Month: December 2016

Atheist rapper Greydon Square is down with the ‘ol peeps. Or are they down with him? I do not know how that works. He, an African-American, stated, “I do shows in front of senior citizen white people.”1 Can you imagine? “Yeah boyyyyyy! Everybody in the old folks home take a tug from your oxygen tank and say ‘Ho!'”

It must be quite a site as he is doing “shows in front of senior citizen white people” whilst rapping classic lyrics such as,

Niggers believe in God; black people don’t_A nigger blames white people for slavery, a black knows it was Africans who sold black people into slavery.

I could just imagine it, Wave you’re hands in the air, I’m prejudice and I just don’t care!

Amongst his many accolades is that he is,

A Trekkie from Compton. An Iraqi war veteran who majored in physics.
An intellectual alt-rapper who idolizes Canibus but beat down his former manager over money.

This intellectual rapper demonstrates his erudite nature by rapping about,

desecrating Brigham Young’s grave and pissing in a synagogue.

He comments thusly,

“I’m confrontational with people who are, by nature, confrontational with their ideology,” he says. “You can’t run around and tell people that they’re going to hell because they don’t believe in the same sky God as you. Are you serious? I will confront you over that.”

I certainly am down with that, as it were, and please do not forget to leave the safety and comfort of the USA which is premised upon Christian principles and tour Muslim countries confronting them about their sky god. He fought in Iraq, and his service is to be honored, now let him take on their theology on their turf.

I do not know if this is meant to be a put down or a compliment, form the context of the article it appears to be a compliment, but the Phoenix New Times I have been quoting states,

his rhymes are full of those atheist arguments you learn in Philosophy 101

Ah yes, Philosophy 101 when young rebellious teens who have just left home for the first time learn child’s play arguments walk around with their intellectual chest puffed out. It is actually adorable, especially when big people, such as Prof. Richard Dawkins or even Professor of Philosophy Daniel Dennett are still employing Philosophy 101 arguments; if they are even to that level and not stuck in Atheist Kindergarten.

I suspect that Prof. Paul Vitz would find it very telling that, “Greydon grew up in group homes” rejecting God the Father due to an absent human father and that “he’s been in a gang” seeking the approval, family atmosphere and looking up the gang leader as a father figure.

It is also reported that “most fans of a rapper” refer to Greydon Square as the “black Carl Sagan.” Indeed, it is one of Carl Sagans greatest claims to fame, or infamy, to pretend to do science while, in reality, premising his claims on the bias of his atheist worldview. After all, that “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be” is an utterly unscientific statement but is Atheist Mythology 101.

As for the aforementioned “beat down his former manager over money” the article states that the Rational Response Squad‘s Brian] Sapient has been referred to by some atheists as “a cult leader and compared to David Koresh.” Greydon Square stated,

It never ceases to amaze me that when people join a group, they just accept the group position on everything. And I did that, with the Rational Response Squad. I accepted their methods and I accepted their beefs.

Thus, he has left the Rational Response Squad cult and is taking on sky Gods, Brigham Young, synagogues, “Niggers” and do not forget that,

“The fundamentalist atheists are not safe, either,” he says. “To me, if you run around and you treat non-belief like a religion, then I’ve gotta get at you, just because you’re making everyone else look bad.”

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

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.

NOTE: This was written by Josh and originally posted on Atheism is Dead (True Freethinker‘s predecessor)

I was doing a bit of link-chasing tonight when I ran across this article critical of William Lane Craig’s KCA. Just a few thoughts…

Although Dr. Craig’s support for it is uneven, I find the arguments used by atheologians in this regard to be inadequate also. The energy used to argue “infinity” is energy wasted, when modern cosmology does not posit that the universe is infinite, and when the term itself is ontologically negatively defined. While infinity has great use in mathematics, it is a mathematical abstraction, nothing more: and we should not attempt to apply it any more than we should seek a perfect circle or the square root of -1.

This is a revealing sentence. I’ve always been struck by the claim of “ontological negativity”, but I must admit that I don’t quite understand it. For example, atheists will throw around this little zinger that we can’t understand what “supernatural” is without the natural, or the immaterial without the material. Putting aside the “so what” answer, is that really true? Is infinity ontologically negative? And what would that mean? While I can’t grasp what infinity is, I certainly believe an unlimited thing could exist with having some kind of negativity buried at its core. But I digress…

He does support it elsewhere by using two arguments: our observation of the caused entities around us, and causality as a principle of human thought. Dr. Craig is no doubt aware, however, that to infer a necessary causality on a whole — the universe — on the basis of observation of such attribute in the parts — the existents around us – is a fallacy of composition. The attribute being transposed here, being caused, is relational and therefore cannot be transposed. Thus he cannot generalize from caused entities around us to the universe in this matter.

This is the heart of the matter. I’ll ask you all to do a bit of thinking about what he just said about the fallacy of composition. Is it really true that it is improper to- in all cases and at all times- infer a characteristic from the parts to the whole? Bricks are hard, and I suggest that the hardness of a wall can be inferred from the composition of a collection of hard things. On the contrary, there are new properties that arise from collections of lower level properties. To flip it backwards, just because water molecules are wet does not mean that quarks are wet. What we need to consider, then, is the nature of causality and the universe as a whole and in parts.

I’d say that our observation of causality in everyday life is evidence that effects must have causes. There is no physical substance known as cause, and there is no reason to think that all this physical stuff around us necessitates causality. From those intuitions (which, I believe, are reasonable and ought to be believed by every thinking person) we come to the conclusion that causality governs the physical.

