TrueFreeThinker

Sometimes, actually, quite often, I wonder if I am misreading or making too much of something> But then again I think that sometimes some atheist are such the deep-within-the-box thinkers and so busy elbowing each other in the ribs at the expense of Christians that they think that they are making sense when they are not or have discovered something that is widely known-such as when it was discovered that the universe had a beginning and Judeo-Christians said, “Thanks for catching up.”

The Promulgations:
For example, President of the “Atheist Community of Topeka,” Lee Tibbetts whose “near-weekly events draw upwards of 30 people” said,

It’s about opening up the dialogue and letting the nonreligious people know they are not alone and getting the religious people to know that not everyone has the same beliefs1

Show of hands: does any religious person, particularly in a first world country complete with cable TV, the internets, newspapers, etc. not know that not everyone has the same beliefs?
Anyone? Anyone?

Jan Williams, a member of the Atheist Community of Topeka, examples a very sad story,

As a young girl, the ACT member believed in a God with the power to change lives. She waited patiently for him to work through her depressed mother, to lift her up and heal whatever ailed her mentally.
‘I thought if I were a Christian, if my mother were a Christian, we would be good and that would help my mother. It didn’t,’ she said.

As sad as the story is and as emotive as it is and as empathy inspiring as it is it ought not remove truth and common sense from our minds as they are they are flooded with emotions.Her statement actually tells it all; did you note her qualifying term? She stated, “I thought.” Now, why was this something that she thought?Was it simply a common sense conclusion? Perhaps.

Was it poor preaching of the health wealth, name it and claim it, blab it and grab it sort? Perhaps.

We simply do not know. However, the notion that if I were a Christian, if my mother were a Christian, we would be good and that would help my mother is simply not a part of Christian theology. Thus, on a purely logical and theological level Christianity should not be rejected for not delivering on a promise that it never made.

Consider that, without much detail, we learn that Paul the apostle wrote,

lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me.And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.”Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong (2nd Corinthians 12:7-10).

We certainly do not know the circumstances in which Jan Williams and her dear mother found themselves and so I do not directly correlate them with Paul. However, it is specifically this sort of biblical teaching, Christian preaching, that are a defeater to the “I thought if_” concepts.

But why choose the unbiblical, unChristian, illogical route then? I certainly do not know.
Why not be like Job’s wife who urged him thusly,

Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die! (Job 2:9).

Moreover, consider the following syllogism:
1) if I were a Christian, if my mother were a Christian, we would be good and that would help my mother.
2) But it didn’t.3) Therefore, God does not exist.

Yet, since the first premise is erroneous the syllogism is fallacious.

Yet, consider the syllogism again and then ask yourself what results from it. No, I do not mean that it results in fallacy or in a lack of belief in God. I mean; what does it accomplish?Did rejecting God cause her mother to be healed?No.Did embracing atheism result in her mother’s healing?

No.

Thus, her mother is still ill and now Jan Williams does not even have God to blame anymore.
So what was the result? It is no longer evil that her mother suffers-it just is-a bio-organism is malfunctioning and will someday simply cease to move about.

Atheism, being merely an ethereal idea, does nothing about evil but only either makes it worse or pretends that it does not exist. The fact of evil in the world is one of the best reasons for rejecting atheism.

And now we see that the difficulty in dealing with the “problem of evil” is not that it is logically, theologically, philosophically difficult but emotionally difficult-I just had the unpleasant task of pitting tangible and empathy inspiring emotions versus ethereal concepts, logical as they may be.

Rejecting the God of the Bible for unbiblical reasons is actually a common trend. For example, “Seattle Atheists” President, Paul Case (of whom I wrote here),

began questioning the claims church leaders made: that they were visited by prophets and that they had cured a man with AIDS.2

As for being cured of AIDS; if someone was then praised be Jesus and if there is medial evidence then all the better. Of course, if someone was cured of AIDS they could care less that atheists demand evidence.
Yet, what caught my attention what that he questioned that the church leaders were visited by prophets. Indeed, the Bible enjoins him to question such things and he should not have rejected the Bible or the God of the Bible because the church leaders were making unbiblical or non-biblical claims.

