes (or whom according to Prof. Richard Dawkins, is an ape).. That all life on earth came about when lightning struck a swamp. That the entire universe has no intrinsic purpose. That her life has no intrinsic meaning. That when she dies she will be annihilated, et al. May I then conclude that all of these statements are false based on nothing but a child’s reaction?

Another quotation comes from Elizabeth Cady Stanton who appears to completely lack a historical understanding of the Bible’s and Christianity’s positive effect on the manner in which women are viewed and treated. She is quoted as stating, “The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women’s emancipation.”Of course, it may be argued that “the Church” has “been the greatest stumbling block” in many areas and in many ways. However, as for the Bible:

+ The Bible states that both men and women were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27 also see Genesis 5:2).+ New Testament teaches, “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ…There is neither…male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26-28).+ There are entire books in the Bible named after women (Esther and Ruth).+ There were women Judges in the Old Testament (Judges 4:4).+ In the Bible we find women prophetesses (Exodus 15:20; 2nd Kings 22:14; 2nd Chronicles 34:22; Isaiah 8:3; Luke 2:36; Acts 21:7-9).+ Jesus showed Himself to be a servant of both men and women.+ Jesus had male and female disciples.+ In the New Testament we find women deaconesses (Romans 16:1-2).+ We find women teachers, such as Priscilla who taught right along side of her husband Aquila (Acts 18:26).+ Women taught the younger women (Titus 2:3-4).

+ The first disciples at the empty tomb were women (see Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). +Etc.

There is also a quote from Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain, who stated, in part:

“The mind that becomes soiled in youth can never again be washed clean; I know this by my own experience, and to this day I cherish an unappeasable bitterness against the unfaithful guardians of my young life, who not only permitted but compelled me to read an unexpurgated Bible through before I was 15 years old.”

How quaint. Get with it Mr. Clemens/Twain! Today by 15 a child has viewed hundreds of thousands of images in technicolor of every sort of violence and sexuality imaginable, and some unimaginable. Today’s pop-culture encourages the youth to delve head first into all sorts of debauchery and besmirches parents whom even attempt to prevent them.
Of course, the Bible presenting, as it does, humanity with warts and all is perhaps not to be recommended to a youth in an unexpurgated form. Although, when it does present the warts, it does so within a moral context while pop-culture does not.

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

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. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Interestingly enough, I opened my essay Another Atheist Charity – A Huge Success that I posted in the last holy month of November by stating, “This post comes to us from the “Here we go again” files:” in which case this
post comes to us from the “Here we go again and again” files.

The recent ads by the American Humanist Association read:

No God? …No Problem!

Be good for goodness’ sake.

Humanism is the ideas that you can be good without a belief in God.

Oh, look: African Americans, Asian Americans and Honky Americans agree—
I bet that they are all Christians, as per this snafu :o)

Two points to ponder:
1) The ads are mere propaganda that answers to an argument that no one has made. The claim is not that atheistic lack of morals but a lack of moral premise, lack of ethos.

2) These ads are being promulgated in the media as the “first-ever” such ads yet, this is merely a slightly edited version of their ads from last year: see here.

Also, note that the Bible is realistic about morality and deals with morality in the real world not in an utopia where everyone wants to be good for goodness sake.

Simply stated, yet again; during a time of the year when people are generally more inclined towards charity—peace on earth and good will towards non-gender specific personages—atheists are busily collecting hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars during a time of recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to purchase bill boards and bus ads whereby they seek to demonstrate, to themselves, just how clever they are—need any more be said?

Meanwhile, atheist have built a multi-million dollar, top of the line, latest technology included “Atheist Station”:

Actually, according to a June 25, 2007 AD Barna study entitled, “Americans Are Misinformed About Poverty, But Widely Involved in Helping the Poor” (see my post Are Atheists Healthy, Happy, Moral, etc.?:

Atheists and agnostics emerged as the segment of people least likely to do anything in response to poverty. They were less likely to engage in eight of the nine specific responses measured, and were the faith segment least likely to participate in eight of the nine responses evaluated.

The “nine specific responses” are the following:

giving material resources (such as clothing or furniture) directly to poor people donating money to organizations that address poverty giving food directly to a poor person or family

spending a “significant amount of time” praying for poor people [with regards to “Atheists and agnostics” yeah, this is one is a given]

donating time to personally serve needy people in the community visiting institutionalized elderly or sick people who are not family members donating money to organizations that address poverty in foreign countries serving as a tutor or friend to an underprivileged child

helping to build or restore a house for a poor family

According to an April 14, 2008 AD Barna study entitled, “New Study Shows Trends in Tithing and Donating”; in 2007 AD evangelicals Christians (one of three subgroups of Christians under consideration) donated a mean of $4,260 to all non-profit entities while atheists and agnostics provided an average of $467.
According to an April 25, 2005 AD Barna study entitled, “Americans Donate Billions to Charity, But Giving to Churches Has Declined”; “In 2004…Barna’s national study found that the people least likely to donate any money at all were…atheists and agnostics…A quarter or more…failed to give away any money in 2004.”

Keep donating money for billboards and bus ads. We will feed, clothe and house the poor.

They also have wasted money on ads the read, “Millions are good without God.” At least, that is what they were meant to read as—and I do not endorse vandalism—some billboards have been creatively re-edited to read, “Millions are good with God”:

One was even vandalized in Moscow—wow, how far has Moscow come from being the center of atheist Communist murders by the hundreds of millions to affirming goodness through God.

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

(Science in general, Evolution, Cosmology, Creation Science, Intelligent Design) ————-

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.)

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

Come out, come out wherever you are-reach deep into your pockets and see if you can come up with an amount that matches your lack of “faith”!!!