But back to our problem with the jump from parts to the whole. Of course, there are times when one ought not make that leap. But usually there is an obvious reason not to. For example, if I were to say molecules are tiny, and a wall is made of molecules, therefore this wall is tiny, you would cry foul. That is because there is something blatantly quantitative that carries over when you are adding things like sizes. But hardness does not add up this way (in the case of bricks and the wall) because it is qualitative. To the best of our knowledge, is there something qualitatively different about the universe-as-a-whole from the universe-in-parts? There are some differences, obviously. Some parts of the universe are very hot. Is the universe itself hot? Or, parts of the universe are dark, but that wouldn’t suggest that the sum total of physical substances is dark (the question seems nonsensical).

All of this to say that the first premise of Craig’s argument is something that rests on an “either you see it or you don’t”. If you don’t see why causation is not just some physical maneuvering within the parts of the universe, then the best I can do is point out the same intuition in different lights until you get it. It seems like a lot of ad hoc escapism, but maybe there are good reasons for denying the universality of causation. I just don’t know of any.

I’ve been looking around for material to comment on, and stumbled across some of Quentin Smith’s writings over at at the Internet Infidels. Mr. Smith is a thoughtful, intelligent atheist that I have respect for. So if all goes well, I intend to critically examine a few of his articles which attempt to positively assert that atheism is true.

In this post, I intend to examine his article, entitled Two Ways of Proving Atheism. In this post, I will show that his proof that God does not exist because of the existence of “gratuitous suffering” fails as a proof. I will not be commenting on the cosmological argument for atheism as stated here, because it’s too technical. Plus, after a recent discussion I had with someone on this blog, I’ve lost confidence in my ability to communicate thoughts on certain abstract subjects.

Gratuitous Evil

I think there’s a second, separate argument that decisively refutes theism, based on the ordinary logic of induction that we use in our every day lives.

This is a strange note to begin on. Recall that these are proofs of atheism, which are “decisive”. It’s curious then that Smith wouldn’t rely on deduction, which would allow us to come to certain conclusions, instead of the more-or-less tenable conclusions of induction.

This issue is all the more problematic because we’re not talking about concrete objects in our physical reality. Quentin Smith wants to move from abstract moral values, which may or may not have objective existence, to the nonexistence of God. This should be an early red flag that we’re not getting what we were promised: a decisive proof.

One of the reasons Mackie [found belief in God absurd] is that Mackie found it obvious that if there’s evil in the world, no all-powerful and perfectly good being could have created the world.

This is precisely the problem. What may be obvious to one might not be obvious to another. It might just as well be obvious to me that, if God exists, He must have a perfectly good reason for allowing moral evil in the natural world. How then are we supposed to descriminate between either option in an assured, decisive manner?

Suppose God is all-powerful and is capable of killing the Spanish influenza virus before it killed off twenty million people. Why didn’t He? Is it because He’s not perfectly good? Because He does not care enough about human beings? That is no god. Sounds like more an evil being governs our universe. So that’s just one example of many gratuitous evils in the universe.

This statement is presented as if the only possible answer to the question of, “Why didn’t an all-powerful God prevent gratuitous evil?” is, “Because He’s evil himself!” In the absence of a conclusive argument to the contrary, we can conclude that it might be the case that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing suffering. In case God does have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, we aren’t forced to conclude that God is evil for allowing evil. Neither are we forced to conclude that God isn’t powerful enough to put an end to evil.

Of course, Mr. Smith anticipates this repsonse – sort of.

So how do theists respond to arguments like this? They say there is a reason for evil, but it is a mystery.

Mr. Smith has nearly correctly stated the standard response to the question of evil. I say “nearly”, because I don’t think that any thoughtful theist would use the word “mystery”. It simply leaves too much room for interpretation, and brings to mind thoughts of magic. Which leads to criticisms like this:

Well, let me tell you this: I’m actually one hundred feet tall even though I only appear to be six feet tall. You ask me for proof of this. I have a simply answer: it’s a mystery. Just accept my word for it on faith. And that’s just the logic theists use in their discussions of evil.

Before I can point out the illogic of this statement, here is how the theist should reponse to the question of evil: God may have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. As Craig would say, if this is even possible, then we aren’t forced to conclude that God does not exist if evil exists.

Now, what is the problem with Mr. Smith’s statement? It’s little more than apples-and-oranges. When Mr. Smith claims that he is 100 feet tall, we have a way of verifying his claim. After verification, we may conclude that he’s either a liar, or insane.

This doesn’t apply to the theist’s claim that God might have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. We cannot put a moral ruler to God and prove that He doesn’t measure up. In the absence of some way of verifying the claim that God isn’t as morally-tall as theists would like to think – like say a deductive argument – this simply fails as a counterargument, not to mention as a proof of atheism.

At this point, the argument becomes probabalistic at best. That is, we might conclude that because of evil, God probably doesn’t exist. However, as a strict, decisive disproof of theism, this doesn’t hold water. Further, the theist has overriding reasons to believe that God does exist, whether it be physical evidence, arguments, and so on. Therefore, the theist is reasonable to ignore the probabalistic form of this argument as “too little, too late”.

In fact, there’s a strict disproof of theism that uses the ordinary logic of induction we employ in our everyday lives. If we have evidence that something exists, we say it probably exists. If we see dark clouds approaching, we say it will probably rain. But if we no evidence for something, we admit that it’s merely possible that it exists, even though it probably does not exist.

This seems to me to be contradictory. How can you disprove the existence of something, and then conclude that it possibly does exist?

Also, I’m not sure how this arguments fits into the greater tapestry of the article. Is Mr. Smith trying to imply that, unless we find a reason for gratuitous evil, we have no reason to believe that God exists? Are we simply to ignore arguments in favor of God’s existence? For instance, any possible physical and historical evidence that might verify God’s existence? I don’t see why an inductive argument, which seems so weak to me, should cause me to discard the other reasons I have for believing in God.

If God exists, a being who is all-powerful and perfectly good, then this being must somehow ensure our world is perfectly good.