Jan Williams further stated that,

breaking from what was a “very religious family” was difficult. Pressure, whether external or internal, was strong. The Topeka group is in stark contrast to that. Williams said despite a wide spectrum of where members are in their beliefs, everyone is “totally accepted.” “You don’t have to act a certain way or be a certain way,” she said. “Whoever I am is fine.”

I can only imagine that this statement will die the death of one thousand qualifications. “You don’t have to act a certain way or be a certain way_Whoever I am is fine.” Really, so at the meetings she could say, “Hey, what are you guys snacking on today? Donuts! Oh, ok, that is fine for you. What? Me? Oh, I am cannibalizing a baby.”

Atheist Community of Topeka President Lee Tibbetts,

said as a young man, he began researching numerous religions but never found evidence sufficient to warrant his belief.

Yet, he has found evidence that a serendipitous chain of accidents that resulted in the Big Bang and, eventually, the formulation of the bio-chemical thought that there is no sufficient evidence to support any religious claim-fascinating!

Another fascinating fact is that while many atheists seek to establish a one world atheist religion they may not have to put much, or any, effort into it. Consider that “Rev.” Michael Jamison, of Unity “Church” of “Christianity,”

Granted, he said his church isn’t in the mainstream. He said atheists’ views of God are closer to his than most Christians’ “goofy” idea of God as a single entity or person. For him, God is science and nature. “Even though they say they don’t believe in God, what do they believe in is in fact God,” Jamison said.

Note that Mike Williams, husband of Jan Williams, presents us with a virtually picture-perfect-poster-boy (literally)-image of many, many atheists as it is reported that he,

remembers being 4 years old and his mother saying to him that God is everywhere, he created everything. “I didn’t have the vocabulary to argue, but even then I thought it was utter nonsense,” he said.

Indeed, his intellect, rationale, thinking, logic, reason, philosophy, theology and science have not evolved beyond the 4 year old level.
Perhaps, his mother could have rephrased “God is everywhere”; is it perhaps more accurate that God is not restricted by locality as natural theology, or general revelation, and inferences derived from scientific observations suggest.

What Saith They?
Lee Tibbetts,

said his group can play a vital role in shedding light on what he said was a taboo subject. So taboo, in fact, that numerous members contacted for this story didn’t want to talk for fear of the stigma.

He and Mike Williams,

said the group doesn’t seek to ‘deconvert’ people but rather to raise an awareness of the growing numbers_of Americans with “no religion.”

That certainly is an interesting way of putting it, “Hey, no, no, no, maaaaan; I do not want you to deconvert but do want you to know that what you believe is utter nonsense-peace out!”

As usual, their website says it all:
The “A” for the Richard Dawkins militant-atheist-activist “Out Campaign.”

A photo of the Freedom From Religion Foundation‘s “Imagine No Religion” billboard-do not have to image but only have to read the history of the last century (see here).

News of a group of Germany atheists “trying to change a religious holiday to ‘Evolution Day.'”

They typical list of tolerant and compassionate books, Christopher Hitchens’ “God is Not Great,” Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” etc., etc., etc.

And an ad for our old friend “Sam Singleton Atheist Evangelist” (see bottom of this post for details).

Sorry to say but another attempt at public relations atheism has given up the ghost.

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

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.

NOTE: This post comes to you courtesy of IrishFarmer who’s internet access reliability is tentative.

John Loftus, of Debunking Christianity fame, has recently decided to make his way onto YouTube with a small number of videos (here). I won’t bother with his video entitled ‘Bizarre Beliefs: Where is Jesus Now?’, partially because it’s little more than argument from ignorance, and also because the other video, Do I Look Like the Devil?, was a bit more interesting.

Interesting, not because it was thought provoking, but because it involved sloppy reasoning from someone who should (at this point in his life) know better. So, without further delay – because I don’t have much more time 🙂 – I’ll hop right into the video.

Starting at 0:20, John says, “…wrong beliefs lead to bad voting patterns, and bad behavior [unintelligible]. I think people would be better off without the Christian faith.”

