Aron Ra is a neo-pop-Atheist who is famous for being famous or rather, infamous for being famously wrong. Hereinafter we will consider Scott Jacobsen, “Exclusive Interview with Aron Ra – Public Speaker, Atheist Vlogger, and Activist,” Conatus News May 13, 2017 AD.
Now, Conatus News (read as “views”) is “the home of progressivism. Politics, culture, religion, education, interviews and podcasts” and this is supposed to be an “interview” however, this was basically a PR platform from which Aron Ra could claim that which he willed in an utterly unchallenged manner. In fact, it is basically an article wherein Ra plays the Johnny Carson part and Scott Jacobsen plays Ed McMahon and I am not even kidding: here are most of the Jacobsen portions and I quote directly, “Jacobsen: Okay [Laughing]…Jacobsen: Oh wow…Jacobsen: [Laughing]…Jacobsen: [Laughing]…Jacobsen: [Laughing]…Jacobsen: [Laughing] that’s hysterical…Jacobsen: [Laughing]…Jacobsen: [Laughing]…Jacobsen: [Laughing]…Jacobsen: [Laughing]…Jacobsen: [Laughing]…Jacobsen: [Laughing] Yes!…Jacobsen: [Laughing]…Jacobsen: [Laughing]…Jacobsen: [Laughing]…Jacobsen: [Laughing].”
He is asked “What was a moment of realisation, or a series of them, in becoming a non-believer, in becoming an atheist?” having been “baptized as a Mormon” apparently in his youth. As you can see within my When and Why They Became Atheists Project, this may hint that his conversion to Atheism was based, to whatever degree, on rebelling against mommy and daddy. And since he begins his reply by making fun of his own family, I would say: bingo! He notes that due to disputes as to whether Mormons are even Christians, “I got to see the interdenominational bigotry within Christianity” and I will add that now, as an Atheist, he gets to see the interdenominational bigotry within Atheism.
He notes that in “places that the Mormons controlled everything…if you were not a Mormon, you were not employed, at least not if you were white” which is a misstatement which should read, “if you were NOT white” since Mormonism was a racist religion—until Mormons realized that they could make a lot of money from missionizing countries with majority “black” and “brown” people and one of the many Mormon gods changed his mind about such people being cursed: follow the money!
He notes that “I moved a lot as a kid” from state to state and “I would be with one parent, then another” apparently referring to a broken home or living with one as the other settled in, etc.: time to take it out on the ultimate father figure, God.
He notes, “Mormons do believe ridiculous things. Every religion does” as do Atheists, of course. He sites as a triumph when “I would ask simple questions to my babysitter when I was a little boy, like, ‘How does Jesus turn water into wine? I know water is H2O. I know that wine is alcohol and fruit juice, and I don’t know what the chemical components of that are.’” Well, perhaps in the same way that humans have done it for millennia: only faster. Aron Ra ends up stating, “It is only the difference of a carbon atom. The molecules are much more complex. But they involve oxygen, hydrogen, and some additional carbons. That’s it” which is interesting but does not answer the how question. Perhaps he could have asked “How does everything come from nothing, by nothing and for nothing” or “How does life accidentally come from accidental non-life?” I will note that there are very many different levels of explanations.
And another piece of the When and Why They Became Atheists puzzle is in place when he notes that he asks questions and did not get answers (or, did not get answers which met his subjective standards), “they don’t come up with explanations…they didn’t want explanations,” etc.
In fact, “When I was growing up, I found believers not only hated accurate scientific answers, but they hated any answer that sounded scientific” which is sad if true. He adds that “I was told all of the time that ‘sceptics were cynics’ because we miss out on the big picture that only the believers can see. They should’ve paraphrased this: People that make up stuff and call it truth have the power to imagine all kinds of nonsense.” But he has merely switched to a different team playing the same game as Atheists and evolutionists, and Atheists evolutionists, comport in the manner of essentially stating, sceptics of Atheism and evolution are cynics because we miss out on the big picture that only the believers in Atheism and evolution can see. They should’ve paraphrased this: People that make up stuff and call it truth have the power to imagine all kinds of nonsense and such is called Atheism, the theory of evolution, etc.
Aron Ra is a neo-pop-Atheist who is famous for being famous or rather, infamous for being famously wrong. Hereinafter we will consider Scott Jacobsen, “Exclusive Interview with Aron Ra – Public Speaker, Atheist Vlogger, and Activist,” Conatus News May 13, 2017 AD.
Ironically, he states, “you couldn’t believe something for no reason because that’s stupid…I came across people and asked them, ‘Why do you believe this?’…The answers people give are, ‘I believe this because I want to. I believe this because it makes me happy.’” Yet, now, if he is consistent about his Atheist-evolutionist worldview: he would have to conclude that since ascertaining empirical truth is not a universal imperative then whatever serves as a Darwinian survival mechanism, even theism, is valid, that because I want to and it makes me happy is as good a reason and any and that Atheists have argued the same exact thing about why one should hold to Atheism, see here.
