Month: December 2016

Let us pick up where we left off last time:

15) Tattoos are anathema: (“You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you. I am the Lord”–Leviticus 19:28) Despite this teaching I manage to see Mexican Catholics daily with tattoos of the Virgin Mary, Jesus or a set of praying hands on their forearms and shoulder blades.

Not much more to say except: OT=NT. This and many other laws were meant to differentiate the Israelites from the Gentile Pagans (whom evilbible.com’s author did not condemn for sex slavery, temple prostitution or human/child sacrifice; see here). Back then, tattoos were not about being hip or “Hey! Look at me!” attention begging but where ritualistic and indicative of false idolatrous god worship.

16) Money cannot be lent at interest to your brother, only to foreigners (Deuteronomy 23: 19-20) Ahhh, I’m recalling all the Christian banking corporations…. [ellipses in original-for whatever reason]

OT=NT.

17) Eating pork is forbidden (Deuteronomy 14:8). Hmm, I’ve never met a Christian who DIDN’T enjoy bacon and eggs.

OT=NT via another example of Charlotte’s lack of knowledge of even the most basic of biblical concepts and contents:

Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. And he became very hungry and desired to eat. But while they made ready, an ecstasy fell on him.And he saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel like a sheet coming down to him, being bound at the four corners and let down to the earth; in which were all the four-footed animals of the earth, and the wild beasts, and the reptiles, and the birds of the heaven.And a voice came to him, saying, Rise, Peter! Kill and eat! But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common.

This happened three times, and the vessel was received up again into the heaven (Acts 10:9-15, also see 11:5-10).

Charlotte continues thusly,

18) A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother’s wife (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). This goes without explaining of course.

OT=NT. To state that this goes without explaining is basically a Dan Barker tactic meant to imply something completely false as there were careful regulations in this regard; for example, the entire book of Ruth is premised upon the concept of the kinsman redeemer (for an example of the Barkerian tactic see here).

19) A seducer must marry an unengaged virgin whom he seduces (Exodus 22:16-17)

I am quite impressed with this one, I must admit, as Charlotte is the only atheist I have ever encountered who read a text such as the one cited here and did not spend their time imagining rape (see here for copious examples of atheists obviously spend tremendous amounts of time fantasizing about rape).
This is a case in which an unengaged virgin consents to engaging upon unmarried fornication and so a shotgun wedding ensues.

20) A raped, unengaged virgin must marry her rapist and they can never divorce (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). What justice the “moral majority” advocates!

Oh well, I guess that I will take my compliment back. Now I understand why Charlotte cited the two texts but did not bother quoting then. This way she can both: merely propagandize while hiding what the texts actually states and knowing that atheists are generally far too pseudo-skeptical to actually look up the texts, read them, read the context and seek to actually understand them she could get away with it. Both the Exodus 22:16-17 and the Deuteronomy 22:28-29 are equivalent. Since I have dissected this issue in responding to evilbible.com’s authors fallacious assertions I will direct the interested reader to the post: Atheism, the Bible, Rape, EvilBible.com and Dan Barker.

21) There are several petty and silly little verses in the O.T., but none the less, they are to be followed. I guess it’s okay to disobey the lord for fashion’s sake. Beards can’t be rounded (Leviticus 19:27); A garment composed of wool and linen can’t be worn (Deuteronomy 22:11); Note: this explains why you will commonly see orthodox Jews with the long beards and black clothing. I say Christians should do this too so we can identify their stupidity upon first impression.

Interesting that the reason why orthodox Jews wear long beards and black clothing is Deuteronomy 22:11 while the text refers to not mixing fabrics and nothing about the color of the clothing-did I miss something? Moreover, if Deuteronomy 22:11 is the reason why orthodox Jews, meaning certain Hasidic sects, wear black clothing why did they not wear that sort of black clothing until the 18th century AD?

22) Bastards can’t enter the Lord’s congregation. (Deuteronomy 23:2) Hey, I know this is harsh, but God commands it, hence it must be “just”.

This is perhaps best understood by realizing that it has been by maintaining a lineage, a peoplehood, a nationhood (even whilst occasionally not technically a “nation”) that the Jews have survived as a people for millennia while others have so readily come and gone.

Having presented the 22 side dishes to her beef, Charlotte launches this salvo before ending with the statement with which we ended part 4:

All of these rules are part of the Old Covenant and of equal import. Why quote the Ten Commandments and ignore other tenets? A believer’s obligation to one is no less than his obligation to all. In fact, if under the New Covenant Christians have stepped into the shoes of the Israelites and become, in effect, the new Chosen People, then they should inherit all the privileges and duties of that office. They seem to want the former but not the latter. Biblicists teach, preach, and attempt to reach others with moralism, but are not averse to selectively using that which suits their interests.

By now we know that this is merely the old and tired OT=NT fallacy but with a new unbiblical element thrown in for further discrediting of Charlotte, “if under the New Covenant Christians have stepped into the shoes of the Israelites and become, in effect, the new Chosen People, then they should inherit all the privileges and duties of that office.”
Paul writes, “Did not God put away His people? Let it not be said! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin_” and goes on to explain that God is in no way done with the Jews and that Christians should be very careful to not become prideful in thinking that they have, as Charlotte puts it, “become, in effect, the new Chosen People.”

