Month: December 2016

No, not the Spanish swashbuckler, El Zorro, but Zoroaster aka Zarathushtra.

In working on a discreditation of an argument made by the Arizona Atheist (results here) I noted one of his sources of information in the form of a website titled Burning Cross.
Therein, I ran across one of sadly very many likewise quite unscholarly articles claiming that since Judaism and Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism they are therefore to be relegated into the realm of mythology. However, the true mythos is the supposed borrowing by Judaism and Christianity when the facts of the matter, those bothersome historical facts that get in the way of a good polemic, imply the reverse is the case.

El Zorro

El Zoroaster Incidentally, why is it that you can illustrate any male that lived anywhere from

1,000 to 10,000 years ago by simply slapping a beard on some nondescript guy?

Again, while likewise tall tales abound, I will respond to an article on the website by the title Burning Cross which is entitled Zoroastrianism and Its Origins. The article seeks to demonstrate that Zoroastrianism originated before Judaism and Christianity and is the source from which they both borrowed, as they state it,

From historical research, and the study of Jewish and Christian texts, scholars have firmly concluded that Judaism and Christianity borrowed heavily from the theological thought of the Persians or Zoroastrians.

One of my favorite things is noting statements which make reference to that which “scholars have…” stated. You could generically write, without those bothersome citations, “scholars have ____________” and fill in the blank with anything at all.
This is tantamount to what some atheists like to write about scientists, “scientists say…” or the more impressive “most scientists say ____________.” Wow, I am impressed by the argument from authority before even hearing it. Note also that “most” can mean 99% and that is almost all of the generic “they/them” but “most” can also mean 51% and that is awfully close to half.

In any regard, let us consider the borrowing scenario as Burning Cross states,

It is believed that Zoroaster, the founder of Zoroastrianism, was born in the area now know as Afghanistan, though some scholars place his birth as somewhere in the Kashmir Valley. The ancient Greeks, like Aristotle, date the era of Zoroaster as being 6,000 BCE.

Again, “some [generic and un-cited] scholars” say… I actually do not mean to pick on these generic statements too much but have done so in order to show that the article was heavy in claim and light on evidence.

For example, since they want to conclude that Judaism and Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism it is pointed out that Aristotle “date the era of Zoroaster as being 6,000 BCE.”

(FYI: “BCE” refers to before common era and is in reference to before Christ as it is Jesus’ birth which is used as distinguishing between BCE and CE common era; see this post for more)

Let us ask that which pseudo-skeptics appear to never even bothering asking of anything but the Bible and its characters: Who was the historical Aristotle? How do we know that Aristotle even lived? When did Aristotle live? How do we know? What is the time of Aristotle’s various words and actions to the time they were recorded? What is the time of the recording to the time of the first manuscripts we have?

How many manuscripts do we have and how do they compare? (perhaps Bart Ehrman will write “Misquoting Aristotle”).

Etc., etc., etc.

It does not matter to the pseudo-skeptical Burning Cross who date Zoroaster to 6,000 before Christ because for all we know a mythological character called Aristotle said so and so it must be true. Take it back as far as you wish for all I care. In fact, take it to 60,000 or 600,000 BC if you like. The further back Zoroaster is dated the more the pseudo-skeptics think that they can concoct ideas of Judaism and Christianity borrowing from him when in fact, as we shall see, the further back they date him the worse it is for them.

There actually is quite a bit of disparity amongst those seeking to date Zoroaster and it runs from 600 to 6,000 BC. Note that the Encyclopedia Britannica states,

A biographical account of Zoroaster is tenuous at best or speculative at the other extreme. The date of Zoroaster’s life cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty. According to Zoroastrian tradition, he flourished “258 years before Alexander.”…indicating that his birthdate was 628 bc.

The Burning Cross does get to the point which point which is, you guessed it: Who was the historical Zoroaster? How do we know that Zoroaster even lived? When did Zoroaster live? How do we know? What is the time of Zoroaster’s various words and actions to the time they were recorded? What is the time of the recording to the time of the first manuscripts we have? How many manuscripts do we have and how do they compare? (perhaps Bart Ehrman will write “Misquoting Zoroaster”).

Etc., etc., etc.

No, they actually do not delve anywhere close to this depth of skepticism as they would surely argue that these questions are irrelevant. Why? Because even if Zoroaster is a completely mythological personage the point is to demonstrate that Zoroastrian theology predates Judaism and Christianity and thereby concoct a theory of borrowing.

The Burning Cross notes,

The main holy book of the Zoroasrians is the Zend Avesta, but only the portion known as the Gathas [hymns], is thought to have been actually written by Zoroaster.

This is actually a lot more telling than its passing reference within the article implies. Indeed, the only portion of the Zend Avesta which are attributed, even just attributed, to Zoroaster are the Gathas. Why is this important? Because they are what we may term “hymns”—as the Burning Cross rightly did. The point is that these, the supposed earliest and original source of Zoroaster’s theology, do not contain Zoroastrian theology but are hymnal in nature. That which Judaism and Christianity supposedly borrowed is not found therein.

Incidentally and for reinforcement; the Encyclopedia Britannica affirms that “Only the hymns, or Gathas, are attributable to Zoroaster. It also states, “The Avesta is in five parts. Its religious core is a collection of songs or hymns, the Gathas, thought to be in the main the very words of Zoroaster.”

Let us dig a little deeper as Burning Cross explains when, from where and what was borrowed:

For centuries Zoroastrianism spread across Persia under the patronages of two very powerful Persian dynasties, the Achaemenids and the Sassanids. During this time the cannon of twenty-one Zoroastrian holy texts were compiled called the Nasks.

It is from this cannon of Zoroastrian literature [compiled several millennia before the New Testament or the Old Testament were written] that Judaism and Christianity have received the main tenants of their religion, i.e. the concept of Monotheism, that of a Divine Father and a Divine Son, the idea of a Garden of Eden, the concept of the first created humans Adam and Eve, the Resurrection, the Day of Reckoning, Heaven, Hell, the Duality of Good and Evil [God and the Devil], the belief in a Messiah, the belief in Angels, etc.

Reference is made to the Achaemenids and the Sassanids without any dates. The Nasks cannon is referenced without any dates but apparently we are to infer contextually that it was compiled at the time of the undated Achaemenids and Sassanids dynasties.

Then we are told that “this cannon,” the Nasks, were compiled a generic “several millennia before the New Testament or the Old Testament.”

Let us consider the last telling portion of the Burning Cross article and then eludicate:

Some scholars are of the opinion that Judaism, and particularly Christianity, have borrowed stories and theology directly from the Vedas and Puranas, but it is more likely that they received these elements of religion through the Persians without any direct contact with India.