Which is a pretty interesting statement coming from an atheist. I had asked John, and other atheists, on another blog I used to run called Exposing Atheism, how they know things are actually better without religion. That is, where do they derive their understanding of “good”, “bad”, “better”, “worse” and so on. In fact, I took the question a step further and wondered why atheists even bother. Eventually human life will be snuffed out and the universe will “die” some sort of “death”; our actions, our lives, our very existence will lead to the same outcome if atheism is true. So why care? Even if Christianity is false, it doesn’t change a thing, and I fail to see how an atheist could argue (outside of subjectivism) that one set of affairs is better than another.

John then goes on to say, “And when I say ‘Christians’, I’m most often referring to conservative, bible-believing…exclusivist Christians. Christians who believe that they, and they alone, are right. Everyone else is wrong. I find that odd, although I at one time accepted that as well. It’s odd because there are so many things that we disagree with in a free, Democratic society…that it’s amazing to me that, uh, on this issue they’re [Christians] so adamant…I’m a human being and I disagree. I think I’m helping people…Now, Christians think they’re right, and everyone else is wrong. Well, don’t I think I’m right? And everyone else is wrong? But there’s a huge difference between what I do and what I believe, and the Christian…There’s a difference between denying beliefs and affirming them.”

I’m cutting out a bit of fluff, but John really spends quite a bit of time on this subject. I think because he knows he’s treading on dangerous ground – that is, he’s accusing exclusivists of being wrong for being exclusive, despite that he himself is quite exclusive. I think you can see where he’s going with this – that he isn’t being exclusive because he’s not saying he’s absolutely right about what he believes, but I’ll continue with the quote before I dissect the video further. “Christians…are absolutely certain that they’re correct, whereas I am not absolutely certain that I’m correct.”

Which seems to me to be pretty misleading. John is criticizing some Christians for being absolutely certain when he himself is willing to admit that he might be wrong. Which is fantastic. If I admit that I can’t be 100%, philosophically certain does that give me some sort of edge in the debate? Perhaps John doesn’t realize that he’s all but admitting that he believes it’s an absolute certainty that you shouldn’t be absolutely certain about anything. Which is self-defeating. Sorry John, but everyone is absolutely certain about something.

At 4:19, John begins with, “See, I think that, uh, we really don’t know why there is something, rather than nothing at all…we begin with a brute fact: either the Triune God who became a man, died for our sins, and is coming again to send people to heaven or hell. Or, you know, we believe that the brute fact is, that the universe just exists.”

This is another example of the sloppiness that I really wouldn’t expect out of Loftus. Perhaps it was a careless mistake, but clearly we aren’t left with two simple options of Conservative Christianity or Basic Atheism. That John isn’t willing to consider even deism, which itself is obviously incompatible with his brand of atheism, is interesting. Though I imagine that further elaboration on the issue might prove that John didn’t quite mean what he said.

Regardless, John’s seems to imply that one must make a blind choice on the matter, without considering other factors like logical necessity – which I happen to think is one of the strongest arguments against Basic Atheism. I would hope that a philosopher such as Loftus, would stay abreast of current discussions on this matter, instead of recycling worn-out commentary that many of us have already heard before.

Time and again, in the video, John brings up the tendency in some Christians to demonize people who disagree with them. Which is a terrible characteristic of every ideology, and makes me wonder why such a thing is worth musing about when atheists are guilty (in their own way) of the same thing. Humans tend to dehumanize those who disagree with, or are different from, themselves. It’s an interesting phenomenon, and I’ve been guilty of it myself, but John seems mostly interested in setting himself (as well as his fellow atheists) up as some sort of victim. As if only atheists are characterized in simplistic, inhuman ways.

Because, if my memory serves me, Christians have never been characterized as anti-intellectual, dangerously stupid and ignorant, and on and on, right? Get over it, John.

NOTE: From Ken Ammi- thought that I would end IrishFarmer’s post with a quote from one time atheist C. S. Lewis that seemed relevant:

“If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.”

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960), p. 29

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

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.

