Month: December 2016

John Lennon’s atheist anthem “Imagine” has gotten so much airplay by the New Atheists.1 Thus, it seems apropos to mention Bob Dylan’s song “Gotta Serve Somebody” in which he sings:

You’re gonna have to serve some body,Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

My title makes reference to totalitarian, dictatorial and tyrannical due to the fact that Christopher Hitchens has employed each of these terms in referring to his view of what Judeo-Christian theology proposes.

Christopher Hitchens is an adherent of the sect of atheism that does not positively affirm God’s non-existence. Yet, he describes himself as an “anti-theist.” He has purposefully set himself up as an opponent to God.

If God is totalitarian, dictatorial and tyrannical why reject Him and Him alone for being so? After all, let us assume that God does not exist and we live in a strictly materialistic universe. Christopher Hitchens is now subject to the totalitarian, dictatorial and tyrannical rule of entropy, hunger and thirst, evolution, death, gravity, genetics and countless other things which demand upon him.
I did not ask to be born and do not ask to be annihilated at death. Christopher Hitchens appears to be particularly taken with smoking, consuming adult beverages and copulation.

But why reject God alone for a presumed totalitarian/dictatorial/tyranny?

This is the heart of anti-theism.

This is man in rebellion.

This is God in the hands of an angry sinner.

God stated, “You shall have no other gods before me,” the atheist states, “I shall have not other gods before me.”

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

Tomorrow we will consider the life of our thoughts.

John Piper (here) and Frank Turek (here) have also considered Christopher Hitchens comments on totalitarian-dictatorial-tyranny.

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

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.

The Holocaust has been on the news quite a bit lately, as per; Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Barack Obama, Anne Frank, James Von (or Van) Brunn.

With Mahmud Ahmadinejad denying it. Barack Obama affirming it. Anne Frank’s birthday being celebrated.

James Von (or Van) Brunn shooting guards at the museum.

Let us not, ever, forget a statement made by an obviously militant extremist who actually blames all of the Jew’s suffering throughout history including the Holocaust; the Jewish persecution during the Holocaust, the 6,000,000 Jewish deaths during the Holocaust on whom?

THE JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the quote:

The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth.

Who would even imagine such a sentiment?

Who would entertain it?

Who would actually state it?

Who would publish it as a cerebral accomplishment of theirs?

It was not a 1940s era goose-stepping Nazi.

It was not stated by a neo-Nazi group member.

It was not even stated by James Von Brunn.

These are the words, the thoughts, the heart and soul of the supposed champion of reason: Sam Harris.1

…out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks – Luke 6:45

Much has been stated regarding the successes, morality and high standards of atheist or secular societies. Much also has been inferred from various studied of atheist or secular societies-such as God is not necessary for moral, successful societies.

I wished to put into practice what I have learned from the champions of reason, atheists; particularly of the New Atheist sect, and counter argue against such inferences:

Whatever truth there may be to the claims of successful, moral and high standards of atheist or secular societies does not mean that atheism or secularism are cogent concepts.

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

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.

In this portion we will finish off the New Testament portion of Charlotte’s 22 side dishes and begin to get a tasted of her fallacy of attempting to talk atheist into believing that New Testament Christians are supposed to follow Old Testament laws.

8) Believers are supposed to hate their parents when they follow Jesus (“If any man come to me, and not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sister, yet, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Well, considering that Christians do not abandon their families but usually attempt to brainwash them they are all guilty of not following this verse. “It’s symbolic”, yeah, I know your lame *** defense to this one already. [expletive censored]

Note that, again, even if we grant her misconception her example is still faulty. Assuming that Jesus, who taught that we were to honor our parents, taught that we were supposed to hate them it is a non sequitur to consider that “Christians do not abandon their families” since they could hate someone with whom they live-I have had some roommate_anyhow.

Now, what is wrong with not only claiming that “It’s symbolic” but inferring from the context of the Bible and the fact that no one, not Jesus, not the apostles, not the disciples, not the early church nor any Christians has ever, in two millennia, understood Jesus to be speaking of the same sort of seething emotional despising hatred which Charlotte displays against Christians. Apparently, it took 2,000 years for us to really understand this text and only via the erudite elucidation of the atheist propaganda de jour.

9) They are not to oppose evil (“But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”— Matthew 5:39). If this were followed one might just as well abolish law enforcement.

This is another very, very common misconception that discredit not the Bible but whoever gives voice to it. Adolf Hitler was a victim of this misconception when he wrote,

“turning of both cheeks is not a very good recipe for the front”1

What is the evil being done in this case? Adolf Hitler and Charlotte fail to note the obvious fact that the text is referring to a slap in the face. What is a slap in the face? It is not correlative to military conflict or to the stuff of law enforcement. A slap in the face is an insult thus, do not return insult for insult.

