Hindu

Some of my books, all of which you can find here or here:

ff1d17fa53a96c1a96ff0ed59213b110-9104211

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

atheist20nothing-cam-8618486

Is child prostitution legal in California or is it #fakenews about “false news”?

In “part of an ongoing AP effort to fact-check claims in suspected false news stories” ABC News posted The Associated PressAP FACT CHECK: Child Prostitution Not Legal in California,” ABC News, January 11, 2017 AD.
By the way ABC, this may be part of the #fakenews problem: you do not do your own journalism, reporting or fact-checkin on this issue but merely copy and paste what, like, ever they say and stuff.

The AP story notes, “A widely shared story that claims California has legalized child prostitution is false…a false column written by a Republican state lawmaker…Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, wrote that ‘beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.’”
We heard that right—or did we?

The claim was “prostitution by minors will be legal in California” but the AP smashes that #fakenews and corrects it by pointing out that “The bill…decriminalizes prostitution for minors. Minors cannot be arrested for the act, but can be taken into temporary custody.”

Claim: “prostitution by minors will be legal in California.”
Counterclaim: “decriminalizes prostitution for minors.”

Thus, apparently the distinction is between the term “legal” and “decriminalizes.” Well, legal means well, not illegal and to decriminalize means to cease by legislation to treat (something) as illegal. So the difference is very slight to the effect that prostitution by minors will be cease by legislation to be illegal in California which is not quite legal but just shy of it.
This seems more like a semantic issue than a litigious one at least as far as ABC/AP vs. Travis Allen (and common sense) is concerned.

news-8246395

I will say that an Assemblyman should be more accurate in his statements—or, should we call Allen a non-gender-specific-Assembly-personage?

The bill in question is Senate Bill No. 1322, chapter 654 specifically which act to amend Sections 647 and 653.22 of the Penal Code, relating to minors.

Within the context of “Commercial sex acts: minors” it states:

Existing law makes it a crime to solicit or engage in any act of prostitution…This bill would make the above provisions inapplicable to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct that would, if committed by an adult, violate the above provisions. The bill would authorize the minor to be taken into temporary custody under limited circumstances…

SECTION 1. Section 647 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 647. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (a) Who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view. (b) (1) Who solicits or who agrees to engage in or who engages in any act of prostitution…regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the specific intent to engage in prostitution…

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), this subdivision does not apply to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct to receive money or other consideration that would, if committed by an adult, violate this subdivision. A commercially exploited child…may be taken into temporary custody…if the conditions allowing temporary custody without warrant are met.

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

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.

VIDEO: Second Crusade & Papal Politics by Prof Matt Philips

Some of my books, all of which you can find here or here:

ff1d17fa53a96c1a96ff0ed59213b110-5718690

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

atheist20nothing-cam-7883683

Question for atheists: is “God did it” a science stopper?, part 1 of 4

Is “God did it” a science stopper? Responding in the affirmative are the New Atheists.

There is a reason why the New Atheist movement is supported by young males: they confuse, rightful, rebellion against “religion” with rebellion against God, they are naturally rebellious as it is, they are in rebellion against their parents and they have a new found “freedom” as they abscond from mommy and daddy’s apron strings (see Atheism as a young white male phenomenon).

Thus, they make for good cheerleaders for the cenobites of the New Atheist movement: they exhibit zeal without knowledge, they are highly emotive and they are at the age of thinking that they know it all. Thus, they make for good and loyal unquestioning adherents of cult of personality cults of hero worship.

As one of the New Atheist’s head heroes, Richard Dawkins has voiced the claim that claiming that “God did it” is a science stopper. Being faithful adherents, the New Atheist street has turned this assertion into an ubiquitously promulgated well within the box atheist group think talking point de jour. It is noteworthy that when others tell foolish tales, we at first bear with them for fear of offending the weak, and then little by little we begin to listen willingly.

Richard Dawkins’ statement is as follows—as he quite literally sets up a straw man by playing the part of an imaginary, caricatured version of, his misunderstanding of, the claims of Intelligent Design theory:

A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I’m sure it will be. Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a lazy default such as ‘intelligent design theory’ would encourage. Here is the message that an imaginary ‘intelligent design theorist’ might broadcast to scientists:

“If you don’t understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries, for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.”