He further emphasizes, “lying to yourself. That’s the entirety of what religion is” and an honest evolutionary reply would be “So what?”
In fact, even though no Atheist or evolutionists has ever explained why: in nature survival matters and since you can survive by ascertaining empirical truth or by being utterly deluded then what you believe and why you believe it are utterly irrelevant issues. So, he wondered, “Why would you say that about something that I just proved is not true?” to which I will say “proved is not true” to his own subjective satisfaction just as the Mormons thought that they were proving things but he did not accept them. Thus, he re-emphasizes, “Why would you want to believe something after finding out it is not even possibly or even probably true, in either case? It is not possibly true. It is not probably true” and the Atheist reply, when consistent (which, I know, is asking much too much) should be, “Aron, bubula, I am an accidentally and temporarily existing hairless ape so the answer is that life is short, what do you care, who made you the truth police and, by the way, why are you attempting to short-circuit my Darwinian survival mechanism.”
In typical Atheist one-liner fashion, he states, “faith is often a matter of pretending to know what you know you really don’t know, and that no one even can know, and which you merely believe – often for no good reason at all.” In this case Atheism and evolution are saturated with faith—and, of course, Richard Dawkins admitted as much in a rare moment of clarity:
Yet, Ra’s point is qualified as “faith is often a matter of” thus, often yet not always. He went on to states, “That’s what faith is. Faith is literally make-believe.” Not to detract from Atheists who play human dictionary but for info on what biblical faith actually means, see here.
What Aron Ra is doing is that which every Atheist must do which is to demand that everyone adhere to truth, logic and ethics without providing a premise upon which to make such demands since their worldview cannot account for them: their game is not ready, set, go but is ready, go and do not bother to set–oh, and they subjectively invent tentative rule as they go.
Ra then states, “the definitions between a miracle and magic…are both the ‘evocation of supernatural forces or entities to control or forecast natural events in ways which are inexplicable by science because they defy the laws of physics, meaning they are physically impossible.’” And this is why we must understand that there are various definitions and you cannot always and simply bring grammatical dictionaries’ definitions to a discussion about theology. In any case, with an very slight tweak I can affirm that if Aron Ra believes in the Big Bang then he has engaged in miracle and/or magic as the “evocation of supernatural forces” by definition as the universe’s cause preceded nature “or entities” such as Lawrence Krauss’ nothing which does something “to control or forecast natural events in ways which are” at least ultimately “inexplicable by science because they defy the laws of physics” as they preceded physics “meaning they are physically impossible” and yet, here we are.
We then encounter another thing common to all Atheists which is that, by definition, they are all theologians. He envisages “some form of technology sometime in the future that can detect the essence of God….We can confirm God exists” yet the question becomes “whose God it is” as in which one? We get a window into his dogmatheism when he states, “They can’t be all right. They can all be wrong, but at most only one of them can be right” yet, according to his fantasy scenario “we have the device that can prove God exists and can show the qualities or the properties of God, and can verify who is right about God.” This is all very important because it goes to show that the issue is not God’s existence as Atheists would then hate God all the more-so for actually existing.
Now, I have no such device—shocking, I know—but have put the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorns, see here.
Aron Ra then commits a false dichotomy logical fallacy (but why should he care, since his world view does not account for logic or the imperative to adhere to it), “you have to make a choice whether to remain honest or whether to remain creationist, because it is no longer possible to be both.” So, this is not only logically fallacious but means that any creationist is dishonest: and yes, he is implying a condemnation of dishonest without a premise as he states that creationists will “have to start lying to preserve and defend that faith.”
He even quotes an imaginary opponent as stating, “These may be what the facts are, but I prefer to believe this” and it is very easy to look good when you are debating imaginary foes.
He claims that “leading creationist organisations…have a ‘Statement of Faith’” and that “One of them” generic non-reference without a citation “put it that ‘wherever science and the Bible conflict, the science is wrong. The Bible is right.’” Well, I would say to whichever org that is that science is not right or wrong but is a tool. The issue is that wherever the worldview based interpretation of science by scientists and the Bible conflict, the worldview based interpretation of science by scientists are wrong.
Another form of a false dichotomy is his supposed show stopper question “Can you show me anything in your religious belief that you can show to be more accurate than any other religious belief?” Yet, this seems to wrongly assume that one religion claims that utterly everything another religion believes is false. Thus, various religions could have various claims in common. In any case, his term “anything” is broad enough to actually make the question all encompassing. For example, I can claim that my religion claimed that Pontius Pilate was a real person, this was disputed by archeologists and historians but was later verified. So there, here is one of “anything.” Yet, perhaps more to the point are issues such as I cover in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorns essay.