10) Biblicists are not allowed to call anyone “father” (“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). Not only is this rule ignored on a DAILY BASIS, but Catholicism uses “father” as a specific title.

The issue in the text appears to be the overuse, abuse, of authority and thus appears to say “Do not apply these labels in order to get a big head” or as David Brown put it in commenting on this text, “that itch for ecclesiastical superiority which has been the bane and the scandal of Christ’s ministers in every age”:

Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat_They love_greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Matthew 23:1-2, 6-12).

The text is a reminder to not consider any clergypersonage; Pope, High Priest, Imam, Guru, Michael Newdow (who claims that atheism is a religion), etc. the one true and ultimate “Rabbi_Teacher_Father.”

11) Christians are not supposed to plan or prepare. God will provide (“Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or that ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on… Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, not gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feedth them. Are ye not much better than they?” –Matthew 6:25-34 & Luke 12:22-31 inclusive). I see Christian conservatives plot on a daily basis how to screw their employees so they can reap more profits.

Again, by disregarding the context, the complete thought, she is falling into folly.The text is dealing with the idea that (v. 24),

No one can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

So how do we keep from serving two masters? “Do not be anxious” for what good is being anxious? “Therefore do not be anxious” since “your heavenly Father knows that you have need of all these things.” Yet, even the most Bible-thumpin’-born againer-fundie-evang-YECists knows that this does not mean that these various good magically appear but that we must make and take opportunity.
Thus, the point is:

1) Delineation: “No one can serve two masters”

2) Priority: “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness”

3) Because: “all these things shall be added to you”

4) Thus, and again, “do not be anxious about tomorrow” (see Matthew 6:25-34)

Now we come to the area in which Charlotte somehow manages to top herself in demonstrating both her lack of knowledge of the most basic contents and concepts in the Bible and her belligerent prejudice against Christians.

This is where she cannot seem to distinguish between the, not the key words here, “Old” testament/covenant and “New” testament/covenant. The greater problem is that she does think that she understands it very well, certainly better than “these idiots.” This is problematic because it is prideful zeal without knowledge as she attempts to offer the militant activist anti-Christian atheist a combination of punches whereby to knock out any opposition to her views.

Let us consider this recipe which appears at the very end of her “sermon” and then backtrack to those side dishes in which she attempts to apply the “Old” testament/covenant to “New” testament/covenant Christians:

I’d like to close this essay with how to catch a Christian in the act. When you see them expounding a verse and ignoring another, call them on it. I know what you’ll hear. They’ll say, “that’s from the Old Law and we aren’t under the Old Law anymore”. Trip them with this: “But aren’t the Ten Commandments part of the Old Law?” “Yes, but we are obligated to follow them because they are reported in the NT” (Matthew 19:16-18, Mark 10:17-19 & Luke 18:18-22). Immediately point out to them that Jesus omitted half of the Ten Commandments and invented a new one, “though shall not defraud” ! Before they can get a word in edge wise finish them off with: “According to scripture it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of law to fail” (Luke 16:17 & Matthew 5:18-19). If sin is transgression of the law, as 1 John 3:4 says, then you should be following all of the Old Law. This, from experience, is the best way to shoot down these idiots and bar them from getting away with their hypocrisy.

Let us now parse this recipe and consider its various aspects carefully:

I’d like to close this essay with how to catch a Christian in the act.When you see them expounding a verse and ignoring another, call them on it. I know what you’ll hear.They’ll say, “that’s from the Old Law and we aren’t under the Old Law anymore”.Trip them with this: “But aren’t the Ten Commandments part of the Old Law?”

“Yes, but we are obligated to follow them because they are reported in the NT” (Matthew 19:16-18, Mark 10:17-19 & Luke 18:18-22).

Although she does not describe the scenario very well, apparently she is asserting to Christians that they are ignoring the Old Testament Law and they rightly respond. Next, she offers the next punch,

Immediately point out to them that Jesus omitted half of the Ten Commandments and invented a new one, “though shall not defraud” !

I am not quite certain what to make of this; Charlotte appears to think that any mention of the Commandments must be followed by a neat list of the ten and in the original order. Yet, this is simply not the case as exampled by the following texts in which Jesus explains:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22:37-40).

The first of all the commandments is, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” This is the first commandment. And the second is like this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these (Mark 12:29-31).

I would imagine that Charlotte would apparently not even recognize the Sh’ma, “Hear, O Israel_” as a “commandment.”

Thus, did “Jesus omitted half of the Ten Commandments and invented a new one, ‘though shall not defraud’ !”The text in question reads:

And when He had gone out into the way, one came running up and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except one, God.You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, honor your father and your mother.And he answered and said to Him, Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth.Then Jesus, beholding him, loved him and said to him, One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have and give it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in Heaven. And come, take up the cross and follow Me.