Yes, they are at it again. Having nothing better to do with vast amounts of money more atheist bus ads are being purchased.

This time the New York City Atheists are placing ads to read,

You don’t have to believe in God to be a moral and ethical person

This time the atheist talking points have been voiced by Ken Bronstein; president of New York City Atheists, a sect of the American Atheists denomination.

Atheists sure know their PR and this time mere bus ads are being officially introduced at a news conference-tantamount to Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai with God’s Ten Commandments-or something.

Ken Bronstein offered the obligatory cognitively dissonant statement which has been a requirement of atheists PR campaigns in stating that they sought to_

find a statement that we thought was positive, it wasn’t bashing religion and it wasn’t huge_They’re not attacking or disparaging the Church as far as I can see.1

Well, my dear sir, keep looking further than you can presently see from deep within your well within the box atheist group think. “You don’t have to believe in God” is not attacking or disparaging the Church? Alrighty then.
Of course, needless to say, it is a given and grated that you will be hard pressed to find anything at all posted on the New York City Atheists website that is not attacking or disparaging the Church.

But let us not lose sight on the main point, the bottom line of the ads-they were a styled adhān,

Jane Everhart, the director of communications for New York City Atheists, said that one goal of the campaign was to increase membership.

Mr. Bronstein said he was more focused on establishing “atheist pride” and promoting acceptance of atheism.

“I’ve had people call me in tears, and tell me they thought they’d never see a sign promoting atheism in New York,” he said.

Moreover, this was meant to promote the non-gospel of the atheist emotive/spiritual/religious/militant movement and is described as part of an “atheism awakening,” as per Ken Bronstein and as “part of our coming out,” as per Jane Everhart.

Before referencing some comments about atheism’s increasing a-evangelical zeal let us ponder why atheists insist in responding to arguments that no one has made.

The issue is not whether one can be moral and ethical without believing in God. The issue is that atheists have no premise upon which to base moral and ethical besides their own personal preferences which they express via arguments from outrage, arguments for ridicule, arguments for embarrassment, etc.

Atheists can muse upon moral issues and even come to construct ethical systems but they are impotent systems which either presuppose an atheist utopia where people are good for goodness sakes or else get the iron fist of the government behind them.

Since atheists believe that morality is constantly evolving Sam Harris argues that rape once played a beneficial evolutionary role. Dan Barker argues that rape is not absolutely immoral. Richard Dawkins believes that the fact that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers rather than six.

With sentiments of increasing membership, encouraging atheist pride, envisaging an atheist awakening and calls to coming out the statements by Frank Schaeffer that I had read the day before reading about the New York City Atheists are more than apropos:

The New Atheists have proved how inescapable religion/spirituality is (by whatever name we call it) by turning their movement into a quasi-religion with priests, prophets and gurus, followers, and even church services. Check out Richard Dawkins’ website and you could be looking at the website of any televangelist suffering from an acute messianic delusion.

Add a dash of hucksterism, replete with scads of merchandise, including a “Scarlet A pin” to be worn by the faithful to identify them as followers and to provoke “conversations” with the uninitiated leading to their conversion to atheism. A secular “Maharishi” of atheism may also be a fruitcake cult figure leading a “church” in all but name_

When I was watching Religulous in an Upper West Side theatre in New York it seemed to me that the laughter and shouted comments were just another version of “Amen!” and “Preach it brother!” I assumed these cries of affirmation were from the more spirit-filled atheists in the audience! In a moment of unintended self-parody Maher even delivered an altar call at the end of his film begging believers to join him in his unbelief_

The New Atheists turn out to be secular fundamentalists arguing with religious fundamentalists.2

During a time of worldwide recession atheists are collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations not in order to actually help anyone in real need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they think themselves to be-need anymore be said?

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

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. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Many people have a hard time with the very concept of a God who knows our thoughts. The issue that True Freethinker wished to address is not the question of how God could know our thoughts, the thoughts of every living person.
I wish to address what I will refer to as the psychological troubling portion of the concept. That is to say that some find it troubling that God could know our thoughts so that even our motivations are known and also the repulsion that some feel towards being held accountable for their thought life.

This last portion is elucidated particularly well in the semantic stylings of Christopher Hitchens:

Well it’s here that we find something very sinister about Monotheism and about religious practice in general. It is incipiently at least and I think often explicitly totalitarian, because I have no say in this. I am born under a celestial dictatorship which I could not have had any hand in choosing. I don’t put myself under its Government. I am told that it can watch me while I sleep. I’m told that it can convict me of, here’s the definition of totalitarianism, thought crime, for what I think I may be convicted and condemned.1

While I find it sad, disappointing and perhaps unfair, Christopher Hitchens does spend quite a bit of time during his debates lobbing emotionally charged statements such as those we encountered here, “very sinister…incipiently…explicitly totalitarian…dictatorship…totalitarianism, thought crime…convicted and condemned.” Imagine an entire debate peppered with such statements and you have the reality of Christopher Hitchens as a debater (and writer). However, I do wish to empathize and do so particularly because he is an atheist and one of the reasons that atheism is a consoling delusion is that it provides the delusion of absolute autonomy and ultimate lack of accountability.Our thoughts are not something to be neglected. They are not to be neglected by us and it would certainly be neglectful for God to disregard them. Our thoughts are very important and very powerful. The major categories that I wish to deal with are: fantasy and motivation or rather, fantasy as a springboard for our motivations which then lead to actions.

It is tempting to think of our fantasies as our very own realm in which we can do as we wish without any impedance. We are, after all, not actually doing anything are we? We are not hurting anyone even with our most malicious thoughts, right?

