We now conclude, from part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4, considering American Atheists’ Al Stefanelli’s article Christian Fundamentalists: Deeply Disturbed Psychotic Sociopaths wherein we learn some interesting information such as that one thing that “True Christians” do is, for example, commit murder.
Lastly, what good piece of anti-Christian polemic could end without a good ol’ fashioned quotation from one of Al Stefanelli’s cult of personality worshipped hero, Richard Dawkins?:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Dawkins said it, Al Stefanelli repeats it (uncritically) and so it must be true! Yet, may people, including this writer, Michael Shermer (an atheist who is just as belligerent as Dawkins but, nevertheless, took him on, on this issue), et al. have considered this statement and have discredited it, see:
From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 10 of 13
Again, ask upon what absolute ethos do Dawkins and Stefanelli condemn the God of the Old Testament? Ok, alright, let us be fair: since atheism cannot count for an absolute ethos let us ask upon which temporary morality (for the difference between ethics/ethos and morality see Morality / Ethics). Well, then it is a matter of majority opinion rules the day and in that case, just wait and the moral zeitgeist will keep on swinging as it does and that which is immoral today may be moral tomorrow and visa versa—see:
Does atheism discredit condemnation and condemnation discredit atheism?
Think of it, each and every term that Dawkins employed and Stefanelli applauded represents impotent condemnations based on nothing but bio-chemical reactions within the haphazardly evolved gray matter of bio-organism—animated meat—who occupy a mere few square feet of space as they maneuver about a tiny spinning rock in the universe’s backwaters.
Moreover, as atheist Michael Ruse put it:
It is not just that we are on a speck of dust whirling around in the void, but that we ourselves are no more than transformed apes.
Richard Dawkins disagrees, we are not “transformed apes”:
We are not, then, merely like apes or descended from apes; we are apes.
And, of course, we could not go without quoting St. Charles Darwin on this point:
In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term “man” ought to be used.
Then again, G. K. Chesterton noted:
That an ape bias hands is far less interesting to the philosopher than the fact that having hands he does next to nothing with them; does not play knuckle-bones or the violin; does not carve marble or carve mutton.
Overall, Mr. Stefanelli, in the words of Seinfeld’s Mr. Peterman, “That certainly is a lot of words.” Yet, your words are fallacious and lacking in substantive knowledge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.