Thus, we have presented copious examples of how evilbible.com and Charlotte are a perfect match since:

1) Both are very good at taking advantage of pseudo-skeptical atheists.2) Both rain down condemnation and brimstone without providing a premised beyond arguments from impotent outrage.3) Both demonstrate a stunning lack of scholarship.4) Both demonstrate a shocking level of ignorance of even the most basic concepts and contents of the Bible.

5) Both leave God, Jesus, the Bible and Judeo-Christianity unscathed whilst discrediting themselves.

Evilbible.com and Charlotte; I have one question for you both: Where’s the beef?

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

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.

As of late, I have been wondering: what ever happened to Alfred Russel Wallace?
2009 AD saw the celebration of Charles Darwin’s 200 birthday with the impartation of various doxologies and even the Kyle Butt vs. Dan Barker debate.
But what about good ol’ Alfred Russel Wallace?

Is it that he was born in 1823 AD (January 8th) and his 200th will not come up until 2023 AD?
Was his 100th celebrated? Was his 150th celebrated? I do not seem to remember.

Why has he been all but forgotten? Charles Darwin this and Charles Darwin that but what about Alfred Russel Wallace?

If you are asking yourself who Alfred Russel Wallace is and what he has to do with Charles Darwin you have comprehended the point of my flummox.

I will not provide a biography of Alfred Russel Wallace but succinctly note that he is generally referred to as having co-conceived, along with Charles Darwin, theory of evolution via natural selection.

So why the lack of hoopla over Alfred Russel Wallace? After all, both he and Charles Darwin have mighty beards (my kind of guys!).

You may want to go out and rent the movie The Fall (various clips found here) which is an interesting and visually stunning film starring a precious little French girl.

In the movie Charles Darwin is played as per this image:

And Alfred Russel Wallace is played by a little monkey whom Charles Darwin carries around in a bag. Reflecting the reality of Charles Darwin’s propensity towards hording credit for the theory of evolution the movie depicts Charles Darwin as getting his ideas from the monkey/Wallace whilst pretending that they were his own.

I am beginning to think that Alfred Russel Wallace is all but forgotten, particularly in lieu of Charles Darwin, because Charles Darwin is hailed as so much more than a scientist. As an icon of atheism he is lauded as the killer of gods. Some atheists actually think that describing how bio-organism’s change and speculating about quaint Victorian Era ideas of abiogenesis have something to do with God’s existence or lack thereof.

Alfred Russel Wallace’s sentiments were not as those who attempt to co-opt science as a tool with which to erect a facade of scientific respectability around atheist propaganda:

“I fully accept Mr. Darwin’s conclusion as to the essential identity of man’s bodily structure with that of the higher mammalian, and his descent from some ancestral form common to man and the anthropoid apes,”1 he conceded.
However, man’s intellectual powers and moral sense, among other things, he said, “could not have been developed by variation and natural selection alone, and_ , therefore, some other influence, law, or agency is required to account for them.”2
Darwin was naturally upset by what Wallace called “my little heresy,” and he wrote to Wallace in 1869 lamenting, “I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child.”3

What good is a brilliant scientists; a naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist and biologist such as Alfred Russel Wallace if he is not also an activist atheist?

Lastly, I wanted to mention a book by Benjamin Wiker, A Meaningful World How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature
Benjamin Wiker makes the following point:

One of Charles Darwin’s very few character flaws was this: he was oddly possessive about his theory, so much so that he failed to acknowledge his predecessors, including his own grandfather [Erasmus Darwin], until his detractors pointed out the glaring omissions. He wanted the theory of evolution to be his discovery, his creation, his baby.4

Benjamin Wiker’s The Darwin Myth The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin also discusses:

* Why Darwin didn’t “discover” evolution* How Darwin set out to create a godless version of evolution* Why many of his best friends and allies criticized Darwin’s theory, and how he never refuted their objections* How “social Darwinism” is not a misapplication of Darwinism, but is Darwinism* Why Darwin’s theory supported natural slavery, an institution he abhorred* How much of what we know about Darwin comes from his Autobiography–which at key points is downright misleading

* How Darwin helped make ideological atheism the battle cry of science

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

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.

DJ Grothe interviewed Professor PZ Myers as can be heard here in an interview entitled, “Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere.”

Let us survey some of the exchange.

At 4:30 into the interview:

DJ: “What’s most important to you: advancing atheism or advancing the public understanding of science – or are they kind of one in the same for you?”

PZ: “They are inseparable.”

Let us pause here for a moment. This is PZ Myers’ premise: science is not simply about observation, reproducible experiments and concocting theories but it is about getting rid of God, it is about atheist activism.

The statement above is directly followed by this exchange:

DJ: “You’ve suggested quite a few times that the more you know about science the more likely it is that you are gonna end up an atheist.”

PZ: “Yes, that’s, that’s what we know from the statistics of people going into science. That science has a great corrosive influence on religious belief. It isn’t always going to destroy religious beliefs, of course. There’s, there’s a number of fairly prominent scientists who are religious. But in general, most people, when they get training in the scientific method and start applying it in the lab and start applying it in their real life experiences, find themselves questioning religion a lot more.”

DJ: “Yeah, Jonathan Miller had that study out a few years ago, you know, countries in Europe, people score higher in science literacy therefore, they were more accepting of, of evolution, more naturalistic. But, the University of Buffalo recently had a study, oh I think just in the last year, that suggested that it was a chicken and egg sort of thing. That people who were already kind of skeptical and secular ended up choosing to go into the sciences rather than the other way around.”