It is precisely because our thoughts are a realm of, let us say, absolute freedom that we are to be so very careful about them. Keep in mind that absolute freedom corrupts absolutely. We may say that we are the gods of the world of our thoughts. Yet, in our capacity as gods of our thoughts we are not necessarily benevolent deities.

A glimpse of our fantasies, sexual fantasies for instance, serves as a good example of the power of our thoughts and the omnipotence that we enjoy in our thoughts.Consider a man who imagines an encounter with a woman (a friend, a co-worker, a perfect stranger, etc.) does he have to put vast amounts of time and energy into gathering the courage to approach her and ask her for a date? No.Does he have to keep his personality in check, being self-less and treating her nicely? No.Does he have to assure her of his fidelity by being committed to her for, perhaps, a few years before they get married? No.Does he have to be there for her, with her, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do them part? No.In his fantasy he can simply have her-he forces her to love him and forces her to enjoy it.Some such fantasies, drawn out to whatever extent and to whatever level of sexuality, can fizzle away into nothingness only to be forgotten. Or they can lead the man to take the appropriate actions and end up with her, the actual human being, in a happy and healthy relationship. It could also lead to her rejecting him. Yet, such fantasies can also lead to rape.It is certainly advantageously inflammatory to refer to “totalitarianism, thought crime” but there is logic behind admonitions about our thought life. First is the concept of becoming that which we oft muse about. For instance, a real go getter may become very successful as she progresses from thought, to motivation, to action. A person overly concerned about evil powers may be constantly saying that, “It’s the devil” whenever anything goes wrong. An atheist may be so overcome with prejudice against religion and God that every prayer uttered out loud, in public, every public sign of “faith” is taken as a personal affront. Some people’s over occupation with sexual fantasies has led to STDs which is some cases even lead to death.

Let us furthermore consider that there are very logical reasons why most judicial systems distinguish, for example, between different forms of murder by degree such as premeditation (contemplation, reflection). You are more culpable if you planned out a murder since you thought about it, fantasized about it, were motivated by it, and finally performed the act. This act could have been stopped before it ever was committed if the thought process would have been halted or redirected.

Some people appear to think that in their thoughts they can indulge every malicious and perverted fantasy and still consider themselves to be “a good person” because they did not actually do any of it. Yet, even assuming that their twisted fantasies never lead to actions, is this healthy? Is it healthy to have someone smile to your face whist thinking “Drop dead!” Is it healthy to have someone meet your spouse in a congenial manner only to consider them something to be toyed with in their fantasies? Our thoughts and fantasies are, after all, a part of our psyche, a part of our makeup, and a part of us that demands more and more even while seeking to escape into the realm of action.Now consider, if I pulled out a gun and shot a bullet at your head but just happened to miss would you, or the authorities, say, “Oh, hey, cut that out. Well, ok then, I’m gonna go get lunch. Bye”? Why not? After all, I did not actually cause any harm. Yes, but I might have and I certainly intended to do so. I intended to in my thoughts and in my actions, but nothing came of it. The difference between this scenario and my merely thinking about shooting you is not as different as it may seem. Is not the point that either in my thoughts or in my shooting and missing I did not actually harm you? It is certainly more closely related than my merely thinking about it and actually doing it. Certainly, exhibiting malice is different than merely considering malice but the point, again, is the importance of your thought life.Moreover, consider a city fire that is burning up hundreds of homes and has taken many lives. Would you rather fight that massive and deadly fire? Or, would you have rather put out the little match that started it in the first place? Of course, you would, with a little puff of wind or wetting your fingertips, put that little match out and prevent the fire in the first place. Or you could simply not light the match in the first place.Would you rather I reconsider attempting to introduce your gray matter to a projectile before or after I actually make an attempt?

Likewise, our thoughts can be little matches that if left unchecked or if they have fuel added to them can become massive and deadly. My point is not to encourage governmental thought police. Even though we do have it to some extent and for good reason such as ascertaining premeditation. I would, perhaps, go as far as recommending that thought police be our own jurisdiction of self-policing. Our thoughts can give rise to benevolence or malevolence and are oft the starting place of them both. Therefore, our thoughts are not to be neglected – not by humanity nor by God.

Uncut & Unsubtle: Bikinis, Sweetness, Magic and No Comment:
Following is an odd section entitled “Uncut & Unsubtle” from which we are apparently meant to draw some undetermined inferences.

The first entry in this section is entitled “Before razors & bikini wax” and references Song of Solomon 7:2b which is quoted as “Thy navel is like a round goblet,…thy belly is like an heap of wheat.”

The next one is entitled “Sweet to the taste” referring to Song of Solomon 2:3 quoted as “I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.”

Then “The magic hand,” again, a reference to Song of Solomon at 5:4 quoted as “My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.”

Lastly in this section is “No comment” referencing Ezekiel 23:20 quoted as “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.”
In this case, the chapter presents a metaphorical description of Jerusalem personified as “Oholibah” who was symbolically God’s bride but who committed adultery with other nations/gods.

Atheists cannot seem to make up their minds as to whether the Bible is too prudish or too blunt regarding matters of human sexuality.

The Bible is straight forward about sexuality after all, God did invent it sexuality (see my essay Too Sexy for My Theology? On the New Atheist Obsession with Sex and Christopher Hitchens – Too Sexy for Abstinence?).

Song of Solomon in particular is a book that revolves around two lovers describing and enjoying each other.

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

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. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

I wished to present a neat, simple and powerful five fingered death punch to the concept of the multiverse.
The multiverse is a mythological tale which some atheists accept when evidence contradicts their preferred theories/worldviews.