“Some scholars” this, other scholars that…

So, the cannon of Zoroastrian scripture was compiled at the Achaemenids and Sassanids dynasties. The Achaemenids date from 550-330 BC and Sassanids from, as the Encyclopedia Britannica states it, “The present Avesta was assembled from remnants and standardized under the Sasanian kings (3rd–7th century ad) [emphasis added].”
Note the detail that the Avestas “assembled from remnants” and feel free to drag these remnants as far back as 550 BC if you wish but they were “standardized between the 3rd-7th century ad which the Encyclopedia Britannica details as “Sasanian period (ad 224–651).”
Now, let us take the Burning Cross preferred date of 6,000 BC and conclude that we have anywhere from 6,224 to 6,651 years—over six millennia—between Zoroaster’s supposed words and a standardized cannon. See what I mean: let them go back as far as they wish as it only gets worse for them. Even if we go by the 600 BC date we get 824 to 1,251 years—and pseudo-skeptics have conniptions at the fact that the New Testament was written by 70 AD.

As for the Achaemenids (550-330 BC); note the statements of Ilya Gershevitch:

While the Avesta furnishes us with a wealth of diverse religious ideas most of which existed during the Achaemenian period, it lacks a historical contextualization. It is completely devoid of references to persons, institutions, or events of Achaemenian times…
The place names mentioned, apart from mythological geography, are all in Eastern Iran; it is as though Persia did not exist. Accordingly, as the canonization of the scripture took place long after the Achaemenian period, the lack of references to identifiable Achaemenian realia makes the Avesta an elusive source for the religion of Achaemenians in general and Persia in particular.1

Furthermore, James R. Russell notes,

Zoroaster himself is not mentioned in Achaemenian monuments, nor indeed is his name to be found in the inscriptions of the Sasanians, who were undoubtedly Zoroastrians.2

For reiteration let us note that Ernst Herzfeld wrote,

Our main source for details on Zoroaster is the Avesta, a collection of sacred texts which was put in writing between 346-360 AD.3

Recall that we must not only consider the time of the writing and the time of the compilation and standardization but the time of the actual manuscripts, even the earliest ones. John Waterhouse relates that the earliest manuscript copies that we have date to the 13th century AD.4
Thus, if dating Zoroaster to 6,000 we have circa 7,200-8,200 years to the relevant manuscripts and if we date him to 600 we have circa 1,800-1,900 years—go back as far as you like, it only gets worse.

The Internet Sacred Text Archive’s copy of “Pahlavi Texts, Part IV (SBE37), E.W. West, tr. [1892]” states:
Contents of the Nasks as Stated in the Eighth and Ninth Books of the Dinkard – Observations,
“The manuscripts used, being the only two independent authorities for the text of the Dinkard known to exist, are:…written A.D. 1659…written A.D. 1594 and later…”

Details of the Nasks from Other Sources – Observations,
“The manuscripts mentioned are:…written A.D. 1659…written A.D. 1679…written A.D. 1813…probably written A.D. 1572…written about A. n. 1780…about 150 years old. [this was written in 1892 AD]”

Also, IV. From the Rivayat of Dastur Barzu Qiyamu-D-Din:

23. At present, since the Nasks have not remained perfect in the midst of us, it is not possible to solemnize them, because Alexander the Ruman [the Great] carried off a rough draft…and repeatedly burnt the books of the Avesta…every one of the high-priests, in council together, preserved something of the Avesta in his mind…which they wrote correctly; as to the remainder (tatammah) which they did not write, it was on this account, that they did not preserve it correctly in their minds.

And, From the Din-Vigirgard:

8. …the subdivisions of that Nask were fifty when the accursed Alexander had the Nasks burnt up, but after that, as they sought out this Nask, only thirteen of those subdivisions came to hand, and no more remained of those previously existing.

20. …Of all the twenty-one Nasks the Nask of ‘the law against the demons’ has alone remained entire; while several remain scattered by the wickedness (sumih) of the accursed Alexander

22. Now, alas! if all these Nasks do not remain, so that one is not able to solemnize them, that is for this reason, that the accursed Alexander, the Aruman, took several transcripts—in the Aruman language and characters (hurufo)—of any among those twenty-one Nasks which were about the stars and medicine, and burnt up the other Nasks…

Jenny Rose further notes,

The incorporation of certain motifs into the Zoroastrian tradition in the ninth century CE [AD] could indicate the conscious attempt of the priesthood to exalt their prophet in the eyes of the faithful who may have been tempted to turn to other religions.5

Indeed, if there was any borrowing at all it was not by Judaism and Christianity from Zoroastrianism but by Zoroastrianism from Judaism and Christianity.

Also, note various statements made in the Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology:

the Persians no doubt received from the Semites the notion of a last judgment and together with related ideas: prophets and world salvation prepared by a messiah. [p. 322]

Though preached by Zoroaster as one aspect of his system, this dualism only became implanted much later under the political pressure of the Sassanians who were eager to renew an ancient and indigenous tradition in opposition to Hellenistic influences. Until then it had been merely an opinion of one sect. [p. 312]

Lastly, consider statements by Jan Bremmer:

For the influence of Christianity in this period we probably also have another example. According to several Zoroastrian writings, the Greeks under Alexander the Great had destroyed not only a precious Achaemenid Avesta codex but also the other religious books, which had been written in 12,000 ox-hides.
In fact, there is not a trace at all of these writings in the Achaemenid period, and the tradition seems to have been created in order to explain the absence of a Persian holy book in contrast to those of the Jews, Christians and Manichaeans. This lack of written religious tradition seems to have been first seriously felt precisely in the same period in which resurrection became an issue.6

Thus, Burning Cross presented a good polemic but by not bother to cite scholars and not bothering to discuss the diversity of the dates of Zoroaster’s life and, most importantly, not bothering to date the texts to which they made reference they failed to do anything except discredit themselves.

For further information about the alleged similarities between Jesus and Zoroaster see: Is there a Connection Between Jesus and Zoroaster

Margarita Lacabe1 is the latest cookie cutter atheist to make it difficult for the friendly atheist next door to be considered the friendly atheist next door.

She is a member of the atheist sect that thinks that the 99% should be disregarded for the 1% and she is of the Dan Barker and Michael Newdow school of let’s see how many lawsuits we can file school of legislation from the bench. And the Rob Sherman school of making silence illegal.

Margarita Lacabe attended her daughter’s public school, watch for the terminology here, “holiday” show (as in “holy” “day”). She joyfully sat in the auditorium as the children sang secular favorites such as “Frosty the Snowman” (or is it now, “Frosty the Non-Gender Specific Snow Personage”?) and “Santa Claus is Coming to Town” (Santa, the morbidly obese guy who runs a sweat shop).