St Augustine said it quite openly:

“There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.” [The God Delusion, pp. 132-133]

So, a critique of modern day Intelligent Design theory is premised upon an imaginary caricature and a man who lived 354-430 AD (we will end this series by considering Dawkins’ manipulation of what Augustine was actually stating). Such is the self-satisfaction of the New Atheist movement. Incidentally, keep in mind that Richard Dawkins admits to design in nature but, due to his adherence to his concoction of atheism and Darwinian evolutionary theory, reinterprets the design as caused by “time did it,” “matter did it,” “chance did it,” “‘selection’ did it,” “evolution did it,” etc. whilst encouraging the denial of direct evidence (see The Gap Filler):

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. [The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1]

Fellow atheist Francis Crick seconds this:

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. [What Mad Pursuit, p. 138]

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

Here are the links to all four parts:
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Atheism Spirituality

This essay will present a sampling of atheism spirituality by means of a circumlocution that begins by considering that, I suppose, it was only a matter of time: Professor Richard Dawkins quoted comedians in his book “The God Delusion” and has subsequently picked an argument with a comedian. The comedian’s “sin” against militant activist atheism is that he is not an atheist but some sort of deist.

In his autobiography, The Sound Of Laughter, Peter Kay wrote, “I believe in a God of some kind, in some sort of higher being. Personally I find it very comforting.”

Richard Dawkins stated, “How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it ‘comforting’?” and furthermore, “If evidence were found for a supreme being I would change my mind instantly -with pride and with great surprise. Would I find it comforting? What matters is what is true, and we discover truth by evidence, not what we would ‘like.'” Apparently, whatever sense of atheism spirituality Richard Dawkins feels it is not about a comforting feeling.

Peter Kay has written,

“I believe that a man called Jesus did walk the earth at one time but I don’t think he was the superhero that the Bible makes him out to be…I think Jesus was just an ordinary person, like me and you.”

Come on now Richard Dawkins, what is not to like about that?

As one post on this issue read,

“it would help if, just occasionally, he was a tad less humourless and relentless in his attacks on all that is even vaguely religious.”

dawk-kay-1071305Dawkins and Kay

I am not certain that we have enough of Peter Kay’s epistemology in his statement to claim that he is actually stating that he “likes to believe something because he finds it ‘comforting.'” He may have other reasons for believing it and also find it comforting. Moreover, would it really be shocking if God existed and that knowledge was comforting?

Sean McManus noted that during a lecture at the Society for Ethical Culture, Richard Dawkins, was asked “Doesn’t God provide people some solace?” His answer was, “Isn’t that a little childish? Just because something is comforting doesn’t mean it’s true.”
Again, apparently whatever sense of atheism spirituality Richard Dawkins feels it is not about a comforting feeling.

Moreover, Richard Dawkins has stated,

“I believe that, given proper encouragement to think, and given the best information available, people will courageously cast aside celestial comfort blankets and lead intellectually fulfilled, emotionally liberated lives”1 (italics in original).

And yet again, Richard Dawkins’ atheism spirituality is not about a comforting feeling.

Now, let us turn to another of Richard Dawkins’ boasts about atheism as he stated it to Ben Stein in the movie Expelled, “people experience freedom when they leave religion or God.”
Perhaps not comfort based atheism spirituality but sense of freedom based.

And another from, A Devil’s Chaplain, “There is deep refreshment to be had…you stand to gain ‘growth and happiness’; the joy of knowing that you have grown up” (perhaps Darwin’s Chaplain should be consulted).
Perhaps not comfort based atheism spirituality but sense of deep refreshment, happiness and joy based.

Richard Dawkins also stated,

“I think there is a poetic consolation to be found in science, and I tried to give expression to it.”2

Perhaps not comfort based atheism spirituality but sense of consolation based.

Also, in answer to fellow atheist Jonathan Miller:

you and I probably do have…feelings that may very well be akin to a kind of mystical…I experience, and I expect you experience, internal feelings which sound pretty much like um, what mystics feel, and they call it God. If – and I’ve been called a very religious person for that reason – if I am called a religious person, then my retort to that is, “Well, you’re playing with words.”, because what the vast majority of people mean by religious is something utterly different from this sort of transcendent, mystical experience […] The transcendent sense…the transcendent, mystic sense, that people who are both religious and non-religious in my usage of the term, is something very very different. In that sense, I probably am a religious person. You probably are a religious person…the sense of wonder that one gets as a scientist contemplating the cosmos, or contemplating mitochondria is actually much grander than anything that you will get by contemplating the traditional objects of religious mysticism.3

Now we begin to get a view at the full Monty of a very popular form of atheism spirituality by means of the “mystical…experience…internal feelings…mystical experience…the transcendent, mystic sense…sense of wonder…contemplating” and atheism spirituality is holier than thou, “much grander.”