Here are the five point: 1) Presupposes Atheism 2) No Evidence 3) Atheist Supernaturalism 4) Illogical

5) Proves God’s Existence

If you are dealing with an atheist who claims to base their atheism on science or otherwise claims to build their worldview via the scientific method; that they bring up the multiverse is a gift to you.

Referring to the universe’s expansion via mass density with a fine tuned value of circa one part in 1060 and space energy density with a the value of circa one part in 10120, physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote that this is “the most extreme fine-tuning problem known in physics.”1

Astronomers Idit Zehavi and Avishai Dekel write that, “This type of universe…requires a degree of fine tuning in the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom.’”2

Physicist N. Straumann writes that we are “confronted with a disturbing cosmic coincidence problem”3 (apparently, “coincidence” means fine tuned).

Some do not hold to the multiverse as various existing at the same time but as preceding one from another, the oscillation model, as a Big Bang is followed by a Big Crunch, etc. This appeal to the oscillation-of-the-gaps “relieve us of the necessity of understanding the origin of matter at any finite time in the past” 4 as was stated by physicist Robert Dicke. Of course, this relieves us of no such thing as it merely pushes the question further back in time.

I think that Bertrand Russell said it best—or, is it worse?—“The universe is just there, and that’s all.”5

1) Presupposes Atheism:
It just about says it all that the best and/or only response that atheists have concocted in light of the scientific evidence of the universe’s fine tuning is that if it were not so we would not be here to discuss it. This response is actually the only logical conclusion for an atheist who answers all of life’s deepest questions by stating, “It just is…it just is and that’s all…it just happened…it just happened to have happened that way…coincidence…chance…accident…luck…,” etc.

Basically the modern multiverse mythos grew out of a presupposition of atheism whereby evidence of design is not only said to be non-existent but impossible. Since their worldview negates even the possibility of design, no matter how much evidence there is or how convincing it is, they are exercising the very opposite of freethougth; this is well-within-the-box-restricted-group-think.
In this view, an atheist could find out that if absolutely everything in the universe did not originated the way it did and if it was not the way that it is, life would be impossible and the universe itself would not exist and will simply say, “What a coincidinc!” They could find out that if I did not type a period at the end of this sentence life would be impossible and would say, “Well, obviously he typed the period or we would not be here to discuss it”

This is the it just is of the gaps. It is obviously a desperate, scientifically bankrupt and logically jejune non-response.

Thus, point one is that no matter what the evidence, how much there is of it, regardless of how compelling: it will be denied due to an atheistic presupposition. Atheism makes a person deny the evidence, not follow it where it leads and be satisfied concocting a myth.

2) No Evidence:
One thing that must be noted when discussing the multiverse is that there is no evidence for it whatsoever. It is a position which is held by faith (and here I am employing the fallacious atheist talking point mis-definition of “faith” as belief without evidence).
Some will point to models of the multiverse that have been concocted by cosmologists. Yet, these are merely illustrations of the myth. I once wrote that, essentially, if we are simply concocting theories out of thin air we might as well state that our universe is inside of a marble with which an alien child is playing. Someone disparaged my remark stating that no such model has been proposed. Yet, that is only because no one has bothered modeling that; we could model anything even if we have to, as does Stephen Hawkings, appeal to “imaginary time.”

Thus, for the atheist who even pretends to base their particular worldview upon the tangible, upon science, point two is that the multiverse is not even an option—if, that is, they are consistent in their thinking—because there is absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever.

3) Atheist Supernaturalism:
When confronted with the evidence for a universe that is fine tuned for life—in fact, fine tuned to exist in the first place—some atheists appeal to life having been designed by alien beings, Francis Crick is one such atheist. David Berlinski is an example of an agnostic who accepts the evidence for design whilst being uncertain as to who/what was the designer(s).

It is precisely when confronted with the evidence for a fine tuned universe that the atheist does that which they would condemn if a believer did it: they retreat into their supernatural realm. The multiverse is the atheist supernatural realm for numerous reasons such as: 1) It is intangible. 2) Unobserved. 3) Un-evidenced. 4) Not experimented upon. 5) Un-disprovable (from their point of view, not from mine; see point 4 below). 6) Believed upon by “faith.” 7) Held to as a consoling delusion—to escape a philosophically inconvenient reality that is supported by evidence.

8) Concocted as an escape mechanism—escape from scientific evidence.

Moreover, the multiverse: 9) Is omnipresent. 10) Is omnipotent (containing the power to created anything).

11) Omniscient (containing all the information that is necessary for “creating,” populating and maintaining the various universes).

12) It created all things both seen and unseen.

13) It is the eternal uncaused first cause.

Think about it as I juxtapose the atheistic oppion on such matters:

It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God made everything out of nothing.
It is rational and scientific to believe that nothing made everything out of nothing.

It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God is eternal.
It is rational and scientific to believe that matter is eternal.

God is an effect and must have had a cause.
Matter is the uncaused first cause.

If God made everything, then who made God?
Matter made everything and nothing made matter.

Thus, point three is that the atheist is left appealing to a mysterious place somewhere out there, outside and beyond our universe, where their atheistic “faith” is based and finds its being.

4) Illogical:
There are various multiverse concepts from the New Age/New Physics inspired. Such was the case with the propaganda film What the Bleep Do We Know!?. This film envisages concepts such as that if I am driving along and come to a fork in the road and turn right there emerges a permutation in which this leads to certain outcomes and there emerges another permutation in which I tuned left and certain other outcomes ensue.There are also concepts which take the idea of all possible scenarios playing out to a whole other level: such as that there is another permutation, another vast universe will all of its glorious components, that is exactly like this one except that one of the hairs in my left ear is half of a nanometer shorter. Of course, there is another one where that hair is half of a nanometer longer, etc. The concept of the multiverse is logically self refuting or illogical. If the multiverse is, then each permutation is valid. Thus, if according to at least one of those permutations there are no other permutations then there is no multiverse.