PZ: “Yes I, I can see it working both ways. That’s not earth shaking news either, I don’t think. If you’re into religion you are going to be steered away, by your own interests, from science. So there’s, there is a self selection going on. But still, you know, we, we want more scientists right? We want more people thinking critically and skeptically about the world around them, it’s something that we want to encourage lots more people [sic].”

Well, we appear to be at a stalemate as regards the chicken and egg. Certainly, people may become atheists after coming into the sciences and becoming more erudite than thou. But it could also be that people who were already skeptical and secular go into classrooms such as PZ Myers’ in order to learn science or biology but they have atheism smuggled into their classrooms in the guise of science or biology. See my essay Protecting the Science Classroom.

At 7:22 into the interview:

PZ: “I think we are getting new recruits, I, I get emails all the time from people who are saying, ‘Well thank you,’ you know, ‘this whole thing has lead me to be more self-aware, and criticizing, in coming to the conclusion that yeah, I’m an agnostic or I’m an atheist.'”

DJ: “It’s the kind of coming out story that Richard Dawkins reports a lot of people recounting when they read his book ‘The God Delusion.'”

PZ: “Oh yeah, yeah…”

It is interesting that they mention Richard Dawkins since I was instantly reminded of the interview between he and Ben Stein in the movie “Expelled.” Richard Dawkins asserted that people feel liberated and relieved when they realize that God does not exist. Mr. Stein asks him how he knows that, he is after all speaking with an empirical scientist. Richard Dawkins responds that he receives letters from people to that effect. To which Mr. Stein states that there are some 8 billion people in the world and asks, “How many letters do you get?” Whatever statistically insignificant amount of letter or email either of the professors receive, this certainly constitutes a biased sample coming, as they do, from people who are motivated to contact them in order to either thank them, or buddy up to them, or congratulate them, etc. Besides, a thief may feel elated when he does not see any police officers in his general vicinity, so what of it?

At 8:31 into the interview:

PZ: “If you’d asked me when I was twelve-years-old I would of said, ‘Yeah, I’m a committed Christian’ and all this kind of thing. I wasn’t born again or anything silly like that.”

I do not want to make my following statement of greater scope than it can handle yet, PZ Myers is yet another in a very long line of atheists who rejected theism as children based on a childlike intellect and a childlike tendency, particularly teenage tendency, towards rebellion against authority. God, being the ultimate authority, must be done away with. This is one way in which atheism is a consoling delusion: it is the delusion of absolute autonomy and lack of ultimate accountability. Prof. Paul Vitz presents a very interesting lecture about atheism and rebellion: The Psychology of Atheism. As Paul Vitz states it, “…for every person strongly swayed by rational argument [in favor of atheism], there are countless others more effected by non-rational psychological factors.”

At 17:44 into the interview:

DJ: “Just think of that phrase that you just said, ‘corrosive influence of scientific thinking,’ imagine what, what, what a fundamentalist could to with that. Ah, you know, PZ Myers himself said that scientific thinking has a corrosive influence.”

PZ: “On religious belief, yeah. And, you know, if they threw that in my face what would I say? Say, ‘Yeah, it sure does [laughter].”

This is why I, with my tongue firmly ensconced in my cheek, gave this essay its title. Let us contextually tie this statement back to his previous statements regarding “most people, when they get training in the scientific method and start applying it in the lab and start applying it in their real life experiences, find themselves questioning religion a lot more.”

At 18:30 into the interview:

“I actually don’t see even now how anyone can find the explanations in the book of Genesis at all satisfying as explanations for the real world. I meant it’s, it’s ‘God did it,’ said eight times, nothing more…look at the book of Genesis and you should be asking lots of questions about it.”

PZ Myers appears to be making a category mistake in that he seems to be asking the Bible to tell him things that the Bible is not meant to explain. In my essay PZ Myers Complements Christianity I pointed this out with regards to him ripping a page out of the Bible because it did not meet his criteria. He seems to demand scientific minutia from books that are not meant to provide it.
In my essay “In the Beginning…”: the Lucky Guess, I point out various scientifically accurate statements that the Bible makes about astronomy and cosmology. Thus yes, when you look at the book of Genesis you should be asking lots of questions about it. And the fact is that some of the greatest scientists that have ever lived, scientists who invented the very fields and methods of science, did ask questions in order to ascertain how God’s creation functions.

At 19:03 into the interview:

DJ: “You’re position about science leading to atheism is fundamentally at odds with the National Academies of Science [and?] the AAAF. They say, for instance, that evolution is perfectly compatible with religion.”

PZ: “And they’re, they’re a little deluding themselves, yeah.” [he believes that those statements are “pure political pandering”]

What is really at issue here is what we mean when we say “evolution.” We may mean the observation of living organisms changing. We may mean telling tall tales about how things could have happened long, long ago based on out particular worldview. Or we could mean the inference that God does not exist (see my essay Do You Believe in Evolution?).

At 24:11 into the interview:

DJ: “But don’t parents have a right to teach their children what they believe to be true without a professor undermining certain deeply held beliefs?”

PZ: “Why should they have that right? I mean, we’ve got a social contract right? And what we are trying to do is raise lots and lots of people who are going to be functioning members of our society. And it’s in, in my personal self-interest that the children of evangelical Christians grow up to be productive members of society. Now, it’s not my interest to say they have to abandon their faith or anything like that. But if their faith is such that it’s obstructing their ability to contribute to science and technology, engineering and all these good things in our society then yeah, we have an interest in saying, ‘No, you shouldn’t be doing that.'”