Yet,

she was shocked by the choir’s next tune. “The children were singing and they were all regular Christmas songs, but then I heard ‘Silent Night,'” said Lacabe. “I couldn’t believe it”_Lacabe was so incensed by the song that she left the auditorium while the children were still singing and spoke with McKinley Principal Cher Mott. “I was so incredibly mad.”

Did I read this correctly: she attends a “holiday” show in a country founded upon Christian values, premised upon the freedom of religious expression, whose declaration was declared by referencing our “Creator_nature’s God,” and is “shocked_incensed_incredibly mad”?
Oh, I know she probably does not know the difference between the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and a letter written by Thomas Jefferson who attended Christian worship church services in the Capitol Building.

But why be so “shocked_incensed_incredibly mad” that she left the auditorium while her child was still singing? “because she and her family are atheists”-shocking, I know.

Some would say that teaching a Christian song is an example of celebrating one of many different cultures present in public schools. But Lacabe said that, because Christianity is so prevalent, teaching it becomes a form of indoctrination. “They are not teaching Muslim songs, or Wiccan, or Pagan, they are not teaching atheist songs, if they are supposed to be teaching different cultures,” said Lacabe. She suggested R.E.M.’s “Losing My Religion” as an example of a song with atheistic themes and suggested a web site full of songs that are from an atheist perspective.

I think that an asanta clausist should complain and get “Santa Claus is Coming to Town” taken out. Then an amagical chauvinistic snowmen could get “Frosty the Snowman” taken out. Pretty soon the holiday show will be a “Winter Time Off of Work Seasonage Show.” The audience could consist of the parents and an assigned ACLU lawyer with lawsuit paperwork at the ready. While the music teacher sweats profusely while worrying and the children sing songs that have been deloused on any word that may offend someone. But then some may find this offensive so_

Indeed, why only exclude Christian songs or otherwise actually “religious” songs. Why should we allow songs about magical beings with supernatural powers such as Santa and Frosty in public schools. Why are some worldview/philosophies allowed and others not? Why is it acceptable that atheism is smuggled into the backdoor (actually, the front) of our science classrooms from kindergarten to college (as evidenced here and here).

In keeping with her prolific litigious output:

Lacabe said the McKinley music teacher Kathy Maier said she would remove the song from the rest of the seasonal holiday curriculum, but would not commit to permanently getting rid of it_After asking McKinley staff to not teach her daughter religious music, Lacabe was disappointed that they would not make a blanket change of their policy, so she filed a complaint with the district. At this point she is considering either bringing the issue up to the school board or school the district_ fought to have the words “Under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance_she may pursue the possibility of a legal injunction on the “Silent Night” matter, as well her complaint about the Pledge of Allegiance, depending on the results of other similar lawsuits in the state.

What happens when children are taught the Declaration of Independence? Do they read the censored version, the militant activist atheist rewriting of history version?

It is quite obvious that the motto of such atheist is “I shall have no other gods before me!” Thus, of course, this is all about Margarita Lacabe. Yet, in fact it is a conspiracy whereby “holiday” songs were invented to be sung during the “holiday” season so that her daughter would be indoctrinated (envisage evil laughter here):

Lacabe added that she believes that the school was aware of her atheism, because when her daughter was in kindergarten last year she fought to have the words “Under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. She believes that the school knew about her atheism and purposefully ignored it. “I feel they did it intentionally to indoctrinate my daughter in Christianity,” said Lacabe. “They are discriminating against my daughter because she is not a Christian_[her husband said] “I agree with her and, of course, I support her because she is my wife_

Now we really come to the crux of the matter:

The school district office said that they have a no-discrimination policy_

Margarita Lacabe said that. But for now, her daughter continues to say the pledge every Wednesday morning at an assembly with the rest of the school. “She is seven-years-old and wants to be like everyone else,” said Lacabe. “Basically, that is what I’m talking about. When you have this type of indoctrination, you are telling a group of kids that, because they don’t believe in the same things, they are not like everyone else.”

Well, indeed, in a majority Christian country those who do not believe in the same things are not like everyone else.
Diversity is about recognizing our differences and tolerance is about respecting those differences. Yet, the atheist movement represented by Margarita Lacabe appears to think that diversity is pretending that we are all the same and tolerance is putting up only with that with which we agree. This is intolerant uniformity not tolerant diversity.

The 99% must, under threat of multiple expensive lawsuits conform to the 1% “shocked_incensed_incredibly mad” paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Walk on eggshell everyone, here comes the atheist!

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

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.

Although True Freethinker did not author the essay “Some notes on Skepticism,” which was authored by Rochus Boerner, it seemed to connect with our series of posts entitled Scientific Cenobites.

This segment will consider:

Organized (Pseudo-)SkepticismIf it was true, there is no way that science could have missed it!

Confusing Assumptions with Findings

To recap: I began Scientific Cenobites by posing various “what if” science related questions such as:

What if I said that parts of the theory of evolution are a festering mass of unsupported assertions that read like imaginative literature rather than science?

Besides prejudging what was to come in parts 2-9 I got a lot of well then you would be a dumb dumb type responses. Yet, as parts 2-9 progressed I noticed an utter absence of refutation of my “what if” questions and this was during a time when I was able to spend the time to respond to virtually all comments. In fact, in parts 2-9 the only comments I got, at all, on the substance of the posts was to part 6 and that was one comment on the post and other comments to that one comment (and a Ken is wasting his time comment). This in counter distinction to the 85 comments in part one which dissuaded me from proceeding and prejudged what was to come-then when the posts came: silence.

Scientific Cenobites was about understanding the disparity between “science” as unblemished sacred atheist cow and “science” as a real, warts and all, endeavor engaged upon by mere mortals. It was about “science” as a method that is meant to restrict that which scientists, and activist atheists who co-opt science towards atheist propaganda, make of it or do with it.

We will now post Rochus Boerner’s essay “Some notes on Skepticism” in parts only because it is a circa 22 page essay. This essay delves into how some of the most vociferous self-appointed champions of reason, evidence and science in general are, in reality, mere pseudo-skeptics who are actually interested in protecting their particular, and peculiar, worldviews against those bothersome little facts that may cause them trouble.

Rochus Boerner provides some of his background in the essay so let us get right to it. I have added some references to True Freethinker posts within brackets when we have posted on relevant points. I have also added images:

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

Many who loudly advertise themselves as skeptics are actually disbelievers. Properly, a skeptic is a nonbeliever, a person who refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. A disbeliever, on the other hand, is characterized by an a priori belief that a certain idea is wrong and will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence to the contrary. Since disbelievers usually fancy themselves skeptics, I will follow Truzzi and call them pseudoskeptics, and their opinions pseudoskepticism.