This is not merely to state that there is a multiverse of which this single permutation, a universe, is unaware but what is in view is an actual universe according to which no multiverse exists, there is no multiversality anywhere at all. This option would have to be logically accepted and invalidates the concept of the multiverse.

And so, point four is that if we grant the multiverse, thus granting all possible fine tunings, we end up accepting a fine tuning according to which there are no other fine tunings.

5) Proves God’s Existence:
Point five is quite simple. Simply grant the multiverse to the atheist and conclude that in at least one permutation; God exists. Why not? All possibilities are played out and are valid right?

Moreover, in at least one permutation God created a universe that is fine tuned.

Thus, we have come full circle and we are back to logically and scientifically concluding that God exists and created this fine tuned universe.

Thus, in the mortal combat between the universe and the multiverse:

Universe: WINNER!!!

Nicholas Humphrey primes the pump for his doxology to “science” by appealing to the typical besmirchments of America’s lack of scientific enlightenment: age of the Earth this, evolution that, superstition this, almighty science that…He also gives the obligatory hat tip to Richard Dawkins for being on the forefront of turning children against parents and his references to religious ideas as viral:

…as Richard Dawkins has explained so well, this kind of self-restraint is not in the nature of successful belief systems

The “self-restraint” of which Nicholas Humphrey speaks is the restraint of not teaching one’s children one’s “faith.” As is perhaps obvious, we shall see (particularly at the end of part 4) that Nicholas Humphrey and co.’s answer is to teach, nay; indoctrinate, children into absolute materialism.In this regard, consider his self-righteous us against them statement:

…their devotees will be obsessed with education and with discipline: insisting on the rightness of their own ways and rubbishing or preventing access to others. We should expect, moreover, that they will make a special point of targeting children in the home, while they are still available, impressionable and vulnerable.

It is hard to see how this can so very easily be turned around on him?

Nicholas Humphrey’s devotees are obsessed with education and with discipline: insisting on the rightness of their own ways and rubbishing or preventing access to others. We should expect, moreover, that they will make a special point of targeting children in the home, while they are still available, impressionable and vulnerable.

Of course, such atheists are beyond merely targeting their own children in the home, while they are still available, impressionable and vulnerable. But have for a long time smuggled atheism into the public schools not merely through the back door but right through the front in the form of textbooks, “science,” removing any reference to God, etc. They do not only want their children to be atheist but yours as well. This will become all too clear and troubling as we proceed in considering the lecture (and in the various posts to which I linked in part 1).

Nicholas Humphrey provides a token comment in apparently recognizing that retorts such as mine above could just as easily be made as he begins his various belittlements of the Amish; those kidnappers!

Donald Kraybill, an anthropologist who made a close study of an Amish community in Pennsylvania, was well placed to observe how this works out in practice. “Groups threatened by cultural extinction,” he writes, “must indoctrinate their offspring if they want to preserve their unique heritage…The Amish contend that the Bible commissions parents to train their children in religious matters as well as the Amish way of life. . . An ethnic nursery, staffed by extended family and church members, moulds the Amish world view in the child’s mind from the earliest moments of consciousness.” [second ellipses in original]
…”An ethnic nursery, staffed by extended family and church members . . .” could be as much a description of the early environment of a Belfast Catholic, a Birmingham Sikh, a Brooklyn Hasidic Jew-or maybe the child of a North Oxford don.

I imagine that the North Oxford don is in reference to a supposed true intellectual and perhaps particularly to Richard Dawkins. Apparently, he is not familiar with the Amish year of freedom whereby an Amish teen is allowed to explore the world outside of the Amish community and decides whether or not to return. Surely, Nicholas Humphrey would argue that such as exercise is merely a farce as by that point the teen has been so indoctrinated as to ensure only the teen’s return to the Amish paradise.However, he rejoices in a circa three decades old story about Amish teens choosing the outside world after being made to work in public hospitals in lieu of military service during the Vietnam war drafts: male teens with raging hormones being unleashed upon the world of whatever-whenever-however-anyone wants goes world-big surprise.Nicholas Humphrey makes reference to “sectarian schools” such as those that insist on,

presenting all subjects only from a biblical point of view, and requiring all teachers, supervisors, and assistants to agree with the church’s doctrinal position

As an example of the deleterious effects of such schooling he offers the following,

Dress a little boy in the uniform of the Hasidim, curl his side-locks, subject him to strange dietary taboos, make him spend all weekend reading the Torah, tell him that gentiles are dirty.

As becomes more and more evidence as the lecture progresses, Nicholas Humphrey’s response is to, for example, establish equally, or even more so, sectarian schools wherein the teachers will present all subjects only from an atheistic point of view and requiring all teachers, supervisors, and assistants to agree with the atheist’s doctrinal position (many have already been excommunicated from the realm of academia). These schools seek to dress a little boy in a lab coat and make him spend a minimum of twelve years being told that life, the universe and everything is the fortuitous result of happenstantial accidents and tell him that religious people are ignorant.Nicholas Humphrey notes that a boy “actually escaped and lived to tell the tale” of being raised a Catholic and notes,

There are plenty of other examples, known to all of us, of men and women who as children were pressured into becoming junior members of a sect, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Marxist-and yet who came out the other side, free thinkers, and seemingly none the worse for their experience.