As for the attitude that many atheists have that parents should not have a right to teach their own children that with which the atheist disagrees, I will point you to my essays: Teach Your Children Well and Daniel Dennett’s One Way Street of Censorship.
Overall, this statement by PZ Myers may be indicative of just how high up and isolated in his ivory tower he dwells. The overwhelming majority of citizens of the USA are Christians and Christians have always been the majority. Thus, to presume that at any time in its history American Christians have not been functioning members of our society is to view the world through murky atheistic glasses. Evangelical Christians are not only productive members of society but active in the fields of science, technology, engineering etc. they just do not make the illogical inference of atheism from their fields of research.

What PZ Myers statements boil down to is an argument from authority: scientists are really smart and most of them are atheists therefore, atheism is true and if you study science and become really smart you too will become an atheist.

Had your fill of PZ related tales? No! Check him out.

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

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.

Rather than ending her day with a bullet sized hole between her eyes Angela Montez gained a friend, a brother and an increased love of, and trust in, God.

Just what was the line a demarcation between prey and prayer?

Armed with a gun, Gregory Smith proceeded to rob Angela Montez, an Indianapolis store clerk.[i]

Hours after said divine intervention helped her convince a would-be thief to give up mid-heist, the alleged robber agreed that God played a major role in his dramatic change of heart.

“It had to be God working through her because she just talked to me like a mother or a grandmother to her child, and she made me feel comfortable…I started telling her stuff I hadn’t even told my own mother. I even tried to give her the gun, she wouldn’t take it. To everybody who I’ve affected with this, I just want to say I’m sorry for putting you all through this.”

Angela Montez said Thursday it was divine intervention that led Smith to give up his heist and talk and pray with her for nearly 40 minutes Monday before turning himself in to Indianapolis police hours later.

“I believe the Lord sent us both together…The more we talked, he just broke down….He said, ‘Talk to me. No one will talk to me. I have nobody.’”

At one point, Smith reached for the gun again, which scared Montez into praying for her own forgiveness before what she thought was her death, but Smith took out the only bullet in the gun and gave it to her, Montez said.

“Just take it and talk to me,” Smith said, according to Montez.

The unlikely pair talked for nearly 40 without being interrupted by anyone else entering the store or any phone calls — a sign, Montez said, that God wanted them to talk.

“I felt a warmness, even though there was a scare…There are so many places around us. No one had come to the door. No one called. I can’t believe it was that long, when I was told how long we talked.”

I know, I know; what a fortuitous happenstantial coincidental occurrence that two ignorant and superstitious people would encounter each other and survive the day via their shared delusion.

It is interesting that late in 2008 AD an atheist wrote the following to me:

Imaginary friends in the sky won’t stop bullets. A real friend might move you out of the way or prevent you from getting into the situation in the first place, or take the bullet for you on purpose or by accident. That’s more than any mythical god has ever done for any human.

I responded thusly:

How do you know that “Imaginary friends in the sky won’t stop bullets”? Imaginary friends, perhaps not, but a real relationship with the real God will. Please read up on Raul Ries who was a very, very violent and angry young man who was waiting in his house, with rifle in hand, for his wife to get home so that he could murder her and then commit suicide. Yet, his rifle “accidentally” hit the power button on the TV where “accidentally” Pastor Chuck Smith was preaching. The rest is history.

Bullets were prevented from flying in the first place.

The story of Gregory Smith and Angela Montez is evidence of this. Yet, some will deny the evidence before them because not all factors can be accounted for, explained, disproved, reproduced in a lab, etc. (as if anything at all can be fully explained, disproved, reproduced in a lab, including the human reason that will deny the evidence).

I wonder what may have happened if…

What if instead of coming across a woman who prayed, demonstrating her reaching out to God, Gregory Smith would have come across William Provine who would state:

There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.[ii]

No purposive principles exist in nature. Organic evolution has occurred by various combinations of random genetic drift, natural selection, Mendelian heredity, and many other purposeless mechanisms. Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or psyche…
No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life.[iii]

What if Gregory Smith would have come across Dan Barker who would state:

There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares…what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t the Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care.[iv]

Gregory Smith would have come across Richard Dawkins who would state:

nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.[v]
We are not, then, merely like apes or descended from apes; we are apes.[vi]

In nature, the usual selecting agent is direct, stark and simple. It is the grim reaper.[vii]

One shutters to ponder what if…

This is tantamount to the scenario envisaged by Bill Vallicella, the Maverick Philosopher (from his post Are Atheists Evil? Bad Reasoning in Sam Harris – at comments 5.22.2007 12:26pm):

Imagine a situation in which A is in a position to impose his will on B (by raping and murdering her, say) and that A will “get away with it.” (No one cares about B, they are far off in the wild, etc. We may imagine that A will die in a month from cancer.) In this situation, does A have a reason not to rape and murder B, a reason to not gratify himself? If there is no God, and no surivival [sic] of physical death, what reason could A have? Because it is wrong in the abstract for A to rape and murder? That will strike A as a joke.

“You are going to oppose to my real and furious lust an abstract moral demand that hangs in the air with no way of being enforced??” This is one way to focus the question that people like Harris and Shermer apparaently [sic] don’t grasp.