In his article, Is Science a Religion? Richard Dawkins wrote,

…science does have some of religion’s virtues…All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it’s exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe – almost worship – this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide. And it does so beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics…
Science can offer a vision of life and the universe which, as I’ve already remarked, for humbling poetic inspiration far outclasses any of the mutually contradictory faiths and disappointingly recent traditions of the world’s religions.

Now we get a better view of the full Monty of this sort of atheism spirituality by means of the “awe… ecstatic transport…wonder and beauty…spine-shivering, breath-catching awe – almost worship…ecstatic wonder” and again, atheism spirituality is holier than thou, “beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics…far outclasses…the world’s religions.”

What have other atheists to state on the issue?

Carl Sagan personified this sort of atheism spirituality as he began the very first episode of “Cosmos” with an utterly unscientific statement,

The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.

His atheism spirituality incantation continued thusly,

Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us-there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as of a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.

Presupposing a God-free reality; why it is that atheists seek transcendent experiences, atheism spirituality, remains unanswered.
Also, in referring to our ability to “step off the Earth and look back at ourselves,” as was done by Voyager 2, Carl Sagan stated,

I find that a chilling, spine-tingling, exciting, perspective-raising, consciousness-raising experience. It’s said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience.4

This is denotes an odd co-option of science for the purposes of filling the God shaped void in every human heart via atheism spirituality.

This sentiment was echoed by Michael Shermer whose study of evolution became atheism spirituality that is also holier than thou,

far more enlightening and transcendent, spiritual, than anything I had experienced in seven years of being a born again Christian.5

During his debate with Jonathan Wells “Why Darwin Matters” (video and audio) Michael Shermer referenced “the spiritual side of science” which he terms “sciensuality” this is the very definition of God replacing atheism spirituality.

In “Beyond Belief: Science, Reason, Religion and Survival,” Salk Institute for Biological Studies, November 7, 2006 AD, Neil DeGrasse Tyson noted:

Not only are we in the universe, the universe is in us. I don’t know of any deeper spiritual feeling than what that brings upon me.

Lawrence Krauss, author of A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing:

We should provide the meaning of the universe in the meaning of our own lives. So I think science doesn’t necessarily have to get in the way of kind of spiritual fulfillment. In fact, I would argue the real story of the universe is far more interesting than any myths or fairy tales that people wrote thousands of years before they even knew the Earth went around the sun.6

Ronald De Sousa, Atheist and Emeritus Professor at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Toronto (see the video The Pseudo-Science of Atheists),

One respect in which I think that yes an atheist can be ‘religious’ in some sense. And that is simply to

have a sense of awe before the universe…

Michael Ruse, who is an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian who has argued for the ACLU against the “balanced treatment” and professor of the philosophy of science and biology, wrote:

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion…This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today…evolution as a kind of metaphysics rather than a straight science.7

This denotes a state sponsored, indoctrinating, tax payer funded, correlation of atheism and state form of atheism spirituality whereby “evolution” is co-opted as atheist propaganda (I noted the smuggling of atheism through the backdoor of science classrooms in this post).

Dawkins also stated (as quoted in Stephen S. Hall, Darwin’s Rottweiler – Sir Richard Dawkins: Evolution’s Fiercest Champion, Far Too Fierce):

“Einsteinian religion is a kind of spirituality which is nonsupernatural…And that doesn’t mean that it’s somehow less than supernatural religion. Quite the contrary….It is something bigger, something grander, something that I believe any scientist can subscribe to, including those scientists whom I would call atheists…What I can’t understand is why we are expected to show respect for good scientists, even great scientists, who at the same time believe in a god who does things like listen to our prayers, forgive our sins, perform cheap miracles…I suppose my hope would be that science-the best kind of science, the sort of science which approaches the best sort of religion, the Einsteinian spirituality that I was talking about-is so inspiring, so exciting that it should be sellable to everybody…
We have something far better to offer…Why are we freethinking secular scientists not getting into that same marketplace…and selling what we’ve got to sell? Because it’s a far better product, and all we’ve got to do is hone our salesmanship to the level that they are already doing it.