And he was sad at that saying and went away grieved, for he had great possessions (Mark 10:17-22).

How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice.What is the first rule of real estate? Location, location, location.How do you understand any text at all, biblical or not? Context, context, context.Is the text not clear, is the message not coming through, is the point not being made?Jesus discerns what is holding this man back; he is known to have great possessions and is generally known as the “rich young ruler.” Thus, Jesus repeats to him the commandments that denote that which he lacks: the commandments which deal with human to human interaction. Upon having these repeated to him he claims that he has always followed these yet, when he is put to the test on this point he goes away grieved. Thus, Jesus does not “omitted half of the Ten Commandments” but demonstrated that this self-professed keeper of them did not in reality follow them.But what about inventing “though shall not defraud”?Comparing Exodus 20:12-17 with Mark 10:19 we note the following correlations:

“Honor your father and your mother”-in both.”You shall not murder”-in both.”You shall not commit adultery”-in both.”You shall not steal”-in both.”You shall not bear false witness”-in both.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house_wife_manservant_maidservant_ox_ass_nor anything that is your neighbor’s”-in Mark as “You shall not defraud.”

In other words: “covet” is being rendered as “defraud” which is simply covet to the extreme.

But remember that Charlotte’s advice was:

Before they can get a word in edge wise finish them off with: “According to scripture it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of law to fail” (Luke 16:17 & Matthew 5:18-19). If sin is transgression of the law, as 1 John 3:4 says, then you should be following all of the Old Law. This, from experience, is the best way to shoot down these idiots and bar them from getting away with their hypocrisy.

I must admit to being flummoxed by what she is quoting since the Luke text does not contain the words “According to scripture” and the Matthew text does not state, “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of law to fail.”Yet, even if we grant the text, which with the exception of “According to scripture” does appear in Luke, how does that no part of the law will fail amount to “you should be following all of the Old Law”? A law that pertains to the site of road construction does not fail simply because it is fulfilled once the road work is completed. As we shall see, this is the key; it does not have to fail in order to be fulfilled.

Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).

Jesus came to fulfill and ultimately fulfilled upon the cross when He stated, “It is finished” (or paid in full John 19:30).

Therefore, what have we learned? Christians do not have to follow the minutia of the Old Testament Law. In fact, neither do any Jews who do not live millennia ago, in the area of Israel, in the theocratic nation whose inhabitants had agree to live by it. The Ten Commandments are reiterated in various ways, primarily as indicative of the spirit of the law and not just the word. The Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, were ultimately fulfilled by Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. And thus, Charlotte has punched herself out even whilst merely shadow boxing with her own lack of knowledge.

Next we will consider the manners in which she attempted to vilify Christians for not following laws that were not meant for them.

I think that Richard Dawkins could make a bundle by publishing his grocery shopping list. He, and likewise atheists, should thank God every day for without besmirching Him by their spoken and published word they would have to get real jobs.

This time he has teamed up with “42 atheist celebrities, comedians, scientists and writers” including Ariane Sherine to “give their funny and serious tips for enjoying the Christmas season.” I bet one of the tips is; besmirch your Christian parents, condemn Christmas but then make sure you wake up nice and early on Dec. 25th in order to rake in the presents!

The new book is called “An Atheist’s Guide to Christmas” and it is another compliment to Christianity as militant atheist activists sit in the safety, comfort, freedom and lucrativeness of countries founded on Christian principles while making their living condemning Christianity. They know that the most we will do is say, “What a shame,” “I will pray for them,” or some such equally non-threatening thing.

Perhaps next year they will publish “An Atheist’s Guide to Ramadan,” or “An Atheist’s Guide to Hanukah,” or “An Atheist’s Guide to Kwanza,” etc., not likely I am afraid.

NOTE: This essay was written for Atheism is Dead—True Freethinker’s predecessor—by IrishFarmer.

Recently, my old pal John Loftus has made known his desire to challenge William Lane Craig in a formal debate.

With Dr. Craig recently running through the gambit of popular atheists, including Hitchens and Carrier, I thought this would be quite a pretty interesting debate.

Actually, I’m surprised that John Loftus would issue this challenge. Him and I have interacted quite a bit in the past, and as far as I know (or remember) he’s never said anything like this before. I’m not sure if this is because other popular and popularizing atheists like Hitchens have all gone through the “gauntlet” before, or what his reasoning is, but let’s see what he has to say in his post. After that, I’d love to know what our readers think of this potential debate.

My request is a simple one. I would like skeptics and Christians alike to call for a debate between myself and Dr. William Lane Craig on the topic, Is Christianity more probable than atheism? Use your Blogs and websites to issue this call if you would.

I’ll second that. I think this would be a great debate, and if we can get a groundswell of support in favor of it then we should.