Atheism offers no meaning for yesterday, no comfort for today and no hope for tomorrow.

As Joseph stated to his brother, who had betrayed him,

But as for you, you meant evil against me;but God meant it for good, in order to bring it

about as it is this day, to save many people alive

—Genesis 50:20

[i]Gleaned from Lee Ferran, Suzan Clarke and Sabrina Parise, “Robbery Suspect Gregory Smith: God Was ‘Working Through’ Clerk Angela Montez, Who Talked Him Out of Heist,” ABC News, Oct. 23, 2009[ii]William B. Provine, Origins Research 16 (1): 9, 1994[iii]William B. Provine, “Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,” The Scientist, Sept. 5, 1988, p. 10[iv]During his debate with John Rankin entitled Evolution and Intelligent Design: What are the issues?
[v]Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden – A Darwinian View of Life (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1995), p. 96[vi]Richard Dawkins, Late City Final Edition, Apr. 9, 1989

[vii]Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker—Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986), p. 62

I must admit that, as may appear obvious, find Dan Barker, of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, fascinating. Part of his allure is the fact that his self-appointed claim to fame, on infamy, is that he is an ex-preacher and yet he exhibits a stunning lack of knowledge of the Bible’s contents and I am not merely referring to theological minutia but to the most basic concepts.

Another alluring aspect is his propensity to make very, very odd statements. I find that these either leave me flummoxed as they are so peppered with Barkerian-gnosis or they seem to provide a very, very troubling window into his mind’s inner workings.

Dan Barker spends time thinking about how to assert that rape is not absolutely immoral (see here).
He states the following about beautiful human babies in the womb, “…a fetus that’s the size of a thumb that has, what, what would you put it in a little locket and hang it around your neck?” (see here).
He stated the following regarding ethics, “Darwin has bequeathed what is good.”

In any case, from the Barkerian-gnosis category comes the following statement, “people have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans.”1

Are Christians not humans or are Christians not trying to steal holidays from animals or…? ? ? ?

Well, I certainly support Dan Barker’s right to celebrate the solstice and am eagerly looking forward to seeing how he will do it.

Will, he simply give lip service to the solstice and use it as a lucrative way to both besmirch Christianity and file lawsuits that will provide him job security for the rest of the year?

Or will he go all out primal pagan and conduct human and or animal sacrifices on government property?

Will he be true to his new-atheist-neo-pagan roots or will he water down the solstice to the point that a pagan will be forced to place a poster next to his and state, “people have been celebrating the winter solstice long before the Barkerian version. We see Dan Barker as the intruder, trying to steal the solstice from all of us humans.”

In 1870 President Ulysses S. Grant declared Christmas as a federal holiday. How sad that the President of these United States of America, the Congress and the government at large did not know the Constitution as well as Dan Barker. Dan Barker claimed that nativity scenes at state capitols “insults” non-Christian. This sounds like a personal problem.
But what is his answer? It is to slap back with an insult of his own, an insult which no nativity sense ever dreamed. Taking time, energy, and money during a time of joy, family, friends and merry making to express his personal malice – how very sad.

Jim Holt’s article, Proof, is a succinct review of John Allen Paulos’ book “Irreligion.”

Jim Holt mentions that John Allen Paulos considers various arguments for God’s existence. While it is a little difficult to tell where Jim Holt begins and where John Allen Paulos ends, since there is no direct quotation at this point, one point is of interest:

Take the cosmological argument, the first one Paulos considers. It goes something like this. The universe we live in seems contingent. Nothing about it suggests that it exists by its own nature. Therefore, if there is an explanation for the universe’s existence, that explanation must involve another kind of entity – one that does exist by its very nature. Call this entity “God.”

From that barest of sketches, it is obvious that the cosmological argument has some grave problems. For one thing, it takes for granted the dubious principle that everything has an explanation. For another, there is no reason to suppose that the self-existent entity it points to has any other divine attributes, like omniscience or benevolence.

Now, atheists would rephrase the argument to their own pseudo-erudite ends by stating,

_Therefore, if there is an explanation for the universe’s existence, that explanation must involve happenstantial coincidincs – one that does exist by its very nature. Call this “Matter: the eternal and uncaused first cause.”

As to that “it takes for granted the dubious principle that everything has an explanation” this is certainly an anti-scientific-progress statement and yet, actually reminiscent of the atheism promulgated by Bertrand Russell who stated, “The universe is just there, and that’s all.”1

I am not certain that it is quite accurate to claim that the cosmological argument simply “takes for granted the dubious principle that everything has an explanation” or that it seeks to determine if it has an explanation and what the explanation may be.

Also, it seems faulty to conclude that “there is no reason to suppose that the self-existent entity it points to has any other divine attributes” since creation ex nihilo is, at least, indicative of: personality or personhood via volition and intelligence which demonstrates the ability to formulate, entertain and carry out a plan, the power to carry out such a plan, timelessness, immateriality, lack of time based restriction, etc.

Apparently, John Allen Paulos’ actual book/arguments deteriorate in typical New Atheist fashion into moking jokes likening the cosmological argument to “a jokey allusion to self-fellating yogis.” Thus, Jim Holt notes,

Like other neo-atheist authors, his tone tends to the sophomoric, with references to flatulent dogs and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ann Coulter crops up in the index, but one looks in vain for the name of a great religious thinker like Karl Barth, who saw theology as an effort to understand what faith has given, not a quest for logical proof.