This is really just a baseless assertion. As I’ve already pointed out, it might be the case that God has a reason for allowing evil. If that’s the case, then He has no obligation to ensure that our world is “perfectly good”. Worst yet, I think there are problems with Mr. Smith’s concept of a perfectly good world. Take a look:

The only way He can do this is to make all of the apparent evils we see in the world into means to a greater good. For example, the pain of a vaccination is in itself bad, but is a means to a greater good.

It seems to me that Quentin Smith’s idea of a perfectly good world involves any apparent evil being done for the greater good. However, how can a perfectly good world contain evil as a means for good? Wouldn’t a perfectly good world lack evil altogether?

Furthermore, this highlights all sorts of epistemological problems. A child may not understand the “why” of a vaccination, but despite the pain of the needle, isn’t the vaccination still for the best? Why should we be so sure that the pain of this life isn’t for the best?

Either way, this doesn’t matter, because Mr. Smith has not explained why it is necessary that God should make our world perfectly good.

Now the theist might respond that there may be some greater good we don’t know about. But notice the theist says, “there may be some greater good we don’t know about.” Well sure there may be some greater good we don’t know about. Anything is possible.

Good so far.

It is possible there is an elephant stomping through my house. It is possible that Elvis Presley is alive and is doing the twist on the dark side of the moon. But the fact that something is possible does not show it is the least bit probable.

If the notion that God has a sufficient reason for allowing evil is really as absurd as these examples, then I suppose I won’t argue that we might as well conclude God does not exist. However, the theist has other overriding reasons for believing in God, so that I don’t think this argument holds sway on inductive grounds alone.

At least, as an inductive argument, this reasoning cannot qualify as proof of the nonexistence of God. There is a big difference between me concluding that Elvis probably isn’t tapdancing on the moon, and proving that Elvis isn’t tapdancing on the moon.

It appears that another one of those newspaper-blog-column wars ensued on June 2009 AD regarding atheism. Andy Birkey’s article Kersten’s back at the Strib… and riling up atheists is a one stop shop for the same, old, tired, and ubiquitously discredited atheist talking points.

The article states:

After a several-month hiatus, Katherine Kersten’s lightning rod-conservatism is back at the Star Tribune, and her edgy, faith-tinged opinion hasn’t failed to disappoint those looking for controversy.
Her Sunday-only column this week took aim at atheism and what she perceives as its detrimental impact on society. She argues that without faith in God, people have no basis to form a moral framework. As a society we are embracing atheism, she writes, “[b]ut before we do, we would be wise to consider the potential consequences.” Such as? Bloodshed. “The French Revolution, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union — all sought to replace Judeo-Christian ethics with reason, and ended in massive bloodletting,” she wrote. “In ancient Rome, disabled babies were left on hilltops to die.”

Her column sparked outcry from many atheists who say that faith in a Judeo-Christian God does not form the basis for people’s compassion, sense of equality, ethics and morals. People do.

The argument appears to be misunderstood. Firstly, let us note that morals refers to a description of the mores and merely describe what is while ethics is in reference to the ethos and prescribes what should be.
Atheists can make any claim that they want about anything, that is not the issue. The issue is that it must be recognized that they are merely expressing personal preferences in the form of impotent assertions and oft expressed as arguments from outrage, arguments to ridicule, arguments to embarrassment, etc. If there is no God then everyone is doing just that and fittest will win.

The theist assertion, if you will, and let us now refer to Judeo-Christian theology, is that God is the ultimate ethos; the premise, the basis. Grounded in God’s very triune (and therefore, eternally relational) nature and character the ethos is neither arbitrary nor something to which God is subject but is a consequence of the very nature of His eternally relational being.

That being said, in this essay I am interested in considering the quotes that Andy Birkey provided on this issue by Craig James, George Francis and PZ Myers.

Craig A. James wrote:

Her [Katherine Kersten’s] argument presupposes that God exists and gave us our morality, and presupposes that without God there will be no morality. But if you drop the presupposition, that is, assume God does not exist, then the Bible itself proves that Kersten is wrong! The Bible (and many other supposedly God-inspired writings) is full of all sorts of great moral lessons (and some terrible ones, too), and since these were written by men and women, not God, it proves that humans can be moral without divine guidance.

Let us review: the Bible itself proves that Kersten is wrong in claiming that God has bequeathed ethics[1], even though the Bible states that God has bequeathed ethics, because if we presuppose atheism (and he must not understand atheism since he defined it as “God does not exist”—right?) then there is no God to inspire the Bible and thus no God to bequeathed ethics.
Well, there you have it; simply presuppose atheism and you have a one-stop-shop defeater for any and every theistic claim. Having said that, let us note that his response is actually just fine: he is presupposing atheism and is Kersten presupposing theism. They are both engaging in presuppositional apologetics as do we all since, au fond, we all come to a point at which we cannot prove or evidence our ultimate premise but we merely presuppose them.
As Greg Bahnsen notes,

The conflict between believers and unbelievers is ultimately over their differing worldviews — networks of presuppositions in terms of which all experience is interpreted and reasoning is guided…An argument asserts the truth of a proposition on the basis of others [Find the book Presuppositional Apologetics Stated and Defended here at Amazon].

Craig A. James claims that this “proves that humans can be moral without divine guidance” but it does no such thing. Without divine guidance we would likely have much the same as we have today where people live, as if, we have no divine guidance. So what is the point of God giving guidance when we have the free will to ignore it? That is just the point: true ethics presupposes that you are not forced to be ethical. This touches upon one of atheism’s consoling delusions: the consoling delusion of absolute autonomy.
Moreover, it means that God has fulfilled His “responsibility” to express the ethos in order to, as it were, parse between all of the naturally occurring behaviors and prescribe which are we do and which we are not. This, again, touches upon one of atheism’s consoling delusions: the consoling delusion of lack of ultimate accountability. God has made us responsible by revealing His ethos via the written word in the Bible and having written it within us as it is administered via our consciences.