On a recent poll many people think I would win such a debate, even if most think I will lose it. About that poll I wonder if some of the Christians who voted I would lose probably just think that since the skeptics are wrong then there is no way any skeptic can win a debate against any Christian apologist. And I wonder if many of the naysaying voters have read my book or seen me debate against David Wood on the problem of suffering, seen here, which most people think I won.

I haven’t seen that debate in a while, but is it really beyond John that many people (atheist and Christian alike), think that Dr. Craig will win the debate because he’s got sound arguments/is a superior debator?

There are different perspectives on what exactly a “victory” in a debate is. If it’s a matter of convincing the audience that you were right, then John might do very well. If he’s good at one thing, it’s coming up with arguments that are persuasive, it not necessarily sound.

Keep in mind that in the debate I had with Wood I did not know in advance how he would argue. But when it comes to Bill Craig I have been a student of his works and debates and I pretty much know his arguments inside and out. He would have to come up with something completely new to surprise me. But I think I could surprise him with a debate strategy I won’t reveal until the time comes to debate him, if it comes.

This bothers me for two reasons. Firstly, because these statements seem to be lacking in chivalry. If you’re so confident, why keep your strategy secret despite Craig’s debate strategy being widely disseminated on the internet? For the record, however, I’m not saying John is required to reveal his hand just because Craig already has – I just think that it would be the polite thing to do.

Secondly, does John really think he can keep Craig in the dark if Craig really wants to find some pre-debate intel? What I mean is, John has a frequently updated website, two editions of a published book, and at least one video online which shows his debate style. It doesn’t take a saavy investigator to get enough information to be decently prepared for a debate.

I have watched Craig’s debates enough to know what to say and I want to surprise him with something so different he’ll be taken aback. I am sort of an expert on Craig. I’ve followed him for years, first as a student, and now as a skeptic. I probably know Craig and his work better than most other skeptics.

That last statement is probably true. It never ceases to amaze me how unprepared atheists are when they debate Craig, despite his entire debate outline being available in numerous, easy-to-access forms on one single website.

When it comes to debate experience I think I’ve had more of it than most of the skeptics who debate Craig. Most all of the skeptics that Craig has debated probably never debated before, and some of them win, like most recently Shelly Kagan. The only skeptics who have had a great deal of experience in formal debates are probably Eddie Tabash, Dan Barker and Hitchens.

Precisely why I hope this debate happens. John certainly can’t be much worse at debate than Hitchens.

Personally, I don’t think that John will win a potential debate on the soundness of his arguments alone. I think he might win in the sense that his words will sound very convincing at least to atheists, and probably to many people still sitting on the fence, but if nothing else it will be an entertaining debate. I personally like both John and Craig, and so this debate would be well worth it for me. Specifically, I think that the topic is an interesting one as Craig typically deals in “proofs”, but the topic (“Is Christianity more probable than atheism”) is probabalistic.

What do the readers think about this potential debate?

This segment will consider:
Responding to Claims that were not made aka Demolishing Straw Men Technically Correct Pseudo-Refutation Making criticisms that apply equally to conventional and unconventional research Demanding an Unreasonable Degree of Reproducibility Profit Motive Statistics can prove Anything! Fraud cannot be ruled out!

In Medicine: It’s Unsafe!

Responding to Claims that were not made aka Demolishing Straw Men
Benveniste (who showed that ultradilutions, i.e. homeopathic preparations not containing a single molecule of the original substance can still have a biological effect) was attacked by Nature editor John Maddox with the argument that dilutions of the kind used by Benveniste can simply not exist because they would require “1074 world oceans” (that is more water than contained in the entire universe) to manufacture. That is correct, if the definition of “dilution” requires that at least one molecule remain, but Benveniste (and generations of homeopaths) have readily conceded that very point! Everyone agrees that high homeopathic dilutions do not contain a single active molecule, so Maddox’s argument is nothing but the ritual dissection of a straw man. He is not alone – “skeptical” discussions of homeopathy invariably spend a lot of time making this completely uncontested point.Our favourite resource for invalid criticisms, the Skeptic’s Dictionary, tries to downplay the important of the Gauquelin data by stressing that correlation does not imply causation. But astrologers do not claim causation! Both adherents and skeptics agree that astrology is a branch of magic, and as such is based on the principle of correspondences. This principles claims that nature exhibits meaningful, not necessarily causally mediated analogous behavior on all levels. The Gauquelin data shows correlation between the movements of the planets and certain aspects of human behavior; nothing more is claimed by astrology.

In a personal note published on James Randi’s Website, Robert Park makes the following statement about the “Motionless Electromagnetic Generator”, a claimed free energy device:

I’ve been following the MEG claim since Patent 6,362,718 was issued in the spring (What’s New 4 Apr 02). The claim, of course, is preposterous. It is a clear violation of the conservation of energy.