John Allen Paulos also offers the obligatory qualifier of absolute agnosticism for all,

Paulos concedes that, just as arguments for God’s existence are logically inconclusive, so too are arguments against God’s existence. That means that you can either believe or disbelieve without being convicted of stark irrationality.

John Allen Paulos’ “Irreligious” may be good for a well-within-the-box-group-think laugh but who knows if it is worth anything else.

Do not ask me why but a lot of people are asking that question. Perhaps Richard Dawkins will have to repeat Mark Twain’s quip upon learning that his obituary had been published, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

So, is Richard Dawkins still alive? Indeed, Richard Dawkins is alive and well. Well, well is a relative term; sure his militant activist atheist celebrity status has gained him quite a bit of notoriety or as John Cornwell put it,

Where would Dawkins be without Jesus’s extraordinary impact on the Western world?
Quite a bit poorer, for one thing.1

Yes, Richard Dawkins is still alive but it is somewhat hard to tell. He quickly became so comfortable in his, now former, role as the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Atheism that he has virtually reclused himself in his white washed imitation ivory tower.

Is Richard Dawkins still alive? Various people, such as William Lane Craig and Dinesh D’Souza, virtually have to perform a ss&#a9;ance in order to reach him in order to beg him to grace them with his presence in the debate circuit. Time and time again he simply refuses instead; preferring preaching to the atheist choir and indoctrinating children. This is one of various reasons why the New Atheist movement is dead.

Dinesh D’Souza wrote:

To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away…
When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say [see here and here].

The reference to televangelists appears to be the “The Root of All Evil” interview wherein Richard Dawkins likened Pastor Ted Haggard’s church service to a Nazi rally.

Part of the interview format that Richard Dawkins controls is in view in the following comments by Alister McGrath who was interviewed for “The Root Of All Evil”,

But when I debated these points with him, Dawkins seemed uncomfortable. I was not surprised to be told that my contribution was to be cut.
The Root Of All Evil? was subsequently panned for its blatant unfairness. Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins? The answer: on the cutting-room floor.

Video now available here.

Also note that there is now an online petition encouraging Richard Dawkins to debate William Lane Craig (interesting YouTube video on the subject here).

Richard Dawkins also thinks so highly of himself that he flatly refuses to debate creationists even while preaching that one must never cut off dissent. He specifically refused to debate Rabbi Shumley Boteach whom he likened to Hitler (note that “Creationist” is a label under which he also places Intelligent Design proponents).

Some have simply come to consider Richard Dawkins cowardly; such as Conservapedia (see here, here, here and here) who liken him to a little bunny cowering in his little hole in the ground, an “‘intellectual’ bunny hole!!!”

Conservapedia further reports of a letter written by Victor Reppert (author of C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason) in which he wrote:

Bill Craig sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on “Is God a Delusion” but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see!Having seen this, I wrote him saying “Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!” He responded:

The coward! He said, “I’ve never heard of William Craig. A debate with him might look good on his resume, but it wouldn’t look good on mine!”

No wonder Richard Dawkins does not want to debate a philosopher such as William Lane Craig consider his logic: I never heard of him but a debate with him will not look good on my resume?!?! No, it would not since he would school you in several disciplines.

Is Richard Dawkins still alive? Yes, but he is rarely seen in the field of battle as he certainly prefers the comfort of his stomping grounds to the challenges of the real world where ideas are actually debated. Does he take on the militant Islam which fanned the flames of his militant activist atheism? No. Rather, he besmirches moderate Christianity from the UK and USA, from the safety, comfort and lucrative countries which were established upon Christian principles.

Is Richard Dawkins still alive? Yes, but he does recognize that his evangelism is really only gaining converts from the apathetic camp as Bill Maher asked him about “The God Delusion”:

MAHER:Now, you write in your book, “If this book works as I intend, readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” How is that going for you, the rate of conversion? [laughter] Do you have people come up to you and say, “You know, I used to be a believer, and I read your book, and now I’m not”?
DAWKINS:_people who maybe where sort of vaguely sitting on the fence, and who didn’t feel very strongly about it one way or the other_they realize that they’ve been atheists all along; they just didn’t know it.2

Is Richard Dawkins still alive? Yes, but he presents a typical concoction of atheist propaganda and science to children. Three such instances come readily to mind:
His “Royal Institution Christmas Lectures” (aka “The Royal Institution Lectures for Children” and sold as Episode 1, “Waking up in the Universe” transcript / video).
Christmas Lectures, you know: baby Jesus, peace on Earth, angels, shepherds, Joseph and Mary, all that stuff right? No. This Christmas Lecture had a slightly different message as Richard Dawkins actually stated the following to young, undiscerning and impressionable little children:

We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA_It is every living object’s sole reason for living_that the purpose of all life is to pass on their DNA means that all living things are descended from a long line of successful ancestors_which can best be understood as fulfilling a purpose of propagating DNA_There is no purpose other than that.3

Keep in mind that the following was reported by the National Secular Society Newsline:

Dawkins met a class of schoolchildren and asked them what they knew about evolution. Most said they had the rudiments, but also stated that they preferred to stick with their religion’s explanation.Dawkins took them to a beach in Dorset to hunt for fossils. He gave them a quick lesson on how these ancient relics illustrated clearly that life on earth was tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years old. Not six thousand, which is what their religion told them.