Indeed, there are plenty of other examples, known to all of us, of men and women who as children were pressured into becoming junior members of a sect of atheism-and yet who came out the other side, true free thinkers, and seemingly none the worse for their experience. Then again some of the pseudo-freethinkers of which Nicholas Humphrey refers end up becoming some of the most vitriolic expressers of prejudice one would never hope to hear-just asks the likes of Dan Barker and co.In another attempt to appeal to his liberal audience in the form of liberal ideas about sex in stating,

someone who has learned as a child, for example, to think of sex as sinful may never again be able to be relaxed about making love.

Again, this is one-sided-well-within-the-box-liberal-group-think as I personally know many people who learned as a child to think of sex as a mere bio-function to be expressed anytime, anywhere, with anyone and may never again be able to be relaxed about making love as a pure thing; a God ordained sacred and holy union of a husband and wife.Now we get into the full Monty of Nicholas Humphrey’s promulgations as he lays it on the line:

…what would happen if this kind of vicious circle were to be forcibly broken? What would happen if, for example, there were to be an externally imposed “time-out”? Wouldn’t we predict that, just to the extent it is a vicious circle, the process of becoming a fully-fledged believer might be surprisingly easy to disrupt? I think the clearest evidence of how these belief systems typically hold sway over their followers can in fact be found in historical examples of what has happened when group members have been involuntarily exposed to the fresh air of the outside world.

This is exemplary of his proposal: to forcibly unleash the forces of atheism upon you, your children your worldview, you schools (even and especially home schools). Again, appealing to fellow militant activist atheist Richard Dawkins, Nicholas Humphrey makes reference to “cultural viruses.” Do not simply shrug off the fact that militant activist atheist are increasingly dehumanizing religious people: as with abortion; dehumanization precedes persecution and extermination.Nicholas Humphrey gets to his bottom line point which he described thusly:

Suppose that, as the Amish case suggests, young members of such a faith would-if given the opportunity to make up their own minds-choose to leave. Doesn’t this say something important about the morality of imposing any such faith on children to begin with? I think it does. In fact I think it says everything we need to know in order to condemn it…So I’ll come to the main point-and lesson-of this lecture. I want to propose a general test for deciding when and whether the teaching of a belief system to children is morally defensible. As follows. If it is ever the case that teaching this system to children will mean that later in life they come to hold beliefs that, were they in fact to have had access to alternatives, they would most likely not have chosen for themselves, then it is morally wrong of whoever presumes to impose this system and to chose for them to do so. No one has the right to choose badly for anyone else…

only if we know that teaching a system to children will mean that later in life they come to hold beliefs that, were they to have had access to alternatives, they would still have chosen for themselves, only then can it be morally allowable for whoever imposes this system and chooses for them to do so.

Thus, the only allowable result is a worldview that a child would have come to hold when, having been given access to alternatives, they would have most likely chosen. And then we are provided a typical baseless atheist assertion of moral condemnation. He had previously referred to giving the child “access to the full range of alternatives.”Full range meaning that they may choose to become a Mother Theresa or an Adolf Hitler. Given the choice they may forgo working 40-80 hours per week and coming home to a wife who does not elicit constant goose bumpy adrenaline spiked feeling and choose the life of a pornographer. They may become a foster parent or an assassin. No, no! No? Why not, because of some vague and ultimately judicially impotent notion of right and wrong?

No indeed, because the view of such atheists is that of a Utopian human race wherein education of the “right” kind will produce pure benevolence.

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

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. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Studies consistently demonstrate that atheists are, by a very very wide margin, the least charitable amongst us. Yet, Ariane Sherine and the British Humanist Association have conducted hugely successful donation drives. Are they the exception to the self-absorbed atheist greed meme?

Not in the least bit. Yet again, atheists are collecting “amazing sums” during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves to be—while actually loudly, proudly and expensively demonstrating their ignorance and arrogance.

Atheist activist Ariane Sherine was the “brains” behind some of the recent embarrassments which were publicly advertised in the form of bus ads and bill boards. As these ads represented well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think they were, predictably, illogical, presumptuous and pompous.

As “the final phase of the atheist bus campaign…in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast” is coming to a close Ariane Sherine asked her adherents what they could further do with the “amazing sums donated to the campaign fund.”[1]

Surely, some said, “How about feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, funding hospitals, establishing adoption agencies, opposing abortion” or any of a billion humanitarian options. But the overwhelming response was they the money was needed to fund atheist propaganda based on misinformation and common misconceptions due to relying heavily on atheist talking points and lightly on those bothersome facts such as are readily discernable when stopping to actually understand the issues at hand.
She writes,

…we asked how the extra funds should be spent, one of the issues which came up repeatedly in the comments concerned the growth of of faith schools in the UK and the segregation of children according to their parents’ beliefs. Many of you felt strongly that children should be given the freedom to decide which belief system they wanted to belong to, if any, and that they should not have a religion decided for them….The atheist campaign team shared this point of view.

The new ads, which feature a 7 and 8 year old child state, “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself” with a background stating, “Mormon child,” “Marxist child,” “Zoroastrian child,” “Buddhist child,” “Catholic child,” “Agnostic child,” etc.

Ariane Sherine claims that this latest atheist propaganda is meant to:

try and change the current public perception that it is acceptable to label children with a religion. As Richard Dawkins states, “Nobody would seriously describe a tiny child as a ‘Marxist child’ or an ‘Anarchist child’ or a ‘Post-modernist child’. Yet children are routinely labelled with the religion of their parents. We need to encourage people to think carefully before labelling any child too young to know their own opinions, and our adverts will help to do that.

I have covered this issue variously as UK atheist propagandists influenced USA atheist propagandists until in various countries atheists were wasting money on patting themselves in the backs. Just read some of their slogans in my past essays to see that which they consider clever; I am actually embarrassed for them yet, I understand that one of atheism’s consoling delusions is the delusion of being more erudite than thou.