But Park is only demolishing a straw man. The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of a closed system is conserved. But the inventors of the MEG claim that their device takes energy from the zero-point field of the vacuum, thereby conserving the energy of the total system (which in this case would be the MEG and the surrounding vacuum). Whether it can actually do that is an open question. But the existence of the Casimir force proves that in principle such extraction of energy from the vacuum is possible (even though the potential energy gained from the Casimir force between two plates is negligible). Therefore, one cannot dismiss claims for free energy devices such as the MEG on a priori grounds of energy conservation. Since Park is a physicists, he could not possibly be unaware of this. By making this argument, he is therefore intentionally misrepresenting the claims of the MEG inventors. They do not claim to have found a way around the first law; they merely claim to have accessed a source of energy not previously accessible to human technology.[Note: The author is aware of no legitimate scientific evidence that the MEG works as claimed. The purpose of this example is not to suggest that it is a legitimate “free energy” device, but simply to point out the invalid nature of some of the arguments against it.]

Technically Correct Pseudo-Refutation (credit for the term goes to Daniel Drasin):

Pseudoskeptics are fond of arguing that hundreds of respectable scientists believe that a certain idea is bunk, and therefore, it must be. When one points out to them that many scientific breakthroughs were ridiculed and dismissed by the scientific establishment of the time, they retort that not every idea that has been ridiculed or dismissed turned out to be correct. Correct, but completely irrelevant, because it responds to an argument that was not made. The argument was not that ridicule or dismissal by scientific experts is sufficient grounds for accepting an unorthodox claim, simply that it is insufficient grounds for rejecting it.Robert T. Carroll, a Professor of Philosophy at the Sacramento City College no less, falls into this logical trap when he writes in his Skeptic’s Dictionary about what he calls “selective thinking”:

Let’s begin with his version of the “they laughed at Galileo, so I must be right” fallacy, a non sequitur variation of selective thinking.

In his book Alternative Science, and on his web site under what he calls Skeptics who declared discoveries and inventions impossible, Milton lists a number of inventors and scientists who struggled to get their ideas accepted. Many were ridiculed along the way. But, like many others who commit this fallacy, Milton omits some important, relevant data. He does not mention that there are also a great number of inventors, scientists and thinkers who were laughed at and whose ideas have never been accepted. Many people accused of being crackpots turned out to be crackpots. Some did not. Thus, being ridiculed and rejected for one’s ideas is not a sign that one is correct. It is not a sign of anything important about the idea which is being rejected. Thus, finding large numbers of skeptics who reject ideas as being “crackpot ideas” does not strengthen the likelihood of those ideas being correct. The number of skeptics who reject an idea is completely irrelevant to the truth of the idea. Ideas such as alien abduction, homeopathy, psychokinesis, orgone energy, ESP, free energy, spontaneous human combustion, and the rejection of evolution–all favored by Milton–are not supported in the least by the fact that these ideas are trashed by thousands of skeptics.

True, but irrelevant! Milton’s argument shows precisely what it is supposed to show: that the skeptic’s knee-jerk dismissal of unorthodox claimants as “pseudo-scientists”, “fringe-scientists” and “crackpots” simply carries no evidentiary weight one way or another. In his skeptical zeal to convict Milton of blundering in the realm of logic, Carroll commits a much more elementary error than selective reasoning: he responds to an argument that is not being made. Milton’s argument is not “they laughed at Galileo, therefore every unconventional claimant is right”, it is merely “they laughed at Galileo, therefore unconventional claimants cannot be presumed wrong.”

Carroll’s attempt to hold Milton responsible for an argument not made is a variation of the popular pseudoskeptical technique of Demolishing a Straw Man.

Making criticisms that apply equally to conventional and unconventional research:

It should be obvious that a criticism is invalid if it applies just as well to established science as it applies to an unconventional claim (such a criticism is called uncontrolled). But pseudoskeptics get away with using this technique anyway. What follows are some common examples of uncontrolled and therefore invalid criticisms.

Demanding an Unreasonable Degree of Reproducibility:
Reproducibility means that a phenomenon can be demonstrated on demand, anywhere, at any time. Pseudoskeptics believe that an unconventional phenomenon can safely be considered nonexistent unless it is reproducible in this sense. But the same standard of evidence would invalidate much of accepted science. Discoveries in archeology are by their nature unique, non reproducible. Astronomy and geology are not reproducible in the strictest sense – astronomers cannot produce a supernova on demand, nor can geologists an earthquake. Even physics, the “hardest” of all sciences, is less and less reproducible in practice. Cutting-edge discoveries of high-energy physics, such as the discovery of the top quark are accepted by the physical community and then the public largely on faith, because no one else has the facilities to replicate them. The top quark is simply one of those discoveries whose experimental verification is beyond amateur science.