This is, of course, all a part of the goal of many atheists, the ultimate institutionalization of atheism spirituality in the form of a one-world-atheist-neo-Pagan-religion. And it is a true and accurate vision of religion, the religion against which Christians protest: all the emotion and none of the substance.

This is also a fulfillment of the words of the apostle Paul:

…men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man…
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness…For they changed the truth of God into a lie…they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:18b-28).

But isn’t atheism spirituality a little childish? Just because something is freeing, liberating, refreshing, joyful, consoling, transcendent, ecstatic, spine-shivering, spine-tingling, breath-catching, awe inspiring, chilling, exciting or sciensual doesn’t mean it’s true.

May we likewise state of Richard Dawkins,

How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something, like in atheism spirituality, because he finds freedom, liberation, refreshment, joy, consol, transcendence, ecstasy, spine-shivering, spine-tingling, breath-catching, awe inspiration, chill, excitement or sciensuality in it. What matters is what is true, and we discover truth by evidence, not that in which we freedom, liberation, refreshment, joy or consolation”?

Moreover, it would be logical to ask if this “freedom” is the same sort of freedom that a bank robber, enjoying the fruits of his labor, feels once he has gotten away with it and is sipping margaritas on a tropical beach. Or the liberation felt and expressed by the domestic terrorist William Ayers when he stated, “Guilty as hell, free as a bird-America is a great country.”

Ex-atheist, the late C. S. Lewis, noted the following of a form of atheism spirituality which he referred to in terms of “Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution”:

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

Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?8

Thus ends the great atheism spirituality experiment.

These are some of the reasons that atheism, particularly in the forms of atheism spirituality, is a consoling delusion; it is the delusion of absolute autonomy, the delusion of lack of ultimate accountability, of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless universe, etc.

Seeking freedom, liberation, refreshment, joy, consol, transcendence, ecstasy, spine-shivering, spine-tingling, breath-catching, awe inspiration, chill, excitement and sciensuality in atheism spirituality is indicative of atheism as a consoling delusion-atheism is the valium of the people.

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

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.

Is Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist?

In the attached video you can watch a Q&A with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. The Q is:

“you have great reverence and awe for the universe. I’m wondering if you believe in God or a higher power of some form.”

His A is:
“I’ve spoken with people who have had deep religious experiences and they use, there’s a certain vocabulary that they draw from; they talk about majesty and being humbled and being awed. And I look at the universe and I’m using all their same vocabulary. And I feel sort of energized and lifted. I wonder if it’s stimulating the same part of the brain…

Every account of a higher power that I’ve seen described, of all religions okay, that I have seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that higher power. Now when I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence.

So, personally I, I, it’s hard for me to make that connection. That being said there’s about 40% of American scientist, pray to a personal God. So, empirically, to be a scientist is not the same thing as to be an Atheist…

Now, depending on which scientific discipline you ask that percent will be different, but it averages to 40. In the general American public, the number is up around 90, so there is a difference…but those scientists, to make it clear, who are productive as scientists are not getting their science out of the Bible.

What Galileo noted 400 years ago, he was the first to, really, make this observation of things, he said, after careful study of the Bible and after careful study of the universe, he concluded the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For those interested, see “Galileo – A Story of a Hero of Science” and while you are at it, “The Copernican Myths”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In our recent article, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s “Cosmos” fact or fiction?, we noted that Tyson has stated (stated during the Atheist Beyond Belief Conference, San Diego in November of 2006 AD, session two):
“I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here. Otherwise, the public is secondary to this…if you can’t convert our colleagues, why do you have any hope that you’re going to convert the public?”

This is why he was referred to as an Atheist missionary; 85% is not enough, he wants to convert even more. Now, he is right in that Atheism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with science. But as for Atheism and science, in the article PZ Myers Said That Scientific Thinking Has a Corrosive Influence on Religious Belief, we noted an interview of Atheist missionary and adherent of the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence sect of Atheism, Professor PZ Myers with DJ Grothe:
DJ: “What’s most important to you: advancing atheism or advancing the public understanding of science – or are they kind of one in the same for you?” PZ: “They are inseparable.” … DJ: “You’ve suggested quite a few times that the more you know about science the more likely it is that you are gonna end up an atheist.” PZ: “Yes, that’s, that’s what we know from the statistics of people going into science. That science has a great corrosive influence on religious belief. It isn’t always going to destroy religious beliefs, of course. There’s, there’s a number of fairly prominent scientists who are religious. But in general, most people, when they get training in the scientific method and start applying it in the lab and start applying it in their real life experiences, find themselves questioning religion a lot more.” DJ: “Yeah, Jonathan Miller had that study out a few years ago, you know, countries in Europe, people score higher in science literacy therefore, they were more accepting of, of evolution, more naturalistic. But, the University of Buffalo recently had a study, oh I think just in the last year, that suggested that it was a chicken and egg sort of thing. That people who were already kind of skeptical and secular ended up choosing to go into the sciences rather than the other way around.”