George Francis Kane (public relations officer for the Minnesota Atheists) wrote:

Atheists base their moral judgments on the actual effects of actions on peoples’ lives, rather than principles religion claims to know with certainty. The religious conception of equality that Kersten touts is equality before the god of the Bible, and is not realized until the afterlife. Equality before the law is a secular concept that could only arise when the legitimacy of government is based in the consent of the governed, rather than divine election. Atheists demonstrate compassion no less than that of Christians, but based upon quality of life rather than unbending absolutes.

This statement is a monkey fist of fallacies and misunderstandings. Let us review and correct:
Atheists base their moral judgments on the actual effects of actions on peoples’ lives, rather than principles religion claims to know with certainty.
I am not certain who has bequeathed upon George Francis Kane the authority to declare dogmatheism: to speak, ex cathedra, for all atheists but let us go with it. Thus, atheists base their moral judgments on the actual effects of actions on people’s lives, because they claim to know with certainty that we should base our moral judgments on the actual effects of actions on people’s lives. Moreover, this is a false dichotomy which juxtaposes principles of “religion” over against the actual effects of actions on people’s lives. Yet, the Golden Rule makes particular and specific reference to the actual effects of actions on people’s lives: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Also, the Bible describes one of the two premises upon which the whole of the of the Law is based as “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[2]

The religious conception of equality that Kersten touts is equality before the god of the Bible, and is not realized until the afterlife.
This is certainly false and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts as the Bible states the following of the here and now:

there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him (Romans 10:12).

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all (Colossians 3:11).

Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God (1st Corinthians 10:32).

Equality before the law is a secular concept that could only arise when the legitimacy of government is based in the consent of the governed, rather than divine election.
Again, this is simply false and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts as the Israelite “divine election” system, or theocratic government, contained a very careful judicious system whereby Jews, Gentiles, males, females, etc. were equal and could seek justice. For example, regardless of nationality, religion or gender at least two witnesses were required before even considering someone to be found guilty of a crime.

Atheists demonstrate compassion no less than that of Christians, but based upon quality of life rather than unbending absolutes.
This, again, is a misunderstanding of both Christianity and the Bible. Firstly, no one claims that atheists demonstrate less compassion than Christians (although, the studies are against them). Secondly, Christianity, being based on the Bible (or when it is, as it should be, based on the Bible) does contain absolutes but not unbending absolutes—in a matter of speaking. This is because the ethos is absolute but the application is not. One of the ways that Christians love the LORD their God with all their minds is to apply the absolute ethos via reasoning about the actual effects of actions on people’s lives, etc. “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ Says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18).

PZ Myers wrote:

I always like how these doctrinaire promoters of “Judeo-Christianity” primly declare that they have such moral authority, when their faith has such a poor track record of promoting morality. Christians have advocated slavery, have murdered people for the awful crime of miscegenation, have decreed that people who don’t have the kind of sex they prefer are second-class citizens.
Christians are thieves, murderers, rapists, and jay-walkers; it seems that having a belief in a transcendent authority actually doesn’t equate to being necessarily law-abiding and ethical or even, shocking as that may be, immune from the temptations of their natures.

If we had to wait until a morally perfect or superior person appeared before that person could promote morality (or ethics) I am afraid that, that day would never come. Then again, when Jesus came, lived that life and made those promotions, He was hated, mocked, beaten and killed and has been cursed for two millennia. He is also incorrect in claiming that “‘Judeo-Christianity’…has such a poor track record of promoting morality.” Judeo-Christianity has a great track record of promoting morality but has a poorer track record of exampling morality. Then again, PZ Myers, being an atheist activist, can only see one side of the picture and utterly disregards the millions of ethical lives lived for millennia according to the Judeo-Christian ethos. This includes the founding principles of the very country in which he lives that protects his freedom to besmirch Judeo-Christianity.

I am certain that the statement that “it seems that having a belief in a transcendent authority actually doesn’t equate to being necessarily law-abiding and ethical or even, shocking as that may be, immune from the temptations of their natures” is supposed to mean something—but alas. Now, of course, this is merely more emotive generalizing. However, let us note that no one, not even the Bible, has ever claimed that it logically follows that “belief in a transcendent authority” concludes in being “law-abiding and ethical or even…immune from the temptations of their natures.” Again, for millions of people through millennia this has been the case. Yet, overall, free will still reigns and so since those who hold to a “belief in a transcendent authority” are, shocking as that may be, mere human beings after all they may fail to live up to that transcendent authority.

I wonder if we could revamp the statement and apply it to atheists:

I always like how these doctrinaire promoters of “Atheism” primly declare that they have such moral authority, when their lack of faith has such a poor track record of promoting morality. Atheists have advocated slavery, have murdered people for the awful crime of miscegenation, have decreed that people who don’t have the kind of sex they prefer are second-class citizens.
Atheists are thieves, murderers, rapists, and jay-walkers; it seems that having no belief in a transcendent authority actually doesn’t equate to being necessarily law-abiding and ethical or even, shocking as that may be, immune from the temptations of their natures.

Just consider, at the very least, the history of the 20th century; the most secular and bloodiest century in human history (see the essay From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 11 of 13 for example).

God chose not to create automatons since true love requires choice as does true ethics. We have a conscience as a guide and must exercise our minds in the application.

Perhaps God should have created a perfect world but also allow for the free will that would make that world meaningful. Perhaps we would choose to do evil things. Perhaps He could condemn the evil while also providing a way of forgiveness. Perhaps He should come to Earth as a human and go what we go through; see how He likes it. Perhaps we could have a go at Him and belittle Him, curse Him, spit on Him, beat Him and murder Him. Perhaps He would eventually restore the perfect world—this is the Bible’s message.