Similarly, the complete inability of ordinary humans to influence macroscopic systems with their minds alone, even in the slightest, strongly suggests that mind-matter interaction, if it exists, will be hard to demonstrate experimentally. A skeptic who rejects the conclusion of statistically sound meta-analysis of decades of mind-matter experiments because she feels that the phenomenon should be proven directly, by producing a person who can consistently, say, levitate objects, should similarly reject the discovery of the top quark until such time as a demonstration kit be made available that allows any physics high school teacher to produce said particle on the kitchen top. Either demand is unreasonable and denies the difficult nature of the subject matter.

Profit Motive:

Pseudoskeptics try to invalidate unconventional claims by pointing out that the claimants derive financial support from their research (through books, newsletters or speaking engagements), blithely ignoring that conventional scientists derive their livelihood from their work as well. If a cold fusion researcher who is trying to commercialize his discoveries is a priori suspect, should not by the same token the hot fusion physicist’s 1989 dismissal of the cold fusion discovery be viewed with extreme suspicion, since their very livelihood depends on the continued flow of billions of federal research dollars into their field, a field that has produced no tangible results, despite 50 years of research?

To mention an anecdotal example, I have personally observed skeptics of the claim of adverse biological effects from microwave radiation produced by cellular devices having the gall to argue that critics of cellular technology cannot possibly be taken seriously because they make money from publishing their criticisms, while the same skeptics do not find fault with studies funded and written by the multi-billion-dollar cellular industry!

[Richard Dawkins questioned the funding for The Atlas of Creation, a book which he did an utterly pathetic job of pseudo-critiquing]

Statistics can prove Anything!

Such is essentially the argument that the spokesman of the American Physical Society, Robert L. Park, makes against psychokinetic research in his book Voodoo Science (p. 199). In the context of a discussion of an obviously pseudoscientific Good Morning America report on anomalous phenomena (debunkery by association: as if TV shows were the principal outlet for reporting the results of psi research!), Park writes

Why, you may wonder, all this business of random machines? Jahn has studied random number generators, water fountains in which the subject tries to urge drops to greater heights, all sorts of machines. But it is not clear that any of these machines are truly random. Indeed, it is generally believed that there are no truly random machines. It may be, therefore, that the lack of randomness only begins to show up after many trials.
Besides, if the mind can influence inanimate objects, why not simply measure the static force the mind can exert? Modern ultramicrobalances can routinely measure a force of much less than a billionth of an ounce. Why not just use your psychokinetic powers to deflect a microbalance? It’s sensitive, simple, even quantitative, with no need for any dubious statistical analysis.

There are many things wrong with this statement, and I refer the reader to my review of Park’s book for details. For the purpose of this argument, I am interested in Park’s assessment that effects that are only indirectly detected, by statistical analysis, are suspect. Where does that leave conventional science? Deprived of one of its most powerful tools of analysis. The cherished 1992 COBE discovery of minute fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation would have to be thrown out, since it was entirely statistical in nature, and therefore by Park’s argument, ‘dubious’. The most celebrated discoveries of particle physics, such as the 1995 discovery of the top quark, or the results of neutrino detection experiments, or the synthesis of superheavy, extremely short-lived elements, would have to be thrown out, since they, too, are indirect and statistical in nature. Modern medicine would have to be invalidated as well because it relies on statistical analysis (of double-blind trials) to prove the efficacy of drugs.

For comparison: the American Institute of Physics’s Bulletin of Physics News, #216, March 3, 1995 gives the odds against chance for the top quark discovery as a million to one. A 1987 meta-analysis performed by Dean Radin and Roger Nelson of RNG (random number generator) experiments between 1959 and 1987, on the other hand, shows the existence of an anomalous deviation from chance with odds against chance exceeding one trillion to one (see Radin, The Conscious Universe, p. 140).

Park’s argument is the quintessential uncontrolled criticism: accepted scientific methods that constitute the backbone of modern science suddenly become questionable when they are used on phenomena that don’t fit his ideological predilections.

Fraud cannot be ruled out!

The pseudoskeptical argument of last resort. If a body of research supporting an unconventional claim is airtight, the pseudoskeptic will argue that since the conclusion contradicts established theories of nature (she will call them “facts”), and all other alternative explanations have been exhausted, the results must therefore be due to fraud. Of course, such an argument from theory turns the scientific method on its head (unless the skeptic can prove that fraud has actually been committed), but what is more important, the same argument can be made for any research. Indeed, when funding or scientific prestige are at stake, results are frequently faked in the conventional sciences, probably much more frequently than in, say, parapsychology where skeptical scrutiny is intense.

In Medicine: It’s Unsafe!

A favorite argument of the professional “quackbusters” like Stephen Barret is that an alternative procedure is unsafe. On the Acupuncture page of his site, Barret states that

Improperly performed acupuncture can cause fainting, local hematoma (due to bleeding from a punctured blood vessel), pneumothorax (punctured lung), convulsions, local infections, hepatitis B (from unsterile needles), bacterial endocarditis, contact dermatitis, and nerve damage,

missing the mark of controlled criticism by a wide margin. Why not similarly list the dangers of improperly performed surgery and then denounce the whole field as quackery?