Organized (Pseudo-)Skepticism
The more belligerent pseudoskeptics have their own organizations and publications. In Germany, there is an organization called the Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften e.V., or GWUP, (“society for the scientific evaluation of parasciences”) which publishes a magazine called Der Skeptiker (“the Skeptic”). In the United States, there is the so-called “Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal”, or short, CSICOP. The name suggests a serious, unbiased institute or think tank whose mission is to advance human knowledge by sorting out true anomalous discoveries from erroneous or fraudulent ones. Indeed, that was what some of the original members of CSICOP envisioned when they founded the organization in 1976. But in the very same year, CSICOP faced an internal crisis, a power struggle between the genuine skeptics and the disbelieving pseudoskeptics that was to tilt the balance in favor of the latter.

At issue was the Mars Effect, an extraordinary claim made by French statistician and psychologist Michel Gauquelin. Gauquelin had discovered an apparent statistical correlation between the position of Mars in the sky at the moment of birth of a person with the odds of that person becoming a sports champion, producing a genuine piece of empirical evidence that astrology might not be nonsense after all. This dismayed the pseudoskeptics, who until them had been comfortable dismissing astrology on purely theoretical grounds and were unwilling to even entertain the hypothesis that Gauquelin’s analysis might be correct. In 1976, in an attempt to make this embarrassment go away once and for all, Harvard professor of biostatistics and CSICOP fellow Marvin Zelen proposed a simplified version of the original Gauquelin study which he subsequently performed with the assistance of CSICOP chairman and professor of philosophy Paul Kurtz and George Abell, a UCLA astronomer. In order to get the result they wanted, the trio had to commit a total of six statistical blunders, which are discussed in detail in the article The True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality by former CSICOP fellow Richard Kammann. Proper analysis showed that the new study actually supported the Gauquelin effect.

But Kurtz and his fellow pseudoskeptics had never been interested in performing proper science. Their minds had been made up long before the study was performed, and they adamantly refused to admit their mistake in public. This lead to the resignation of many fair-minded CSICOP members, among them Richard Kammann and co-founder Marcello Truzzi. Truzzi wrote about his experience in Reflections On The Reception Of Unconventional Claims In Science:

Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants such as the “National Enquirer”. The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers.

After the true skeptics had been purged from the committee, CSICOP and its magazine, the Skeptical Inquirer, degenerated into little more than a propaganda outlet for the systematic ridicule of anything unconventional. Led by a small, but highly aggressive group of fundamentalist pseudoskeptics such as chairman and humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz, science writer and magician Martin Gardner and magician James Randi, CSICOP sees science not as a dispassionate, objective search for the truth, whatever it might be, but as holy war of the ideology of materialism against “a rising tide of irrationality, superstition and nonsense”. Kurtz and his fellows are fundamentalist materialists. They hold the nonexistence of paranormal phenomena as an article of faith, and they cling to that belief just as fervently and irrationally as a devout catholic believes in the Virgin Mary. They are fighting a no holds barred war against belief in the paranormal, and they see genuine research into such matters as a mortal threat to their belief system. Since genuine scientific study has the danger that the desired outcome is not guaranteed, CSICOP wisely no longer conducts scientific research of its own (such would be a waste of time and money for an entity that already has all the answers), and instead largely relies on the misrepresentation or intentional omission of existing research and the ad-hominem – smear, slander and ridicule.

Eugene Mallove, editor of Infinite Energy Magazine, relates the following telling episode in issue 23, 1999 of his magazine:

On the morning of July 14, 1998, I called Skeptical Inquirer‘s editor, Kendrick Frazier, to ask him, among other things, what research or literature search he had done on cold fusion. He rebuffed me, saying that he was too busy to talk, because he was on deadline on an editorial project. We spoke briefly; he was transparently irritated. He said, “I know who you are.” He said that he did not want to talk to me because, “We would have diametrically opposed views.” I said, “Oh, what research have you done to come to your conclusions about cold fusion.” I had thought that the careful investigation of “diametrically opposed views” was part of the work of CSICOP. Perhaps I was mistaken. Frazier said, “I’m not an investigator, I’m an editor.” The conversation ended with Frazier stating that he had nothing further to say.

The entire article is available online: CSICOP: “Science Cops” at War with Cold Fusion.Even though it is largely run by scientific lay people, and its practices are anathema to true science, CSICOP has enjoyed the support of a number of highly prestigious scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould, the late Carl Sagan, Glenn T. Seaborg, Leon Lederman and Murray Gell-Mann. This support has enabled it to project an image of scientific authority to the opinion shapers in the media and the general public.

For a detailed study of pseudo-skepticism in general, and CSICOP in particular, I refer the reader to George P. Hansen’s article CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview (published in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research), in which CSICOP’s history, goals, tactics and membership structure are discussed in some detail. In his conclusions, Hansen finds that

CSICOP’s message has often been well received, particularly among scientific leaders. The growth of CSICOP, the circulation figures of “SI”, and the academic credentials of its readership prove that there is wide interest in the paranormal among the most highly educated members of our society. Many readers of “SI” undoubtedly assume that CSICOP presents the best available scientific evidence. The readers are rarely told of the existence of refereed scientific journals that cover parapsychology. The effect of CSICOP’s activities is to create a climate of hostility toward the investigation of paranormal claims; indeed, at one CSICOP conference, the announcement of the closing of several parapsychology laboratories was greeted with cheers.The remainder of this text is devoted to a detailed discussion of pseudoskeptical arguments and debating tactics.

[True Freethinker’s posts on “The Wedgie Document” may be relevant as they chronicle pseudo-skeptical atheist activism in the arena of science, where it most surely does not belong: see here]

If it was true, there is no way that science could have missed it!

This is a variation of the end of science argument – since science already knows everything, and does not recognize the unconventional phenomenon, it cannot be real. Besides being based on a mere belief – that science has discovered everything there is to know – this argument ignores the nature of human perception. Even scientists tend to see only what they want to see, and that is how phenomena that we find completely obvious today, such as Wegener’s plate tectonics – look how South America fits into Africa! – went unnoticed for a long time, and were violently opposed when they were finally pointed out. As Arthur C. Clarke put it:

“It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them.”

True skeptics appreciate that the principal flaw of human perception – seeing what one wants to see – can afflict conventional as well as unconventional scientists. Their opinions are moderated by the humbling realization that today’s scientific orthodoxy began as yesterday’s scientific heresy; as the December 2002 editorial of Scientific American puts it:

All scientific knowledge is provisional. Everything that science “knows,” even the most mundane facts and long-established theories, is subject to reexamination as new information comes in.