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

[sic].”

Note that Neil deGrasse Tyson anthropomorphizes the universe. As far as we know, the universe does not “want” anything as that would denote that the universe is a conscious, sentient being. According to a general Atheist view; it is the universe which gave us life and sustains us. It is the uncaused first cause, it is eternal or came from eternal uncaused matter and its laws are omnipresent and omnipotent. No one caused nothing (or, an eternal something) to explode for no reason and made everything without meaning.

Note also tat, ironically, Atheists, generally, complain that it is God who seeks to kill us (without providing an ethical premise upon which to condemn killing…actually, murder).

Moreover, Neil deGrasse Tyson implied that while he employs the terminology of majesty, humility, awe, being energized and lifted at/by the universe, he cannot be said to worship the universe because he fears it. Well, the Bible is replete with references to the essential need for fear of YHVH in His worshippers. Consider this, when I was in martial arts I feared my instructor. He once threw a kick at my crotch and went on to do something else. I felt nothing because he did not kick my crotch but just threw a kick at it. Yet, when I looked down; his dusty footprint was right there, dead center of my pants. Thus, I feared him but I was not scared of him and it seems that a lot of people confuse and thus correlate fear and being scared. Thus, Tyson can worship that which he fears. In fact, he gives us a great example of Neo-Pagan Atheism which, as is noted in the Bible’s Romans chapter one:

“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things…25 Who changedu> the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen…
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient…”

Lastly, for the sake of clarity; note that the Buddhist mystic Atheist, Sam Harris, does not like the terms Buddhist, mystic or Atheist and yet, he is a Buddhist mystic Atheist. Likewise, Neil deGrasse Tyson has elucidated that he avoids the label “atheist” because it causes people to make all sorts of unflattering (and often untrue) assumptions (Neil deGrasse Tyson on Why He Doesn’t Call Himself an Atheist, Rationally Speaking, March 10, 2014 AD).
Not liking the word, term, label “Atheist” is not the same as not being one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more info on Neo-Pagan Atheism see:

Atheism Spirituality

Dan Barker’s Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is a religious cult which contains many relevant links at the end of it.

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

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.

Illustrations

I have placed the following YOYOAJ (YOLO spoof) related images into my CafePress site where you can purchase them upon t-shirts, stickers, etc.

In pop-culture YOLO refers to You Only Live Once and is meant to mean therefore, do what thou wilt, etc. My version is YOLOAJ as in You Only Live Once and Afterwards the Judgment, “…it is appointed unto men to die, but after this the judgment…” Hebrews 9:27

Find my CafePress shop here.

truth

Some of my books, all of which you can find here or here:

ff1d17fa53a96c1a96ff0ed59213b110-1262628

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

atheist20nothing-cam-1197240

Sam Harris – Myth Buster or Myth Maker? Part 1 of 10: Introduction

One ought to appreciate honesty and Sam Harris certainly makes his endgame crystal clear; his goal in life is to bring about the utter obliteration of any and all religions or faith based beliefs (he actually wants to establish an atheist religion). Yet, he not only seeks to do away with beliefs and rituals but the very language that is employed define and describe them. He writes, “Words like ‘God’ and ‘Allah’ must go the way of ‘Apollo’ and ‘Baal,’ or they will unmake our world_Faith-based religion must suffer the same slide into obsolescence.”1 Sam Harris is against any and all religious expression, the orthodox/fundamentalist and the liberal/moderate. He wrote, “I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.”2I do not mean to oversimplify Sam Harris but I must point out that, ultimately, what he succeeds in accomplishing with his writing of books and articles and with his lectures and interviews is a non-succinct version of John Lennon’s song Imagine: “Imagine there’s no heaven, It’s easy if you try. No hell below us, above us only sky_And no religion too” and here is the punch line, “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one, I hope someday you’ll join us, and the world will be as one.” According to this worldview the world will be as one when religious people forsake their beliefs and accept, on dogmatic authority, absolute materialism.