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

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.

Atheism’s reductionist, or absolutely materialistic, sect’s conceptualizations have produced many fascinating, or fascinatingly myopic and fanciful, arguments.

Reductionism refers to the analysis of something into simpler parts or organized systems_the oversimplifying of something complex, or the misguided belief that everything can be explained in simple terms.As the philosopher Fox Mulder put it, “what are we but impulses, electrical and chemical, through a bag of meat and bones?”

Or, as the philosopher Ren put it in referring to Stimpy as a “bloated sack of protoplasm.”

I wanted to offer a quick thought on the atheist [pseudo] counter-argument against the scientifically verifiable fine-tuning of the universe. From its very inception the universe consisted of many very finely tuned variables.
Let us consider any of the variables as a tape measure that stretches from one end of the universe to the other. Let us further imagine that there is a mark at one spot on the tape measure. If you were to move the spot one inch in either direction life would never have existed, various elements essential to life and the very make up of the universe would not exist. This is true of any of the various variables. There is a list of 47 such variables available here or here as a PDF file.

Benjamin D. Wiker described fine-tuning, as the anthropic principle, as follows (in his article, Does Science Point to God?: The Intelligent Design Revolution):

“In short form, it is the discovery that the universe appears rigged, astoundingly fine-tuned, suspiciously calibrated as part of some kind of a conspiracy of order to produce life-indeed intelligent life. This fine-tuned conspiracy occurs on all levels, from the fundamental constants governing the formation of all the elements in the cosmos, to the extraordinarily precise relationship of planets in our solar system, to the delicate balances on our own planet.”

The [pseudo] counter-argument is fascinating and fallacious: it is fascinating in that it is an argument from worldview adherence and fallacious for the same reason, it presupposes reductionism.

Note that the particular atheists who hold to this reductionist-absolutely materialistic argument answer all of life’s and the universe’s deepest questions (and oft the shallow ones as well) in the same way. Whether it is why there is something rather than nothing, or how and why the universe came to be, or how and why life came to be the answer is the same: it just is, it just did, it is just there and that is all.

Oh, you were wondering what the [pseudo] counter-argument is: it is simply to state that that the scientifically verifiable minutely fine-tuned universe is irrelevant because if it were alternately tuned other life forms would surely have arisen. Another [pseudo] counter-argument, or another portion of the one just mentioned, is that if there are multiverses and that each surely has its own fine-tuning and produced its own sort of life (not life as we know it).1

The presupposition is that the Big Bang was an arbitrary explosion of arbitrary materials and thus, this view forces the conclusion that fine-tuning, regardless of just how fine-tuned it is in its intricate minutia, is arbitrary.

Yet, the scientifically verified fine-tuning of the universe ought not discount just because some atheist activists build a facade of scientific respectability around their worldview adherence and believe that life is a cosmic accident.

The reason that I refer to a “[pseudo] counter-argument” is that it denies scientifically verifiable minute fine-tuning, it presupposes reductionism-absolute-purposeless-materialism and it denies the scientifically verifiable minute fine-tuning not on a scientific basis but due to the fact that reductionism-absolute-purposeless-materialism is presupposed.

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

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.

FYI: this was once part of a 3 part list but I deleted parts 2-3 and edited this one due to changes Amazon.com made which made embedded widgets no longer work.

Thus, check out this Amazon link for various Christian apologetics books dealing with Atheism.

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

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.

True Freethinker previously considered Christopher Hitchens‘ bio-chemical-gray-matter-secretions which he gave voice to as part of the Royal Ontario Museum’s lecture series on the question of the Decalogue – the Ten Commandments.
We will now consider Camille Paglia’s lecture.1We must be aware that in the view of Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Camille Paglia, et al, “religion” certainly has its place: a highly restricted place.For Daniel Dennett since it is all tomfoolery all religions should be taught in schools, as interpreted by atheism of course.For Richard Dawkins since it is all fiddlesticks the Bible should be taught as literature so as to understand literary devices and references that are culturally commonly employed.For Camille Paglia “religion” has a positive effect in creating art in various forms.Yet, even these apparent friendly tokens, these smiley faces, are actually meant to water down “religion” as an anthological fascination, a literary interest or artistically inspiring but nothing more.