[1] This, in counter distinction to the claim by Dan Barker, “Darwin has bequeathed what is good.”
[2] The other premise is “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.”

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

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, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.

Cosmology and the Pathetic Bible
Christopher Hitchens then brings up the following point:

“You know, Dinesh D’Souza makes this statement in his new book. He’s going to be, by the way, one of the much more literate and well-read and educated of our antagonists I’m going to be debating soon. He says that in Genesis, which people used to mock, they said ‘let there be light’ and then only a few staves later you get the sun and the moon and the stars.”Sam Harris, “Right.”Christopher Hitchens, “How could that be?”Sam Harris, “Yes.”Christopher Hitchens, “Well, according to the Big Bang, that would be right.”Sam Harris, “Yeah, but that’s pretty pathetic.”

Christopher Hitchens, “The Bang precedes the galaxies. Believe me, I think it’s pathetic too, but _”

It is interesting to note that Christopher Hitchens was stating that when we combine the Bible with modern cosmology it makes perfect sense. Meanwhile, Sam Harris is interrupting apparently not knowing where Christopher Hitchens was going with this, since Christopher Hitchens was not merely going to say, “Light before Sun equals nonsense.” They both agree that the Bible accurately describes light before the Sun.Why then is it “pathetic”?What is “pathetic” about a prediction (employing the scientific definition)?It is because a mere book written by mere superstitious ignoramuses could not possibly be stating what it is stating?

Is it because it is not convenient to their particular worldviews?

I paused the quoted transcript above at “but _” at which time Sam Harris stated:

“Right. Well, I try to demonstrate this cast of mind in, I think, a very long end note in ‘The End of Faith’, where I say, ‘any text can be read’. Well, with the eyes of faith you can make magical [the official transcript has this inserted here “?prescience/impressions”] out of any text. So, I literally walked into a book store, the cookbook aisle of a book store, randomly opened a cookbook, found a recipe for wok-seared shrimp with ogo relish or something, and then came up with a mystical interpretation of the recipe. And you can do it! I mean, you can play connect the dots with any crazy text and find wisdom in it.”Christopher Hitchens again, “Michael Shermer did it with the Bible code.”Sam Harris, “Right, I haven’t seen that, but, yeah.”

Christopher Hitchens, “The hidden messages in the Bible. Very, very good. You can write yesterday’s headlines from it anytime you like. Yeah.”

They are clearly skirting the issue and making category mistakes. The issue was not hidden Bible codes, not newspaper theology nor that “any text can be read,” but comparing a claim (the Bible’s) with science (modern cosmology). Various New Atheists make this point about “any text can be read” concept, they do not, however, take it far enough. The question is not merely “Can you make any text state whatever you want” but “Did you logically, viably, make is state what you want” or most importantly, “What you want the text to state is irrelevant since the question is what does the text state” (this is basic hermeneutics, basic exegesis versus eisegesis/isogesis see here).

Sam Harris himself has lamented that his writings have been misquoted and uncontextually misapplied:

“_the fine art of selective quotation to make me appear to hold positions which I do not hold_While I stand by everything I have written in ‘The End of Faith’_I cannot be expected to parry every malicious sampling of my text. It is unfortunate_”1

Apparently, he can recognize this with the treatment of his own writing but not the Bible. Noting that the Bible’s cosmology is accurate is not making anything say anything, it is just reading. I will soon be posting on two aspects of atheism’s views on cosmology.

With regards to the above mentioned Dinesh D’Souza you can hear a radio debate between him and Christopher Hitchens here and with Dan Barker 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. 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.

We now continue considering the group effort by Robert Greg Cavin, Michael Martin, Theodore Drange, Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Peter Kirby, Jeffery Lowder, Evan Fales, Duncan Derrett and Keith Parsons to discredit Jesus’ resurrection?

This group, referred to as a “murder”-a term in this sense is taken from referring to a group of crows a “a murder of crows”-is refuted by one single solitary Christian, Norman L. Geisler, in his article A Critical Review of The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave which I have parsed.

Chapter 3: “Why Resurrect Jesus?” by Theodore Drange

Summary of the Argument:

Drange argues that the resurrection of Jesus is not important, saying, “It would have seemed more like a real death if Jesus, or at least his body, had stayed dead. . . . That would have been a greater sacrifice on God’s part. So, the way Christian theology portrays the matter, there is an apparent inconsistency between the atonement and the resurrection” (55).

Further, he finds Charles Hodge’s reasons for the resurrections inadequate.

First, as for Hodge’s claim that “all of Christ’s claims and the success of His work rest on the fact that He rose from the dead” (56), Drange insists that at best, the resurrection would only be a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. But even this is rejected since “all that the gospel maintains is that Christ’s atonement was successful, and, consequently, salvation has been made possible for humanity. It was the death of Christ, not his resurrection, that was supposed to have atoned for humanity’s sins” (57).

Second, Hodge argued that “on His resurrection depended the mission of the Spirit, without which Christ’s work would have been in vain” (60). This mission included the source of our spiritual life, the revealing of divine truth, the inspiration of the Bible, the influence of people toward faith, the regeneration of their souls, making the sacraments effective, and calling men to ministries in the church. But Drange sees “nothing in this list which could not be accomplished even if Christ’s body had been permanently destroyed” (60).

Third, Hodge argued that Christ’s resurrection secured life for his people. “As He lives, they shall live also. If He had remained under the power of death, there would be no source of spiritual life to men . . .” (61). But Drange believes an afterlife could be possible without a resurrection, and people could have a resurrection without Christ having one shortly after His death.