Some of the children, though, were impervious to this knowledge, and Dawkins was disappointed. But he did not challenge them or demand that they change their mind.4

What a model of restraint; he actually did not tear into little children-mazel tov!

Is Richard Dawkins still alive? Yes, but he puts forth a front of bravery yet, behind the scenes he is like the Wizard of Oz; a much lesser character, more like a caricature or the cowardly lion (who stagnates at the cowardly stage).

In a way it is difficult to blame him as he has gathered quite the cult of personality about him and his amen chorus of adherents are willing to not only excuse, but defend his stunning lack of knowledge about that which he seek to criticize. Indeed, who can blame a man whose wealth comes from expressing personal prejudice for preaching to those who produce his bread and butter?

Consider, for example, this professor of biology’s truly pathetic attempt to critique a creationist book. I encountered the critique in a forum and had to check the original at his website since I thought that there is no way that a professor of biology would offer such a sadly inadequate performance. Yet, his adherents even defend him at this point. Do any atheists have the courage to actually engage in true skepticism and take him to task for failing at that which he is supposed to be a genius?

Is Richard Dawkins still alive? No one would have to ask if he acted more like he was.

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

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.

As with the post Dan Barker Sues Barack Obama this is a fantasy scenario involving what would happen if Dan Barker, the ACLU, etc. were consistent—clearly a fantasy.

After reading below you may conclude that a postmortem impeachment may be in order.

Sure, many of us know the story of the Pilgrims and the Natives and the shared meal, etc.
However, let us consider George Washington’s 1789 AD thanksgiving proclamation:

By the President of the United States of America—
A Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us—and generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

On July 14, 2008 AD the homepage of Sam Harris’ website made one of the funnies statements you will ever read.

The homepage was describing a project to transfer Steve Wells’ “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible Qur’an, and Book of Mormon” to the Reason Project.

It is stated,

Steve spent the better part of a decade annotating these holy books and highlighted all passages notable for their historical inaccuracy, internal contradictions, scientific errors, absurdity, injustice, cruelty, sexism, intolerance, etc. (he also flagged the good parts).

The bottom line is described thusly,

to refine Steve’s work in a section of our website entitled “The Scripture Project” where we will have religious scholars, historians, scientists, and other qualified people continue to annotate these texts on a Wiki.

And now comes the knee slapping, bent over in convulsions, comedy,

With the input of the right scholars, we are confident that the Reason Project website will quickly become the preeminent place for scriptural criticism on the internet.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen this project can only succeed “With the input of the right scholars.”

Obviously, the logical questions are: “Who are the ‘right scholars’?” and “How is it determined who are the ‘right scholars’?”

These questions were not answered but I believe that an educated guess would be something to the likes of…

If you hold to a materialistic worldview – you might be the “right scholar.”

If your purpose in reading/studying the Bible is to cherry pick the bad and the ugly (ok, and perhaps the occasional rare good [according to whom?]) – you might be the “right scholar.”

If you would not know grammatical, historical or cultural context if your title as “scholar” or “skeptic” depended on it – you might be the “right scholar.”

If you make a living by expressing your personal prejudice against “religion” – you might be the “right scholar.”

If you believe that the standard for ascertaining the accurate history of the Bible text you are dealing with is anything that will contradict the Bible – you might be the “right scholar.”

If you believe that the church and the rabbinate were the last institution who could accurately establish their own cannon of scripture – you might be the “right scholar.”

If you believe that you, yes you, have finally uncovered the true meaning of the Bible – you might be the “right scholar.”

And just for further fun, I will borrow a few from the “Bible criticism” section of Tektonics’ “You may be a fundamentalist atheist if….“

If “You dislike how liberal theists try to interpret the Bible for themselves, while you create your own interpretations of the Bible for yourself” – you might be the “right scholar.”

If “You can quote from the bible better than most missionaries…at least the parts where someone dies” – you might be the “right scholar.”

If “You label all scholars that actually believe the Bible as ‘biased fundies’ while those who don’t believe it are known as ‘honest’ and ‘accepted scholarship'” – you might be the “right scholar.”

If “You think that Isaac Asimov was a world-class authority in Biblical Studies” – you might be the “right scholar.”

If you believe that “When a Christian’s interpretation of a passage (based on the social/literary context) solves one of your favorite contradictions, it is only their personal interpretation, and can be dismissed as such. But your interpretation (based on a ‘plain’ reading of the text) to arrive at the contradiction in the first place is entirely objective, and is obviously THE correct interpretation” – you might be the “right scholar.”

If “Your only knowledge of The Bible comes from searching ‘bible contradictions’ in Google” or from your future searches of “The Scripture Project” – you might be the “right scholar.”

If “You consistently appear on discussion lists demanding that Christians accept your literal interpretation of various scriptural passages just so you can then launch into the usual ‘argument by outrage’ – despite being told over and over that no Bible scholar or school of Christianity shares your particular bizarre literal interpretation” – you might be the “right scholar.”

If “You pontificate about the Bible as if you are an expert in theology, textual criticism, ancient languages & cultures and much more besides, when your knowledge of the Bible is just cut and paste from atheist discussion lists which cut and paste it from atheist websites which cut and paste it from embarrassingly unscholarly rantings by the likes of Messer’s Freke & Gandy and Acharya S, etc.” – you might be the “right scholar.”