Also, note that Sam Harris introduces his myth busting by lamenting the following statistic, “According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.” Yet, what is his response? Elsewhere, he looks forward to a time when “making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we’ll start laughing at people who believe_We’ll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power”3 (emphasis added). Actually, Sam Harris must be thrilled at the progress that atheists are making since a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll conducted in March 2007 has 48% answering “Yes” 48% answering “No” and 4% answering “Don’t know/other.” Apparently, religious people should not keep atheists from our halls of power but atheists should keep religious people from our halls of power-two wrongs_

Now let us begin our consideration of Sam Harris’ attempts at myth busting.

atheism-prayinghands-2182845

“1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless”:

Atheists generally argue that life has meaning because we give meaning to life. Yet, the issue is that they must give meaning to life because life has no absolute-intrinsic-objective meaning. Life is meaningless and so any meaning they concoct is necessarily a self-induced consoling delusion, which is the very thing of which they accuse theists.Please understand that for the atheist this fact is nothing short of a complement. That is to say, they would take pride in the fact that they do not need a supernatural entity to tell them what the meaning of life is; they are intelligent enough to find their own.

However, there have been atheists who have made their purpose to slaughter millions upon millions of people in order to gain, and maintain, their political power. In such cases how could other atheists condemn such personal prescriptions of meaning? Perhaps the only way would be to borrow from Judeo-Christian ethics.

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

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.

Devil in Augustine of Hippo, part 4

Herein we continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, considering info on the Devil in Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels here, Cherubim and Seraphim here, Satan here and Demons here.

Devil in Augustine of Hippo’s The City of God, Books XVII-XIX.

Book XVII
Chapter 16 Her enemy is the city of the devil, Babylon, which is interpreted “confusion.” Yet out of this Babylon this queen is in all nations set free by regeneration, and passes from the worst to the best King,— that is, from the devil to Christ.

Chapter 18 For the Saviour Himself was not ignorant of him concerning whom He had already said before, “One of you is a devil.”

Chapter 20 But I think that more worthy of quotation from this book which relates to both cities, the one of the devil, the other of Christ, and to their kings, the devil and Christ: “Woe to you, O land,” he says, “when your king is a youth, and your princes eat in the morning! Blessed are you, O land, when your king is the son of nobles, and your princes eat in season, in fortitude, and not in confusion!” He has called the devil a youth, because of the folly and pride, and rashness and unruliness, and other vices which are wont to abound at that age; but Christ is the Son of nobles, that is, of the holy patriarchs, of those belonging to the free city, of whom He was begotten in the flesh.

Book XVIII
Chapter 41 Nor does it matter to the devil, its king, how they wrAngel among themselves in contradictory errors, since all alike deservedly belong to him on account of their great and varied impiety.

Chapter 50 …the people of the nations, believing in Him who was crucified for their redemption, might venerate with Christian love the blood of the martyrs which they had poured forth with devilish fury, and the very kings by whose laws the Church had been laid waste might become profitably…

Chapter 51 But the devil, seeing the temples of the demons deserted, and the human race running to the name of the liberating Mediator, has moved the heretics under the Christian name to resist the Christian doctrine, as if they could be kept in the city of God indifferently without any correction, just as the city of confusion indifferently held the philosophers who were of diverse and adverse opinions…And thus the devil, the prince of the impious city, when he stirs up his own vessels against the city of God that sojourns in this world, is permitted to do her no harm.

Book XIX
Chapter 13 And therefore there is a nature in which evil does not or even cannot exist; but there cannot be a nature in which there is no good. Hence not even the nature of the devil himself is evil, in so far as it is nature, but it was made evil by being perverted…The good imparted by God to his nature did not screen him from the justice of God by which order was preserved in his punishment; neither did God punish the good which He had created, but the evil which the devil had committed.

Chapter 23 Besides, their praise of Christ is so contrived that whosoever believes in Him as thus represented will not be a true Christian but a Photinian heretic, recognizing only the humanity, and not also the divinity of Christ, and will thus be precluded from salvation and from deliverance out of the meshes of these devilish lies.

In the next segment, we will consider more on the Devil in Augustine of Hippo.

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

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.