Fourth, Hodge also contended, “If Christ did not rise, the whole scheme of redemption is a failure . . .” (63). But Drange believes that his response to the first argument of Hodge suffices here also. Some may argue that even if the resurrection was not a necessary way to accomplish redemption, it may have been God’s chosen way. But Drange insists that all Christ’s resurrection would show is that His body was revived, not that this is logically necessary so that ours can as well (65).
And as for the claim that the resurrections showed something to humankind in general, he argues that an omnipotent being could have done a better job at marketing or advertising the fact. And even then “the resurrection could have been accomplished through some sort of magic or superscience” (66).

So, “Hodge’s reasons for regarding the Resurrection to be an important event are all failures. . . . So far as Christian theology is concerned, all of them could go on quite well without it . . .” (66). In short, Drange claims that the question “‘Why Resurrect Jesus?’ does not have any reasonable answer within Christian theology. Instead of being essential to the overall system, the Resurrection may very well have been a kind of afterthought on the part of the biblical authors” (67).

Response to the Argument:

First of all, Drange’s argument is clearly contrary to the biblical record which makes the resurrection necessary for salvation (Rom. 4:25; 10:9). Indeed, Paul said, “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!” (1 Cor. 15:17).

Second, Jesus did make an important connection between His life and our spiritual life when He said we shall rise because He did (John 11:25). And Paul did also when he pointed out that Christ was the “firstfruits” of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20; cf. Matt. 27:52-53). In short, if Jesus the Son of God cannot defeat death, then how can we mortals do it. Further, since death was brought about by the Devil, then resurrection is necessary to defeat God’s Adversary the Devil (Heb. 2:14-15).

Third, Christ’s resurrection can be an objective demonstration of God’s work of salvation in Him without all men knowing about it. Wars are often officially over for a long time before all combatants are aware of it. Even laws are officially promulgated without all persons knowing about them.

Fourth, according to the Bible all men will be resurrected but not all will be saved because Christ was resurrected (1 Cor. 15:22; cf. John 5:29). Thus, there is an actual effect on all humankind, even if many are not now aware of it. Indeed, many believers (at least before the time of Christ) were saved on the basis of Christ’s resurrection without knowing about the fact of His resurrection.

Fifth, the incorrigible nature of Drange’s antisupernaturalism is revealed in the fact that he was willing to acknowledge that Christ could have come back from the dead by an act of “some sort of magic or superscience.” Even David Hume admitted that this would be a miracle. If not a resurrection, then what would count as a miracle?

Sixth, it is irrelevant that an afterlife is possible without a resurrection. What is relevant to the discussion is whether the resurrection happened and whether this would constitute a miracle. And the evidence is very strong for both. No amount of a priori improbability or speculation about the alleged logical necessity of it can be determined from the fact of the resurrection and its miraculous nature.
And if it is connected with a truth claim of Christ’s deity, then that alone makes it very important. Furthermore, as others have noted, while the resurrection is not necessary to show an afterlife, it certainly evidences heavily the Christian notion of the after life, as well as the truth of Jesus’ teachings.1

Having considered John Horgan’s review of abiogenesis theories we also considered his interview with Francis Collins. It seemed timely to further consider some, non-scientific, criticisms of Francis Collins made by various atheists.

Time and time, and time again, atheist make well within the box arguments against Christians which end up not only leaving Christians unscathed but only result in discrediting the atheist.

Sam Harris writes, “Francis Collins physical chemist, medical geneticist and head of the Human Genome Project[_]As director of the Human Genome Project, Collins participated in one of the greatest scientific achievements in human history.”Yet, he concludes, “His book, however, reveals that a stellar career in science offers no guarantee of a scientific frame of mind.”

But why? Amongst the easiest targets that the New Atheists find attached to Francis Collins is his waterfall experience. Steve Paulson (in The Believer) had occasion to ask Francis Collins about this episode:

You’ve said you were once an obnoxious atheist. What changed you? Why did you turn to religion?

I became an atheist because as a graduate student studying quantum physics, life seemed to be reducible to second-order differential equations. Mathematics, chemistry and physics had it all. And I didn’t see any need to go beyond that.Frankly, I was at a point in my young life where it was convenient for me to not have to deal with a God. I kind of liked being in charge myself. But then I went to medical school, and I watched people who were suffering from terrible diseases.And one of my patients, after telling me about her faith and how it supported her through her terrible heart pain, turned to me and said, What about you? What do you believe? And I stuttered and stammered and felt the color rise in my face, and said, “Well, I don’t think I believe in anything.”

But it suddenly seemed like a very thin answer. And that was unsettling. I was a scientist who was supposed to draw conclusions from the evidence and I realized at that moment that I’d never really looked at the evidence for and against the possibility of God.

You also write about a seminal experience you had a little later, when you were hiking in the Cascade Mountains in Washington.

Nobody gets argued all the way into becoming a believer on the sheer basis of logic and reason. That requires a leap of faith. And that leap of faith seemed very scary to me. After I had struggled with this for a couple of years, I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon.I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it — also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief.

The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth — that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief.

Sam Harris notes the following (in The Language of Ignorance):

Collins describes the moment that he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ:

On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.

If this account of field research seems a little thin, don’t worry a recent profile of Collins in Time magazine offers supplementary data. Here, we learn that the waterfall was frozen in three streams, which put the good doctor in mind of the Trinity It is at this point that thoughts of suicide might occur to any reader who has placed undue trust in the intellectual integrity of his fellow human beings.
One would hope that it would be immediately obvious to Collins that there is nothing about seeing a frozen waterfall (no matter how frozen) that offers the slightest corroboration of the doctrine of Christianity.

But it was not obvious to him as he knelt in the dewy grass, and it is not obvious to him now. Indeed, I fear that it will not be obvious to many of his readers.If the beauty of nature can mean that Jesus really is the son of God, then anything can mean anything the mere sighting of a waterfall appears to have been sufficient to answer all important questions of theology for Collins.

Other New Atheist have chimed in so as to demonstrate the power of group think:

Christopher Hitchens, “someone like Francis Collins admit the existence of God evidenced by observation of a frozen waterfall in the Appalachians.”