Confusing Assumptions with Findings

Pseudoskeptics like to claim that the assumptions underlying modern science are empirical facts that science has proved. For example, the foundational assumption of neuroscience, that the functioning of the brain (and, therefore, the mind) is explainable in terms of classical physics as the interaction of neurons, is said to be a scientific fact that is proved by neuroscience, despite the embarrassing and long-standing failure of this assumption to explain the anomaly of consciousness.
In a recent BBC program on homeopathy Walter Stewart (the same one who was part of the Nature team that visited Benveniste in his laboratory in 1988) is quoted on the subject of homeophatic dilutions:Science has through many, many different experiments shown that when a drug works it’s always through the way the molecule interacts with the body and, so the discovery that there’s no molecules means absolutely there’s no effect.

But science has shown no such thing. That the functioning of biological organisms is reducible to the physical interaction of molecules is not the result of decades of bio-molecular research, it is the assumption underlying this research. The fact that homeopathy confounds that assumption refutes the latter, not the former.

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

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.

The ever present Bill Maher controversy continued unabated on Real Time with Bill Maher (January 18, 2008 AD).

This year he jumped upon the bandwagon of ever mounting childish atheist talking points by referring to Jesus as a “Jewish Zombie.”

In typical form Bill Maher makes arguments from outrage, arguments from ridicule and argument for embarrassment in stating:

As a book of morality, it would be about last on my list. If I had a child, the last book I would ever give to teach morality would be the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

I can only imagine that he does not take them time to consider that, as opposed to so many atheist, the Bible places morality and lack thereof into context. His statements are tantamount to denouncing a newspaper for reporting the immoral activities of the previous day.

His guest, columnist Dan Savage, then does a good job of providing a virtual one stop shop for learning the same, old, tired, regurgitated without skepticism and ubiquitously discredited atheist talking points as he then launches into a barrage of condemnations:

People only pretend to read the Bible. Their eyes glaze over, and they remember a couple of passages that they ignore when they feel like ignoring, like “Turn the other cheek.”And, then they, when they don’t like somebody, they go flipping through this massive book, full of ancient desert prejudices, looking for something to justify it.

Just like they justified slavery using the Bible, because there are passages in the Bible that justify slavery, including passages that justify selling your daughters into sex slavery. Right there, that’s Biblical, those are Biblical family values.

And so, we have this selective sort of reading problem with the Bible. If we’re going to enforce it all, stone the gay people, but, you know, stoning the adulterers first starting with Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain…by the time it’s my turn, they’ll be out of rocks. [ellipses in original]

The first portion is simply childish-actually children have much more sense than this.

As for slavery; what the Bible was doing was reforming it and commanding protections for the “slave” (servant is generally more accurate). Moreover, it was in appeal to the Bible that slavery in America was abolished: it was the elucidations of the well versed and educated theologians who clarified the issue. That there are “passages that justify selling your daughters into sex slavery” is no less than utterly baseless and he conveniently neglected to cite book, chapter and verse. Yet, since we are dealing with atheist talking points, note that I have already discredited such baseless assertions in the post: Atheism, the Bible, Rape, EvilBible.com and Dan Barker.

Why would anyone; Jew, Christian, or even atheist, think that anyone would or should seek to “enforce it all.”
This is an example of the unfathomable depths of a typical atheist misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts even at the most basic of basic levels.

The Bible’s every law is not to be enforced particularly when dealing with the, note the key word, Old Testament as that Old Testament was the old law for the Jews of olden days in Israel under the theocratic government in which they agreed to live.
So, even though Dan Savage savagely appeals to the Old Testament in mockingly asking why we do not stone the gay people and adulterers and Sam Harris argues that you can actually justify stoning adulterers from the New Testament they only discredit themselves by so very openly, loudly and proudly displayed the tremendous depth of their ignorance: this is pseudo-skepticism at its finest.

Never missing an opportunity to further discredit himself further Bill Maher chimes in:

And at least half of the Commandments are stupid…If you were going to make a list of like the ten things you absolutely can’t do, wouldn’t you put on there rape, incest, bestiality, slavery? But, instead, they have things like “Don’t swear,” you know, “Don’t build statues to other Gods,” obviously the ideas of primitive man living in primitive times, and this is what you look up to.

Bill Maher does not seem to consider premise, cause and effect chains of causation, etc. He also seems to be under a misconception about what the Ten Commandments are; he seems to think that they are the complete law. They are the premise of the complete law. There are various premises, overarching principles upon which the whole law was based.When Jesus was asked, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”:

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
“Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (see Mark 12:28-34).

Apparently, the Bill Maher school of Bible misinterpretation would say, “Wow, wait a minute Jesus! Show me where it says that in the list of ten!” I admit that if I have to choose between Bill Maher’s and Jesus’ elucidation of the issue I may have to side with Jesus ;o)

Interestingly, Bill Maher does not bother (as per typical atheism shoot condemnations first and do not even bother asking questions about premise later) providing a premise upon which to condemn rape, incest, bestiality, slavery or anything at all for that matter. In fact, he has made fun of little children that are raped by their parents.

The Ten Commandments where the first list of rules for a brand new nation. This is something that atheists such as Christopher Hitchens (see here) do not consider: the Jews had just been freed from four centuries of slavery in Egypt (have you ever heard of an atheist condemning Egyptian slavery? No! They just want to condemn Jews).The Jews had been institutionalized by centuries of slavery in Egypt.God was literally building up a nation from the ground up and the building began with the Ten Commandments.The Ten Commandments provide premise that God freed them from slavery, defeated the false gods of Egypt, that the Jews were not to make idols and serve them because this leads to the worship of the very false gods that had been defeated, the gods that commanded all sorts of unethical actions.

The Ten Commandments build from relationship with God to relationship with family to relationship with one’s neighbor to relationship with society. Specific condemnations of rape, incest, bestiality and slavery follow elsewhere.

It would be interesting if Bill Maher ever has a debate about the Bible and I do not mean a panel in his circus and amongst his amen chorus of adherents but an actual debate. Thus, far upon commenting on the Bible he discredits himself even further while leaving the Bible unscathed.

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

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.

Forget 2012 AD and the Mayanshere comes 2010 AD and

the Year of the Bible

See my post on the Positive Atheism site’s national Bible week poster. Now Congress will consider a bill that seeks to deem 2010 AD as the Year of the Bible.

Ok kids, pop quiz time: who said:

Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination?Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bible now.

Folks haven’t been reading their Bible.

Was it Michael Newdow; the contender for the world’s record for most lawsuits filed?Was it Dan Barker who is in competition with Michael Newdow for most lawsuits filed?Was it their big bully supporters the ACLU?

Was it Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins or any of the now dead New Atheist movement?

Was it any such celebrity or basement lever militant activist atheist?