This is merely another sham and a scam as atheist activists are doing what they do best: 1) playing the underdog victim, 2) begging for donations, 3) not being charitable to people in real tangible need, 4) openly displaying their ignorance and arrogance and 5) making their livelihood by condemning others since they think that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Before getting to a more riotous aspect of the ads themselves let us hit some key points:

1) Such atheist activists seem to overlook the fact that children sometimes are referred to by such labels due to cultural and or social consid¬erations and not theological. For instance, Judaism has a Bar/Bat Mitzvah when a child becomes a willing/thinking adult and decides to make a commitment to the faith. Likewise, various forms of Christianity have confirmation. Etc.

2) Richard Dawkins is a supporter of the atheist indoctrination summer camp for children “Camp Quest” (see here for atheism/children related essays including dissections of Camp Quest).

3) Dawkins’ purpose is not this sham of pure freedom but he envisages “society stepping in,”[2] and standing between you and your children. This is not about intellectual freedom but about indoctrinating children into atheism under the thinly veneered disguise of “science,” “evolution,” or education and freedom as Dawkins has expressed that his dictating to the parents of the world how to raise their children “might lead children to choose no religion at all.”[3]

4) For quite some time Dawkins has refused to debate various worthy opponents and so he absconds to attempt to influence the college crowd or much younger children.
He told a group of children “We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA…It is every living object’s sole reason for living.’”[4] And another group of children, “Put your trust in the scientific method, put your faith in scientific method.”[5]
What is wrong with that? For one, to him “science” and “evolution” are synonymous with atheism. He actually pulled the wool over the children’s eyes as he sought to prove why they could have faith/trust in science by a hard-science demonstration while he is involved in a soft-science that is riddled with quaint Victorian Era tall tales as evidence is interpreted via schools of thought and manipulated to fit the theory (multitudinous evidence is found here).

5) Philip Pullman, the author of “The Golden Compass” related books, chimed in to state, “It is absolutely right that we shouldn’t label children until they are old enough to decide for themselves.” Pullman write perfectly innocent fictional books for little children—right?
He has stated, “I don’t think I’m writing fantasy. I think I’m writing realism. My books are psychologically real.”[6] But what does he really write about? As he has admitted, “My books are about killing God” and “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”

Bottom line: these activists atheist are very good at media campaigns, mostly due to the media’s complicity, and are two faced: one face is the concerned intellectual and the other the zealous atheist out to convert little children, interfere with your parenting, and make a living by expressing prejudice.

Now, what about the ads themselves? What of the children…the children? Well, the actual children in the ads are the children of one of the UK’s “most devout Christian families” and their father, Brad Mason, “is something of a celebrity within evangelical circles.”[7]

Daddy has stated:

It is quite funny, because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children…
Obviously there is something in their faces which is different. So they judged that they were happy and free without knowing that they are Christians. That is quite a compliment. I reckon it shows we have brought up our children in a good way and that they are happy.

Leader of the Pioneer network of churches, Gerald Coates noted, “I think it is hilarious that the happy and liberated children on the atheist poster are in fact Christian.”

Always ready to miss the point and counter-argue against that which no one has argued, Andrew Copson, The British Humanist Association’s “education” director stated:

That’s one of the points of our campaign…People who criticise us for saying that children raised in religious families won’t be happy, or that no child should have any contact with religion, should take the time to read the adverts. The message is that the labelling of children by their parents’ religion fails to respect the rights of the child and their autonomy. We are saying that religions and philosophies — and ‘humanist’ is one of the labels we use on our poster — should not be foisted on or assumed of young children.

The use of their images came about due to a randomly accidental coincidence—yeah, right; no God here, keep moving along and pay no attention—since their daddy who is also a photographer had uploaded their images to a website that photographers use in order to sell images to designers.

Well, atheist activists; keep on throwing money away whilst elbowing each other in the ribs as we discern your lack of charity and manipulative propaganda. You discredit yourselves by merely being left to speak out as loudly and often as you please so, please do keep it up, we hear you loud and clear.

[1] Ariane Sherine, “Hey, preacher – leave those kids alone,” The Guardian, November 18, 2009
[2] During his interview with Gary Wolf, “The Church of the Non-Believers”: here or here
[3] Richard Dawkins, Now Here’s a Bright Idea
[4] Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins (interviewed February 28th, 1995 published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition [vol 18 no. 3])
[5] Stated during his “Royal Institute of Christmas Lectures” 1991 aka “Growing Up in the Universe.”
[6] New York Magazine, Philip Pullman Realizes ‘Killing God’ Not the Ideal Sales Pitch
[7] Ruth Gledhill, “Children who front Richard Dawkins’ atheist ads are evangelicals,” Time Online, November 21, 2009

Next we note the manner in which James Randi addresses the Christian God.

This is a God also that requires to constantly be praised, constantly praised like a petulant child. He wants to constantly be praised, and bowed to, and kneeled to, this sort of thing and, and be feared. Greatly feared because, look what he can do, he can do anything!
According to what I’ve been told about this, this particular deity. I’m talking about the Christian God now. This is a petulant child. Wanting constantly to be catered to, worshipped, kneeled down to all the time. I don’t like this God at all.

Even if James Randi felt that he had to critique the Biblical concept of God his words and tone betray more raw and irrational emotion than they demonstrate the rationale of an honest skeptic and researcher. Secondly, his statements are peppered with criticisms based on an anti-supernatural bias.

Christians should keep in mind something that may happen when the general topic of God’s existence is being discussed. If the atheist begins to besmirch the Bible and the character of the God it presents the Christian can point out that even if the Bible is not the word of God and is utterly unreliable in every way, this would not mean that God does not exist-it would only mean that one particular theology is inaccurate.