As for Camille Paglia, it is reported that she:

…worships devoutly at the altar of Hollywood. She’s an atheist who defiantly defends religion, articulating in punctuated bullet-like speech why she thinks religion will save great art and why the generational reverence swelling in the 1960s for religion is represented so well in epic biblical films in Hollywood.” I think religious thinking is crucial to understanding the universe,” she said. “I do believe in all gods.”
Raised as a Catholic, Ms. Paglia said she soon turned with reverence to films, and one film in particular: Cecil DeMille’s The Ten Commandments.
“I realized I was identifying with Hollywood, Hollywood was my true religion,” she said. “My goddess of that time was Elizabeth Taylor. One of my transcendent moments was when she won the Oscar in Butterfield 8 as a high-class hooker.”
Raised as a Catholic by her Italian immigrant parents in upstate New York, she said she turned to atheism in her adolescence after becoming frustrated with the church.

She believes in all gods; maybe there was something to that Barna study that concluded that some atheists believe in God :o) Then again; 47% of all statistic are incorrect. Then again and again, Prof. Daniel Dennett argues that Joseph Stalin, the atheists, was really a theist because he told himself what to do: thus, all atheists are theists!?!?! See this post.

Sadly, she made a very, very common atheist mistake; she confused frustration with the church with frustration with God. Why did not her frustration with the church lead to acceptance Synagogue, Ashram, Mosque worship services? Who knows, perhaps there was something else going on like worshipping a Hollywoodland high-class hooker goddess.Her main concern is that “Distancing society from religion is a grave error” because “a secular society that sinks into self-absorption won’t leave behind an artistic legacy.” But why should that be? Just because atheism offers no meaning for yesterday, no comfort for today and no hope for tomorrow? Oh, right; that is why.Camille Paglia also took to task one of the other Royal Ontario Museum’s lecture series on the Ten Commandments lecturers; Christopher Hitchens:

Taking a swipe at Mr. Hitchens in the question and answer period, Ms. Paglia contrasted the title of his book God is Not Great with what she calls the most important sentence of her career: “God is man’s greatest idea.” “My criticism of him is, what is he offering to the young in his system?” she said. “That book is atrociously researched, and he will have to live with that. … What does he give the young? Are they to live like him? That’s not a life.” [ellipses in original]

But just what is wrong with Christopher Hitchens’ life?

We will let Camille Paglia be the judge of that. But as for the young Christopher Hitchens’, atheism’s, ultimate bequeathment is basically that of Alister Crowley, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”There is no universal ethos, no ultimate accountability, we are absolutely autonomous. While it would be nice if we could all just get along and just be good for goodness sake but this sort of universal anarchy is an open door through which a Mother Theresa or a Joseph Stalin may equally enter, it is a blank canvas upon which anyone can pain anything.What Camille Paglia needs to understand is that the young is just about all that personages such as Christopher Hitchens have, it is all that militant activist atheists have since the young are: ignorant, arrogant, rebellious and, shall we say, hyper hormonal.

Ignorant and so vociferous, emotive, charming, English accented, iconoclasts like Christopher Hitchens seems to have the answers, “Like, he knows a lot of stuff and stuff.”

Arrogant and so they know more at the age of 17 than those who have decades more life and academic experience. Arrogance and atheism go hand in hand like a hand in hand.
Rebellious and so easy to influence toward rebellions against the norm (for example the normalcy of a majority Christian country), against “religion” (AMEN to that!) and the ultimate rebellion: rebellion against God.
Hyper hormonal and so being told that in the realm of sexuality basically anything goes anytime and anywhere with anyone for any reason or none at all within the most flaccid and impotent of please be nice or else you will get away with not being nice sentiments.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lastly, it is simply fascinating that the Royal Ontario Museum lecture series on the Ten Commandments featured a militant activist atheist, a professor of the arts and an editor at large for Esquire magazine. These are billed as “three prominent social commentators” fine but what about oh, I don’t know: a Rabbi, a Priest, a Pastor, a theologian, etc. I know, I know; a prepubescent French fries fryer at the local fast food joint is as, or more, qualified to speak on Biblical issue than a Rabbi, a Priest, a Pastor, a theologian-at least it would seem that blog comment sections are saturated with an outworking of such a proposition.

Maybe next time the Royal Ontario Museum can have a lecture series on quantum physics by a new age medium-a spirit channeler, an anesthesiologist, a radiologist, a chiropractor (who is a follower of the new age medium), and a couple of physicist for good measure (but make sure that one of the physicists is sort of self-employed and wrote the book “The Yoga of Time Travel”).

Oh, right, that was already done in the documentary “What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?” aka “What the Bleep Do We Know!?” or technically as seen in these images2:

The funny thing is that two of the physicists who argue that we create our own realities wear glasses. Why would you WANT TO have poor eyesight? Why create that reality for yourself maaaaaaaaaannn!!!!!!!!

Pardon the uncontextual aside but when “What the Bleep Do We Know!?” came out someone told me that if I watched it I would be up on the very latest that science has to offer: turns out that it is a new age infomercial.

‹ A. J. Jacobs – Night at the Royal Ontario Museum up