Nay, nay. It was the Christian Bible in hand churchgoer President Barack Obama.

Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) is attempting to promulgate 2010 AD as the Year of the Bible. This would actually be the second Year of the Bible as 1983 AD was designated as such.
Rep. Paul Broun explains:

“This doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity,” he said in an interview with POLITICO. Rather, he says, it seeks to recognize that the Bible played an integral role in the building of the United States, including providing the basis for our freedom of religion that allows Muslims, Hindus and even atheists to vocalize their own beliefs_
“we must also not forget to protect and celebrate our fundamental freedoms that the Bible has influenced.”1

Also, along this line of thought:

[A] resolution to have the “Lincoln-Obama Bible” on permanent display in the Capitol Visitor Center_asks the president “to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States and its great democratic form of government.”

Predictably,

atheist activists are dismissing the resolution, while none of the many Democrats in Congress who are Christian have bothered to sign on as co-sponsors.

Atheists should be ecstatic as those of the Dan Barker and Michael Newdow school of job security live for something to complain about, something to claim underdog victimhood status about, something to file lawsuits about and something to beg for donations about.

“Does that mean 2009 is not the year of the Bible?” mocked Rep. Barney Frank ­(D-Mass.), who is Jewish. “What is 2012 the year of? The Quran?”
“That’s an endorsement of religion by the federal government, and we shouldn’t be doing that,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)

I wonder when Islamic groups will ask Rep. Barney Frank exactly what would be wrong with a year of the Qur’an? Contextually, the problem I envisage is that the Qur’an played no part in the building of the United States except that it did influence the black African Muslims who sold slaves to the white devils.

David Silverman (vice president and national spokesman of American Atheists promulgators of an “international symbol for Atheism“) expresses nonchalance about the whole issue

Right now, we’re seeing atheism on such a rise_We are seeing Christianity on such a dramatic decline that we’re not particularly worried about it.

This refers to the rise of atheism is America.

My favorite comments came from people, laypersonages and politicians, who complain that we have much more important things to do in America. Is this why during a time of worldwide recession atheists in the UK and USA are wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars purchasing bus ads and billboards in attempting to demonstrated just how clever then consider themselves to be rather than helping anyone at all?
Moreover, considering that the first concern of the Barack Obama administration upon taking office was ensuring the continued brutal and painful dismembering murder of beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies who is to complain about the Year of the Bible?

One can only wonder what the Barack Obama administration will have to say on this issue, if they bother saying anything at all. Consider that they virtually forgot, or simply overlooked, the National Day of Prayer. The “Obama administration has announced that it will issue a proclamation marking the National Day of Prayer, it will not hold a formal White House event” the proclamation was signed on “Thursday, May 7, which makes it too late for organizations to distribute” thus, while the Legislative and Judicial Branches were represented at the event the Executive Branch did not bother.

This time American Atheist David Silverman was not so comfortable with atheism on such a rise and was particularly worried

It’s not his job to tell people to pray_When church and state are separate, separate is separate.2

Oh well, another militant activist atheist who does not know the difference between the Constitution’s Establishment Clause an a letter written by the Capitol Building Christian church attendee Thomas Jefferson. He also does not seem to understand that difference between telling people to pray and inviting people to pray.

We will just have to see how the proposed Year of the Bible is handled: start counting the lawsuits!

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

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.

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

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

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

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

Misc. and Resources

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

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

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

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

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

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

Misc. and Resources

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

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

I do not know if at some point in his life Michael Martin had a near drowning experience or not. If I were a Freudian I would hypothesize of a childhood beach or pool related incident. Why?

During his 1997 AD debate with Phil Fernandes entitled “Does God Exist?” Michael Martin made the argument from swimming against God’s existence (he actually refers to his overall arguments as the Argument from Incoherence).

During his opening statement he stated:
“To say that God is all knowing, then, is to say that God has all knowledge…However, theists have not noticed the implications of this account for the existence of God. God’s omniscience conflicts with His disembodiness. If God is omniscient, then on this definition God would have all knowledge including that of how to swim. Yet only a being with a body can have such knowledge in the procedural sense, that is actually have the skill, and by definition God does not have a body. Therefore, God’s being disembodied and God’s being omniscient are in conflict. Thus, if God is both omniscient and disembodied, God does not exist. Since God is both omniscient and disembodied He does not exist.”

During his second statement he stated:
“I argued that God could not know how to swim since He does not have a body and knowing how to swim is a physical skill.”

During his closing statement he stated:
“I maintained that God cannot know certain things, for example, how to swim, since he has no body and that He cannot have certain knowledge by acquaintance.”

This argument against God’s existence may be applicable to, and successful against, certain theologies but is impotent against Christian theology.

Firstly, let us consider his qualifier “in the procedural sense.” He appears to recognize that it may be argued that God could have knowledge of, without necessarily having the experience of, swimming, for example.

According to Christian theology God not only has knowledge of swimming in a conceptual sense and also due to His having knowledge of the body’s sense organs and the effect of H2O and temperature upon the body. Yet, moreover, God took human form in the Messiah Jesus and could actually have physically experienced swimming (whether He actually swam or just walked on the water is another issue).

Michael Martin also took a very peculiar course of action. He cited an argument the consistency of which he himself calls into question even while making it:

“Consider a neglected argument of Roland Puccetti that I reconstruct as follows:If P is omniscient, then P would have knowledge of all facts about the world. Let us call this totality of facts Y. So if P is omniscient, then P knows Y. One of the facts included in Y is that P is omniscient. But in order to know that P is omniscience P would have to know something besides Y. P would have to know: (Z) There are no facts unknown to P…Z, Puccetti says, would be like knowing it is true that no centaurs exist anywhere at any time.

But why could not God with his infinite power search all of space and time and conclude that there are no centaurs? Similarly, why could not God search all space and time and conclude that there is no more factual knowledge that He can acquire? Puccetti is not as clear as he might be…”

Thus, there you have it, he has demonstrated how the very argument upon which he is relying is fallacious and he is kind enough to make us privy to that fact. But in that case, why appeal to the argument in the first place?

Because he sought to remedy it and discredits himself further by doing so:

“Puccetti is not as clear as he might be but one can assume that he would answer this question by saying that God could not exhaustively search space and time because they are both infinite. No matter how long God searched there would be more space and time to search. Consequently, it is possible that there are facts He does not know. Thus, for God to know that He knows all the facts located in space and time is impossible, and since omniscience entails such knowledge, omniscience is impossible.”

The conclusion may be viable given a certain presupposition. At this point the presupposition is positively affirmed, “God could not exhaustively search space and time because they are both infinite.”