PZ Myers, “If the waterfall had two parts, would he have converted to Zoroastrianism?”

Do not misunderstand; I get the appeal of belittling others based upon elbowing your buddy in the ribs whilst expressing your own cleverness. This is particularly so when you cannot help but elbowing you buddy’s ribs because your buddy in packed tightly within your little box of group think.

Did Francis Collins infer the existence of God by observing a waterfall? Did he accept the Trinitarian doctrine based on the waterfalls tripartite nature? Was he convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ at the sight of frozen H2O?

I very seriously doubt it for various reasons two being that 1) Francis Collins was an atheist who had been thinking deeply and studying issues such as God 2) there is typically (if not always) a soteriological chain of causation which at long last concludes in a dewy grass sort of event.

Interestingly enough, Francis Collins and I came to believe the way we do at the same age-27 yrs. Where I to retell what brought me to my dewy grass event is a 27 year long story. This story would include a very wide variety of events: personal experiences, logic, emotions, much musing, prayer, rejection, joy, rebellion, study, etc., etc., etc.

In fact, where I to confine myself to describing just the night of my dewy grass event, the story would include a combination of the emotions, logical syllogism, the spiritual, etc., etc., etc.

To state that Francis Collins believes in the Trinitarian God because he saw a tripartite frozen waterfall is convenient for the sake of mockery but it betrays a complete misunderstanding of what I would think is a basic human modus operandi: we do not accept anything without there being a history which lead us to the point of acceptance.

May I mock atheists who choose to reject God’s very existence based on the death of a loved one? Surely, there was a chain of causation behind that decision.

May I mock Prof. Richard Dawkins because he accepted Darwinian evolution because some taught it to him? There was, in fact, a chain of causation behind that decision (see my essay The Gap Filler).

May I mock my children who believe what I tell them? Even this is based on their previous knowledge about my reliability.

And may I mock the New Atheists for concluding that Francis Collins believes as he does simply based upon a waterfall and only a waterfall? Tempting as it is, there is quite a history behind this chain of causation.

There is a chain of causation behind Francis Collins acceptance-a 27 years long chain. What confuses the New Atheists is that in their eagerness to mock, they have not bothered to find the missing links.

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

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.

There is something about the one-liner, bumper-sticker approach of popular atheism that causes the adherents of Richard Dawkins to burst into undulations, applause and approving cheers whenever he feeds them a one-liner or tosses out a bumper-sticker slogan. The presumed brilliance of his succinctions emote flabbergastation in rational thinkers.

Following are three such instances:

The Ju Ju
During a lecture some asked Prof. Richard Dawkins, “What if you’re wrong?”

To which he responded, “What if you’re wrong about the great Ju Ju at the bottom of the sea?”
And the crowd went wild.

This is not only a non-answer but a diversion. Indeed, what if I am wrong about the great Ju Ju at the bottom of the sea? Exactly! What if I am wrong? Then what? Well then apparently, nothing. What are the great Ju Ju’s doctrines? What are the Ju Ju’s commandments? What are the consequences for breaking them? What, if any, atonement has the Ju Ju offered? Etc., etc., etc.

James White commented on this episode here.

Death
During a lecture at the Society for Ethical Culture someone asked Richard Dawkins about death.

In response, he “quoted Mark Twain: ‘I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born.’ The room erupted in loud applause.”[1]

Is this supposed to mean something? It appears to be nothing but a glorification of atheism’s dismal view of life’s ultimate insignificance.

50/50
During his debate with Dr. John Lennox, Richard Dawkins made an interesting remark about the Bible’s statements on the universe’s origins and how the Bible stated millennia ago that the universe had a beginning, that it is finite. He dismissed this fact by stating that the Bible had a 50/50% chance of getting it right, at which point the audience roared in approval.

I wrote about this issue in my essay “In the Beginning…”: the Lucky Guess. The bottom line is very clear: if the Bible is thought to be wrong on some point then that discredits the Bible. Yet, if the Bible is correct on some point then that does not accredit it. When the Bible is thought to be wrong it is all the more reason to discard it. But when it is right then it just got lucky. Clearly, this is a convenient argument whereby the Bible is useless since if it is wrong it is just wrong and if right then it is lucky.

Considering that his attempts at more complex arguments and his failed exploits into philosophy fare no better Richard Dawkins is probably better off sticking to the one-liner and bumper-sticker approach. At least these make Pavlov’s dogs happy.
[1] Sean McManus, If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Atheism and ChristianityFor many people pain and suffering, in actuality or as a concept, are reasons, or excuses, to call God’s good character, or existence, into question.

Atheism and morality

Sometimes the situation is one in which a person wonders “Why would God let me, or make me, go through this pain and suffering,” and at other times “I’m perfectly comfortable but why would God let, or make, other people suffer.”

But what is it about pain and suffering that arouse such strong reactions from people? Let us keep in mind that pain serves a very important and beneficial role in our lives. Touching a hot stove sends a pulse of pain to our brains that is so sharp and primal that we instantly recoil. This is a good thing for otherwise we would leave our hand there and may have it burned to the point of uselessness (I have a scar on my hand from putting my hand in an oven when I was three).

Many more examples could be offered, but this does not seem to be the area of contention. It seems that people are more concerned about debilitating suffering, pointless suffering, and the perception that since God can surely heal our pain and suffering but does not do so then he is either of ill character or nonexistent.
Atheism and Christianity
Some would ask if, for instance, God is our father why does He allow us to experience pain and suffering? They may ask if, for instance, I, as a father, would allow my children to experience pain and suffering. To this I would instantly and with utmost certainly answer,

“Of course, I would literally sit by and do nothing while my children experience pain and suffering”-what decent, humane, parent would say otherwise?