If “Archaeology continually frustrates your attempts to find errors and contradictions in the Bible, but you continually use the same outdated accusations anyway since you’re running out of material” – you might be the “right scholar.”

Yes, ladies and gentlemen this project can only succeed “With the input of the right scholars.” Just send in your application along with a video showing you ripping a page out of a Bible, following in the footsteps of PZ Myers, and will instantly be deemed the “right scholar.”

If you are interested in seeing how the New Atheists fare as “right scholars” please consult my following essays (and these are a mere sampling):

Sam Harris:
Sam Harris’ Mythunderstandings
Sam Harris: Instigator At Large
Let Him Who is Without Faith Cast the First Stone

Richard Dawkins:
The Apostle Thomas: Patron Saint of Scientists?
Planting God More Firmly on His Throne

Dan Barker:
Dan Barker and Bertrand Russell: The Dynamic Duo of Demonstrably Deleterious Delusion
Why Freethought?
Dan Barker’s Scriptural Misinterpretations and Misapplications

Christopher Hitchens:
Is Christianity Loved to Death?
Jesus, the god of War?
Theological Fallacies and Miscomprehensions, part I of III
The Challenges, part I of III

Since there is more news on raising children as atheists we must again ask, “If raising children in a ‘faith’ is ‘child abuse’ what is raising children to be atheists; reeducation?” This is part of the rise of atheism is America.

On Sunday mornings, when many of their contemporaries are taking their seats in church pews, a group of young parents mingle…

This congregation of Triangle residents has no creed or ceremony, just a desire to get together and offer each other support for rearing children without religion. Taking their cue from a primer of the same name, they call themselves Parenting Beyond Belief.1

From the get go we must ask, “Why Sunday mornings?” Why not Sunday afternoons, evenings or nights? Why not Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday?Who knows? But there are many, many atheists who cannot seem to do, say or think anything with regards to atheism that is no meant to be specifically anti-theism.

The Triangle resident’s creed is Parenting Beyond Belief which is in reference to Dale McGowan’s book which lays out the creed which they follow in raising their children as atheists.

Not everyone in the group is an atheist. Some prefer to call themselves “freethinkers” or “humanists,” or “spiritual but not religious.” Some are even believers. But they share a disdain for organized religion and a desire to rear their children with the tools to think for themselves.

Here we go with the name game again: not “atheist” but “freethinkers,” “humanists,” “spiritual but not religious.”

American Atheist‘s webmaster authoritatively declared,

Atheists are NOT “secular humanists”, “freethinkers”, “rationalists” or “ethical culturalists”…Often, people who are Atheists find it useful to masquerade behind such labels.2

Yet, Dan Barker’s Freedom From Religion Foundation disagrees,

Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.3

But some people raising their children by Parenting Beyond Belief are “believers”; believers in what? Believers in a shared a disdain for organized religion and a desire to rear their children with the tools to think for themselves? In that case they agree with every solid Christian that I know-and with the Bible itself.As to “spiritual but not religious”; this could mean very many things from doing whatever one wants and then looking in the mirror and saying “I’m a good person” to being again, being a solid Christian. Yet, it is noteworthy to consider the words of one time atheist C. S. Lewis:

One reason why many people find Creative Evolution [aka Life-Force philosophy] so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences.When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest.If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children.The Life-Force is a sort of tame God.You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you.All the thrills of religion and none of the cost.

Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?4

One whose parenting skills are Beyond Belief-that is just a joke, by the way-is Todd Spiering who stated,

“We don’t have to act like we have it all figured out,” Spiering said. “I’m more comfortable not knowing.”

While such notions are appealing and commonsensical, after all who has ever claimed to “have it all figured out” the phrase, “I’m more comfortable not knowing” strikes me as meaning “I do not want to know”-this is a science stopper.Another atheist daddy is Bruce Harris who states,

Where I work, I’m not really out as an atheist_My boss assumes that everyone around him has some religion. It doesn’t occur to him that there are atheists.

Bruce Harris is a graphics designer and I am not sure what atheism has to do with that particular field. He would do well to keep in mind the saying, “You would not be concerned about what people think of you if you only realized how seldom they do.” He is an atheist and atheism is a mere lack of belief in god(s), right? Then why come out? Why look forward to the big reveal? Guess what, very likely, no one cares. I have been outed at work as a believer and people virtually lined up to give me a hard time about it (and yet, they would come to me in private to ask for prayer-makes one wonder).

Moreover, his boss assumes that everyone around him has some religion and according to Michael Newdow (contender for the world’s record for most lawsuits filed) Bruce Harris is religious since atheism is a religion and there are countless influential atheists, the Alluminati, attempting to establish a one world atheist religion (as evidenced here).

Bruce Harris keep up his studies of the New Atheist catechism,

A spate of books by atheists has helped ease some of the loneliness. Best-selling books such as Christopher Hitchens’ “God is Not Great” and Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” have lent some respectability to nonbelievers, and at the least made their existence better known.

I could see how Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have made atheist’s existence better known but “have lent some respectability”? What does “some” mean? Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and their New Atheist movement ilk are a nightmare to the friendly neighborhood atheist.

Overall, it seems that the New Atheist latest tact is to support the rise of atheism in America by the concept of get’em while they’re young. This is actually an old atheist tactic but is not coming out of the closet as the hip Parenting Beyond Belief de jour and that ultimately it “might lead children to choose no religion at all” so hopes Richard Dawkins.5

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

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.