Yet, he also stated:

“This reconstruction of Puccetti’s argument turns on the factual assumptions that space and time are infinite but some scientists have claimed that space is finite but unbounded. The infinite nature of time is also controversial. At most, then, the argument prove that if space and time are infinite, then God is not omniscient. But since God is omniscient by definition, He cannot exist if space and time are infinite.”

In other words, reconstruction or not, he has no argument. Did you notice the qualifiers this time? “if space and time are infinite…He cannot exist if space and time are infinite.”
If Micheal Martin’s presuppositions are viable he may have a point. Yet, what we know about modern cosmology (or what the Bible has told us for millennia, see posts here and here) is that time, space and matter came into being at a certain point and are thus finite. Ergo, his reconstructed argument is deconstructed.

In his second statement Michael Martin stated, “God would have to know there were no facts He did not know.” This actually makes us privy to another weak link in the chain of Puccetti’s argument which had stated, “If P is omniscient, then P would have knowledge of all facts about the world. Let us call this totality of facts Y.” Yet, God’s omniscience is not restricted to “knowledge of all facts about the world” but of facts outside of the world, beyond the worlds, outside and beyond the material realm into the supernatural realm.

Yet, the argument fails in any case since the totality of facts is “Y,” of which God has knowledge. Thus, it is contradictory to the argument’s own parameters to state, “P would have to know something besides Y.” Since Y is defined as the totality of facts nothing is outside of Y.

Overall, the Argument from Incoherence is very successful in as much as it very clearly demonstrates Michael Martin’s incoherence.

Perhaps the last word ought to be given to the philosopher Donald Rumsfeld who stated,

“There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.”

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

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 UK Guardian has been exploring the question of the difference between agnostic and atheist and have thus set out to define agnostic and agnostic beliefs and define atheism and atheism beliefs.

They ask:

What is the difference between agnosticism and atheism?…are agnostics merely people who lack the courage of their lack of convictions?

Is there a real difference between someone who thinks that the question of God’s existence is undecideable in priciple and one who supposes merely that the evidence to settle the question has not finally come in?

Or is the whole distinction between agnostics and true believers, or true unbelievers, really one of temperament? Perhaps some people just don’t like feeling certain, and others feel uncomfortable any other way.1

They then posted an article by Jonathan West entitled, “I’m an atheist, OK? The debate over who should call themselves ‘agnostic’ is muddled by imprecise and conflicting uses of the word itself,” UK Guardian, May 18, 2009.

Jonathan West attempts to remedy the confusion as to atheism and agnosticism and the definition of agnostic and definition of atheism by, in part, writing:

The cause of the confusion is that atheists and theists have different definitions of the words agnostic and atheist, and adamantly refuse to accept the validity of each other’s definitions.

Here is a short form of the definitions from the two separate points of view.Theist version: An atheist is certain there is no God, an agnostic is not certain.

Atheist version: An atheist believes there is no God, an agnostic doesn’t know.

But why bring theists into it? Atheist have enough problems attempting to figure out the difference between agnostic and atheist and defining atheism and agnostic.

For example, see Atheism Symbols – Atheist Symbols; Internet Infidels‘ Jeffery Jay Lowder noted,

_the “atheist” movement keeps shooting itself in the foot by failing to reach a consensus regarding the meaning of “atheism.”

Jonathan West attempts to elucidate further:

The two versions are only subtly different, but a great deal of hot air has been expended on this difference.Let’s look at the two definitions of atheist first, because this is where the cause of the confusion really resides. It is the distinction between “believes” and “is certain”. In choosing the two different forms of words, I am trying to convey that the theists’ definition of atheism suggests that atheists know beyond any possibility of doubt that they have proof of God’s nonexistence.

The self-described atheists tend to use the word “believe” as meaning a very high degree of confidence, sufficient to live their lives on this basis, but falling short of 100% proven certainty.

Yet, his “short form of the definitions” of agnosticism and atheism are limited and merely add to the muddling. They certainly are limited due to being “short form” but perhaps he should not have referenced “short form.”

What of strong atheism, positive atheism, explicit atheism or critical atheism? What of weak atheism, negative atheism or implicit atheism? What of Naturalists, Materialists, Rationalists, Humanists, Skeptics, Brights, Freethinkers, Philosophical Skeptics, Universists, Ethical Culturalists, etc.? What of anti-theists, militant atheists, activist atheists, etc.?

Part of the confusion is that Jonathan West thinks that,

A Christian is somebody who says he is a Christian, and an agnostic is somebody who says he doesn’t know. If we all accept each other’s self-applied labels, we can all get along much better.

Such concepts are convenient to atheists who can then say things such as, “That idolater, fornicator, leader of a violent regime says that he is a Christian so; he is a Christian.” Yet, Christianity is a concept defined within certain well defined parameters and so one is not a Christian by mere claiming to be one: such “self-applied labels” are irrelevant even while it is important to consider how those with whom we are having a discussion defined their “self-applied labels.”

Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term “agnostic” in 1869 because he noted two extremes:

1) Atheist who positively affirmed God’s non-existence (claimed to know that God did not exist).
2) Theists who positively affirmed God’s existence (claimed to know that God exists).2

Concluding that he did not posses enough evidence to positively affirm either position Thomas Huxley coined a term which he saw as a middle position which was that of lacking knowledge to go either way (whether such knowledge actually exists outside of his personal knowledge or may someday be discovered is another issue).

It was after this coining that Charles Bradlaugh (circa 1876) popularized the definition of “atheism” as some define it today; words to the likes of “lack of belief in god(s).” Or what EvilBible.com’s author refers to as the “few morons” who are “so damn stupid” for defining atheism as such (see History of Atheism).

This post was meant to provide a heads up to the centuries old issue with which atheists have had to deal which is how to define their own position. Some will merely say, “All Atheists merely lack a god(s) belief” and yet, this is merely another self-serving and restrictive attempt to bypass the issue.

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

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.

Thus far evilbible.com has offered impotent outrage in the form of baseless condemnations and we have seen cases of capital punishment and no human sacrifice. At least, no human sacrifice from the Jews to the God of the Bible but by Gentile Pagans to their false gods. Oddly enough, evilbible.com’s author did not condemn these-let’s just get back to condemning Jews!

The next section is entitled, “Child Sacrifice” which again quotes the apocrypha but this time not from the Roman Catholic NAB but from the RSV, some Bibles include the apocrypha as historical reference:

And this became a hidden trap for mankind, because men, in bondage to misfortune or to royal authority, bestowed on objects of stone or wood the name that ought not to be shared. Afterward it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but they live in great strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils peace. For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange customs_ (Wisdom 14:21-23 RSV) The Book of The Wisdom of Solomon is mostly in Catholic versions of the Bible. This passage condemns human sacrifice but acknowledges that it did happen by early God worshipers.