Aron Ra notes, “If I look at the definition of truth…whatever can be shown to correspond to reality. Truth is what the facts are essentially. Facts are after all points of data that you can verify to be accurate.” Yet, such is not relevant since, again, on his view truth, even if absolute, is an option. He then states, “A lot of people hate these definitions because it completely undermines their theology” and a lot of people hate these definitions because it completely undermines their Atheism.
Ironically, he notes, “if you can’t show that it [“any information”] is accurate at all then that information has no value at all. So it is just an empty assertion” and his entire worldview is one ginormous empty assertion.
Aron Ra then juxtaposes “until you can show me what you believe is actually true. That it has some truth in it – when you show me something actually true in your belief” with “I can show you the truth of evolution. I can show you the facts of evolution.” Well, he appeals to evolution without defining it but this is a common Atheist tactic. Yet, this is interesting because he is implying that evolution is his worldview or, at least, a huge portion of it as his context was religion which is not being juxtaposed as versus evolution, “I can do that all day, but religion can’t.” And this is how a theory that is supposed to be about the science of biology is turned into a philosophy.
We then encounter Aron Ra’s militancy in that he states of religions “they’re all just made up. They don’t have any truth at all in them, none of them” which is generic enough to be false on its face: the Bible states that the universe had a beginning and it is so thus, Ra is wrong and I proved it via one single example since his target was so very wide.
He then makes a generic claim that “Eric Hovind, son of the famous fraudster Kent Hovind, said that he will believe whatever the Bible says. Basically, if God said it, I believe it. That’s it. You just closed your mind to reality. He said that we don’t need science to back us up. Wow! That’s a hell of an admission. I do need science to back me up. They have to do this reversal of the burden of proof. If I don’t believe that claim that you’re making, that positive claims require positive evidence and the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim.”
This statement is jam-packed with various issues. He seems to assume that when some people say things such as that they will believe whatever the Bible says that is a premise and not a conclusion. Yet, for many of us it is a conclusion which came after a very long time of research, musing, discussing, etc. Also, we would have to actually hear Hovind’s statements and do so within context but I can say that we “we don’t need science to back us up” in those areas about which scientists have nothing to say (when consistent with the scientific method) since theists (mostly Bible believers) established the scientific method as a tool whereby to explore the material realm and this tool is not applicable to every job. The burden of proof is another issue since, for example, if an Atheist claims to know that God does not exist then of course the burden is upon them, see Atheists who positively affirm God’s non-existence…without evidence, of course.
Aron Ra then makes the same error about reason as he does with truth: he merely presupposes it because his worldview cannot account for it, he then demands adhere to it and then condemns those who he subjectively determines are not doing so, “If you use religion for your reason for any action or a position, then you still haven’t given a reason because religion isn’t one. It is as far against and away from reason as one can possibly be.” He is reasoning to reason which is unreasonable circular reasoning.
Now, that was all in answer to “What was a moment of realisation, or a series of them, in becoming a non-believer, in becoming an atheist?” and he asks “Does that answer the question?” yet, the only answer is that he self-identifies as being oh so much smarter than anyone who does not agree with him.
Scott Jacobsen stopped laughing long enough to, you know, actually ask a question during an interview. He references the Atheist Alliance America and American Atheists which he defines as “collectives of atheists” but which are that which Atheism primarily is: anti-Christian support groups. He asks “what platform does that give for the unified voice for atheists in the country?” apparently lumping all Atheists together, “a unified voice for non-believers in the country, at least under the banner of atheism.”
Aron Ra notes that he is running for Texas state senate which should be simple as he can just play the persecuted minority card. Yet, he seems shocked that it “has proved to be a lot more demanding.” He gets into the “Blasphemy is not a crime” issue regarding Muslim countries and “Freedom of religion means freedom from religion as well” yet, which Atheists attempt to inforce litigiously. Of course, he has an issue with “One nation under God.” Within this context, he then jumps to “we have every member of the presidential cabinet who is a Right-wing science denier. One says the earth is 5,500-years-old. They deny climate change. They’re all anti-science. They are all advocating Noah’s Flood among other things.”
I am not interested in defending any politician but will note that “science denier” is a childish scare tactic which assumed a lot of thing such as the issue of science versus worldview interpretations of science. He also seems to think that the age of the Earth is relevant to administering the state or federal government. Also, no one denies climate change since the issue is whether it is anthropogenic or natural. And when was the last time that Noah’s flood factored into the administering issue or heard it brought up on the senate floor, etc.?
Aron Ra then notes that those people say, “we don’t like men in dresses” and that this is all about “where Trans people pee” which is just an embarrassingly myopic mischaracterization of that very broad and complex issue.
Basically, he is playing off of the US political divide and conquer dichotomy and I will leave his political stump speech at that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.