Let us note something that Jason Gastrich touched upon which is that praising, catering to, worshiping and kneeling down to God is not simply a one sided act done to a needy God who is in need of an ego boost. Human beings tend to seek something higher than themselves to look up to, to praise, to cater, to worship and to kneel to. This generally comes in the form of a deity or in some impersonal higher plain or spirit within or in the case of atheism; nature worship. In the case of atheism it may also be philosophers, professors, scientists or simply whom they behold in their mirrors. If God exists praise and worship is rightly offered to Him. If humans are going to praise and worship they ought to offer it to the proper object. Moreover, exactly what is wrong if a side effect of praise and worship is human fulfillment? After all, Richard Dawkins claims the same, and more, of atheism.

Now I will offer the confessions of an introvert as a metaphor for understanding whether or not God is a needy petulant child or even that He created humanity because He was lonely and lacked something. I am an introvert; in my youth I thought that I could get girls to like me not by talking to them but by withdrawing and looking lonely. As it turned out they would think it looks like he wants to be alone. But when I got older I realized that, as an introvert, I did not “need” friends. That is to say that I never chose my friends based on who was there for me when I need them. This is because as a pretty extreme introvert I did not “need” them. If I had a problem I dealt with it by myself. I chose my friends on the simple basis of whom I enjoyed being with, they were not truly required so serve any need.I understand that some would claim that my apparent “need” for enjoyable people demonstrates that something was lacking in me and that I did require companionship. Well, maybe you do not know what being an extreme introvert is like. Then again, there may very well be some validity to that criticism after all, I am a mere mortal and do enjoy the friendship of various personages.However, I think that it is problematic to take God’s anthropomorphic descriptions of His own “emotions” and make a one to one analogy to our own emotions. For one, our emotions are affected by many things to which the God of the Bible is not subject such as: misunderstandings, chemical imbalances, the influence of pharmaceuticals, prejudices, depression, etc., etc.

Moreover, the God of the Bible is a triune being, a Trinity, and thus has never, ever, for all of eternity lacked relationship (this was detailed during my debate with an atheist).

Now, we will point out what is perhaps the epitome of James Randi’s abandonment of rationale for full-fledged emotionally charged outbursts:

I know that they’ll also say they’re gonna pray for me, this is the most condescending, patronizing thing that I hear anybody say and I get very angry when I hear it. So please don’t tell me you’re going to pray for me…
I’m getting really tired about this, ah, this, this patronizing thing ah, and I’m, I’m, growing more and more impatient with it all the time. People are going to pray for me and to bless me

Let us momentarily grant that Christians are as ignorant, diluted, superstitious and irrational as James Randi thinks that they are. Is he really incapable of understanding that what people are saying to him in stating, “I’m going to pray for you”? He could take it to mean I give you my best, or I wish you the best, or good luck, or I’ll be thinking about you, or I love you so much that I want things to go well for you, etc. He could take it to mean any number of well meaning sentiments but he chooses to be “very angry” about people wishing him well. What more is there to be said?

At one point in the interview Jason Gastrich told James Randi about a time in his life when he was suffering serious problems with his vision. Jason Gastrich expressed that he prayed to God about the situation and that his vision was restored. James Randi asked just how restored vision could be attributed to answered prayer. He stated that perhaps it was changing peanut butter brands that cause the restoration of his vision.

Atheists disregard supernatural stories that have some validity to them and simply tell naturalistic stories that have no validity to them. Notice that while we may not be able to prove that his vision was restored due to an answered prayer all that James Randi can offer is virtually an infinite number of possible reasons for the restoration. Perhaps it was new peanut butter, or 2½ glasses of water per day, or the alignments of the planets, or pineapple and anchovies on the same pizza, etc. Since he is an atheist he cannot be a true freethinker and must restrict his thoughts to the material alone. In other words, while on the surface James Randi’s response may seem validly skeptical we note two further points.

Apparently, someone could tell James Randi that their cancer was brought to remission due to chemotherapy and he would ask them if they had recently changed peanut butter brands. Doctors could conduct experiments that sought to ascertain whether chemotherapy caused the cancer to remit or not. But could they prove that it was not the peanut butter, or chemotherapy plus peanut butter, or chemotherapy plus patchouli incense? Another favorite pseudo-skeptical response to spontaneous healing is claiming psychosomaticism. This response may or may not be valid, although it surely is a convenient evidence-less answer.

Again, we may not be able to prove miraculous healing by answered prayer. But we have gotten a window into the mind of a person who has a strong faith based belief in materialism. C. S. Lewis, a former atheist, offered the following response to David Hume’s arguments against miracles:

Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely ‘uniform experience’ against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false.
And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.1

The atheist presupposes that no miracles occur and so no claim of a miracle can be valid. The Christian can take a more liberal view in believing that while some claimed miracles are hoaxes or misunderstandings, some are valid. Ultimately, atheists commit this same logical fallacy when dealing with the issue of God’s existence. Since God does not exist there can be no evidence of God’s existence and since God’s existence has not been evidenced then God does not exist. No one has had an experience with God because God does not exist and since we know that God does not exist we simply dismiss all claims to experiences with God as illusory, mistaken, hoax, etc.

Incidentally, if someone’s vision problems were healed by a miracle from God they could really care less than an atheist is unsatisfied with the lack of evidence-they are just busy praising God for the healing.

For years James Randi has put forth a front of unbiased interest in evidence, reason and experimentation. Yet, we find that mere minutes into a discussion with a Christian, the veneer falls away and the emotionally driven prejudice is fully exposed.

Let us pray for him.

‹ James Randi – the Amazing Atheist, part 1 of 2 up