In this case evilbible.com’s author is quite correct in stating that this is a straight forward case of “Child Sacrifice.” However, there is one slight detail that seems to have evaded the author’s attention. This detail may be due to, at least, two factors:

1) Some people appear to have such an unfathomable level of lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of the Bible’s contents that they think that any text in the Bible is meant to prescribe an action for us to follow. This is not only unbiblical but unreasonable no matter what text one is considering; from the Bible to the newspaper.

2) I do get the strange sensation that evilbible.com’s author did not conduct any sort of Bible study in order to prepare the contents of evilbible.com but simply surfed the internet seeking likeminded pseudo-skeptical anti-Judeo-Christians and simply compiled pull quotes.

In any regard, two things are for certain:

1) The text does indeed and very clearly refer to “Child Sacrifice.”

2) The text, here I mean the whole text, the entire chapter, the context, presents a styled history and description of idolatry and in referencing child sacrifice is condemning Gentile Pagan idol worshippers.

This is even clear from the text that was quoted as it does state, “it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but they live in great strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils peace.”
They sacrificed children to false idolatrous gods due to erring ignorance of the true God and end up calling evil good-just as when Dan Barker makes reference to the brutal and painful dismembering murder of beautiful, innocent, and defenseless human babies by stating, “I think abortion is a blessing” (see here).
Where is the condemnation of the Gentile Pagans by evilbible.com’s author, the New Atheists and atheists in general? Nowhere to be heard-let’s get back to condemning the Jews!

The next section is entitled, “Humans are Fuel for Fire” and goes back to quoting the Roman Catholic NAB:

As for you, son of man, prophesy: Thus says the Lord GOD against the Ammonites and their insults: A sword, a sword is drawn for slaughter, burnished to consume and to flash lightning, because you planned with false visions and lying divinations to lay it on the necks of depraved and wicked men whose day has come when their crimes are at an end. Return it to its sheath! In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you. I will pour out my indignation upon you, breathing my fiery wrath upon you, I will hand you over to ravaging men, artisans of destruction. You shall be fuel for the fire, your blood shall flow throughout the land. You shall not be remembered, for I, the LORD, have spoken. (Ezekiel 21:33-37 NAB)

Be aware that the NAB has Ezekiel ch. 21 going to v. 37 but other Bibles have it going to v. 32-however, the text is the same, it is simply that the numbering of verses is different as the NAB ends ch. 20 a couple of verses earlier than other Bibles and carries them over to ch. 21.Interestingly enough, it is by not considering theses verses that evilbible.com’s author commits folly yet again.The verses in question read,

Thus the word of the LORD came to me:Son of man, look southward, preach toward the south, and prophesy against the forest of the southern land.Hear the word of the LORD! you shall say to the southern forest. Thus says the Lord GOD: See! I am kindling a fire in you that shall devour all trees, the green as well as the dry. The blazing flame shall not be quenched, but from south to north every face shall be scorched by it.Everyone shall see that I, the LORD, have kindled it, and it shall not be quenched.

But I said, “Alas! Lord GOD, they say to me, ‘Is not this the one who is forever spinning parables?'” (Ezekiel 21:1-5 NAB; 20:45-49 other Bibles)

God’s reference to “a fire_blazing flame_scorched_kindled” was parable (proverb, saying, aphorism, similitude, maxim, etc.). Thus, “fuel for the fire” is parabolic “fuel” for the parabolic “fire” and therefore, no “Humans are Fuel for Fire” with regards to “Ritual Human Sacrifice in the Bible.”
The parabolic fire denotes that the Gentile Pagan Babylonians would conquer Israel.

We have now come to the very last reference to alleged “Ritual Human Sacrifice in the Bible” which is entitled, “Burn Nonbelievers” and we are back to the NLT:

“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Evilbible.com’s author appears to interpret “Put the entire town to the torch” as “the town and its inhabitants.” Yet, the preceding verses state otherwise. Firstly, this represents the laying out of a contingency plan for when it is reported that Israelites have been enticed to worship the idolatrous false gods whose worship systems included the actual child sacrifice about which evilbible.com’s author had nothing to say, temple prostitution, etc.The first step is to “examine the facts carefully” and note that this is something which “you must” do.

Then “If you find it is true and can prove” it the sentence is capital punishment which is carried out by destroying the inhabitants and livestock and the burning, of note what is to be burned, “all the plunder.”

Therefore, no burning of nonbelievers and not even their corpses.

Having reached the end of evilbible.com’s page about “Ritual Human Sacrifice in the Bible” we have learned that the only “Ritual Human Sacrifice in the Bible” is that which Gentile Pagan idolaters carried out while worshipping the false gods whom the God of the Bible condemns. Whenever the Jews did practice human sacrifice it was only when they abandoned the God of the Bible and followed the Gentile Pagan false idolatrous gods whom the God of the Bible condemns.
About these Gentile Pagan false idolatrous gods to whom human children were sacrificed and women were made to prostitute evilbible.com’s author, the New Atheists, and atheist in general have nothing to say-let’s just get back to condemning Jews!

However, I am not done and would like to point out certain text which do indeed present actual “Ritual Human Sacrifice in the Bible” which evilbible.com’s author missed:

“When the Lord your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying , ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way; for every abomination to the Lord which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:29-30).

“And you shall not let any of your seed pass through the fire to Moloch, neither shall you profane the name of your God. I am the LORD” (Leviticus 18:21).

“they built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Moloch, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin” (Jeremiah 32:35).

And what about when Nebuchadnezzar had Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego thrown into a blazing furnace that was so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who threw them in? (Daniel ch. 3).
Well, Nebuchadnezzar was the King of Babylon and thus a Gentile Pagan false idolatrous god worshipper about whom evilbible.com’s author, the New Atheists, and atheist in general have nothing to say-let’s just get back to condemning Jews!

To sum up our research of the contents of evilbible.com thus, far:

Let us note that in our consideration of rape in the Bible we learned that evilbible.com’s author imagined rape when no text supporting the assertion that the Bible’s approves of rape could be found.We also noted that, for some odd reason, the primary biblical text dealing with rape was ignored; it was not quoted, not cited, not paraphrased, not alluded to, but completely ignored.

Why? One can only guess, but one thing is for certain; that text, Deuteronomy 22:25-27, calls for capital punishment for the rapist.

Moreover, our study of Ritual Human Sacrifice in the Bible concluding here, we have learned that the only human/child sacrifice to be found in the Bible was not condemned by evilbible.com’s author. These sacrifices were condemned by the God of the Bible as the heretical and abominable unGodly actions of Gentile Pagans who were worshipping idolatrous false gods and by Jews on the occasion when they turned away from the God of the Bible to join the worship of false gods.

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

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.