For instance, when my youngest son was born his first experiences in this world was having a perfect stranger stab his ankle every half an hour and I did not do anything to prevent it-this was a nurse with a needle taking blood.

All I did was to comfort him, it did not erase his pain and suffering but I attempted to ease it. Understand that I knew the greater purpose behind the pain and suffering-his blood sugar level had to be checked by these means in order to ensure his health. Therefore, I did not prevent the nurse from inflicting pain and suffering since there was a greater and benevolent purpose behind it-a purpose that my son was wholly ignorant of at the time, all he know was the pain. I will revisit this true story in some greater detail soon as I comment on certain statements made by Quentin Smith.
Atheism and morality
This ignorance of ours as to a greater and benevolent purpose appears to be the reason why we reach a point at which we ignore the possibility of there being a greater and benevolent purpose. We then focus only upon pain and suffering and seek the instant cessation thereof. We may chronically intake painkillers and this may make us feel very good. Yet, in such cases we are dealing with the symptoms and not the cause, we are sedating the pain but doing nothing about the pain’s cause, we are merely hiding the problem by concocting chemical cocktails.

I myself have been inflicted with pain and suffering in the form of daylong headaches, about six days per week, lasting for months. Also, eighteen years (as of 2009), and counting, of leg/knee pain. Plus, the usual physical and emotional distress with which we all must deal. I still cannot help but think that we suffer more from our worrying and contemplation about suffering than from the actual physical/emotional sensation.
Atheism and Christianity
For instance, when I feel sick I prefer that every person with whom I talk does not ask how I feel and what my symptoms are. I understand and appreciate their concern but I am trying not to focus on it and certain do not care to relive it. When I have a headache I find that while I am busy about something the shift of attention help but I really feel it when I have time to dwell on it.

One particular example will seal this deal. While just getting over food poisoning people would ask me what I ate and from whence did the food escape from my system. The very last thing that a person dealing with food poisoning wants to do it think about food, think about the food that poisoned them, and think about the various expulsions of said food.
Atheism and moralityI recall a particular instance in my youth when my dad would take me out into the street and simply let me go while knowing that I would get hurt. Yes, this is how I learned how to ride a bicycle-he would take me out into the street, run along side of me, then let go and I would very quickly lose my balance and fall. At this point I would get bruised, cut, scraped and end up sore and scabbed. Yet, the odd thing is that I do not ever recall thinking that my dad was an evil man because he was purposefully, with forethought and knowledge, causing me to suffer pain. I did not besmirch his character, nor deny his existence. Apparently, I gladly endured the pain and suffering because of the glorious goal-learning how to ride a bike. This goal was so alluring, so palatable, so within reach that all pain and suffering was dim in comparison.

Atheism and Christianity
Our pain can have various beneficial effects:

I can often make us stronger; the low impact exercise of riding a bike regularly has helped my knees feel better and my legs are stronger today.It can make our character stronger.

It can inspire others (consider the quadriplegic, Joni Eareckson Tada).

It can give others the opportunity to inspire us.It can provide an opportunity for others to gain from the experience of helping us.

It can do so very much in so many ways.

Yet, even these facts and more do not seem to account for the apparent arbitrariness of suffering-this is the particular issue that I will take up in the near future with regards to Quentin Smith.
Atheism and morality
The reason that our much learning has made us mad is that we have lost sight of the eternal-our long term goal. We neglect the future. We obsess about, and cannot see beyond, our present circumstances and some virtual believe that our present circumstances are all that there is to life.

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

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.

Strident, Arrogant, Vitriolic, and or Shrill?
The discussion begins with Prof. Richard Dawkins asking, “One of the things we’ve all met is the accusation that we are strident, or aahm, arrogant, or, or vitriolic, or shrill, aah, what do we think about that.” The answers are basically that no matter how naughty or nice they are they simply cannot win because merely criticizing religion instantly labels them as strident, arrogant, vitriolic, or shrill. I personally believe in staying well away from these sorts of labels since they make it all too easy to fall into the logical fallacy of the ad hominem. I have no problem referring to, for instance, Prof. Richard Dawkins’ lazy scholarship since it seems very obvious to me that he is accepting vast amounts of research by others and merely repeating it uncritically (see my essay Planting God More Firmly on His Throne for some examples).

Sam Harris chimes in with one of his very common statements to the effect of, they are considered as such merely for breaking a taboo by criticizing religion. Of course, he is missing the point which is that whilst allegedly breaking the taboo by criticizing religion (which we apologists have been doing for millennia) they are, in fact, also strident, arrogant, vitriolic, or shrill. For example, Sam Harris could criticize religion without making statements such as, “‘If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.'”1 Even Prof. Daniel Dennett gets into the act by peppering his book “Breaking the Spell” with virtual triple-dog-dares to the effect of, “I dare you to read this book and if you are reading my dare then I bet you won’t be able to finish reading this book.” How these are supposed to be a logical, philosophical or scientifically respectable statement is indiscernible. No, their critics are not verklempt due to shock at someone daring to question, or even besmirch, their fragile faith but because the Horsemen often come across as horse’s_ well, you know the saying. Sadly, they are too easily dismissed as being too childish to be taken seriously. I say “sadly” because they aught to be taken seriously enough to have the arguments, which they hide like needles in hay stacks of childish rhetoric, dealt with. Many of us have done just that. Vox Day has carefully dissected many of the Horsemen’s claims that are premised upon statistics (The Irrational Atheist, freely downloadable). It is also interesting to note that four times criticisms of their works are referred to as “attacks.”

They are also surprised and disappointed that “our fellow secularists and our fellow atheists” are neither on their paint with a broom besmirching bandwagon but are often their staunchest critics. They appear to think that all secularists and atheists should convert to their particular, and peculiar, sect and become activists who join the fray by their prescribed rules of engagement.

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

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.