Twitter: #Atheism, #JohnLoftus, #Christianity
Facebook: #Atheism, #JohnLoftus, #Christianity

Child Stoning? Dan Barker commits another common fallacy which he shares in common with both Prof. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Dan Barker wrote,

“How should parents treat a stubborn and rebellious son?…He should be stoned to death.”1

I have written on this subject in greater detail in my essay Planting God More Firmly on His Throne and the “Back Talking” portion of Sam Harris’ Mythunderstandings. The bottom line here is that apparently hermeneutics is simply unknown to Dan Barker, Sam Harris and Prof. Richard Dawkins.

Stoning offenses do not mean that if you saw someone committing a stoneable offense you just executed them on the spot. Beginning at Exodus 18:13-26 we see a careful judicious system being established. Reference to the two or three witnesses that were required is found in Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15, Matthew 18:16, 2nd Corinthians 13:1, 1st Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28. These are a part of a very careful and restrictive system. The complex issues interacting here are, for example, social order and deterrence.

Let us focus for a moment on the emotionally charged (as well it should be) reference to what Richard Dawkins refers to as “disobedient children,” Sam Harris refers to as children that “talk back to us,” but the Bible refers to as stubborn, rebellious, disobedient, gluttonous, drunkards who “smiteth” and curse their parents and have already been chastened (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9 and Deuteronomy 21:18). The Talmud (Sandedrin 71a) basically makes the point that such severe restrictions were placed on the commandments that “There never was, and never will be, a wayward and defiant son” or “stubborn and rebellious son.”

“Christians Should Not Tithe-Unless…”
Dan Barker offered another answer to his own question “According to Jesus, what must you do to have eternal life?” His other answer reads thusly:

“Attend church regularly and tithe ten percent of your income to God. -Christian tithing is difficult to support biblically. In Old Testament times, when church and government were united, the tithe was the state tax, often used to support the non-working Levites (priests). But there is no consistent explanation of tithing in Hebrew scripture or in other nations. Babylonians used the tithe as a secular tax for royal purposes. In America, where state and church are separated, Christians should not tithe-unless they want to be doubly taxed! There is nothing in the New Testament to support tithing. Jesus mocked the scribes and Pharisees who tithed (Matthew 23:23). The writer of Hebrews affirmed that the tithe was to be paid to the Levites, admitting that times are different now: ‘For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.’ (Hebrews 7:5,12)“1

Note the confusion of his own making, he states that “According to Jesus” you must “_tithe ten percent” but then immediately states that “Christian tithing is difficult to support biblically.” Which is it? Is tithing something that, according to Jesus, we must do to have eternal life or is tithing difficult to support biblically? These are the sort of problems that one concocts in seeking solely to besmirch rather than simply comprehend.

Notice the illogic behind his comment that “In America…Christians should not tithe-unless they want to be doubly taxed!” It is because the “Babylonians used the tithe as a secular tax for royal purposes.” Do I understand this correctly: the Babylonians had a secular tax and America is a secular country therefore Christians are already paying a secular tithe to the government and so they should not tithe to the church-unless?

Did you wonder why Dan Barker referred to Matthew 23:23 but did not quote it? I wondered, and I do not know why but I do know that quoting the verse would have nullified what he wants you to think about it. He wrote, “Jesus mocked the scribes and Pharisees who tithed (Matthew 23:23).” But what is this supposed to mean? That “Jesus mocked the scribes and Pharisees” because they “tithed” or that “Jesus mocked the scribes and Pharisees” who, incidentally “tithed”? Let us see what the verse states:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left undone the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith. You ought to have done these and not to leave the other undone.”

What the verse is telling us, as opposed to what Dan Barker claims that it is telling us, is that Jesus “mocked” the scribes and Pharisees because they were merely jumping through religious hoops. They were making sure that they followed the letter of the law and paid very precise tithes of various products. Yet, when it came to their personal behavior, particularly their interactions with others, they fell far short. Mere religious observance without a demonstration in our daily lives is useless. But for the purposes of our discussion please consider the last sentence of this verse, “You ought to have done these and not to leave the other undone.” Jesus did not tell them not to tithe but rather He encouraged them to not do one without the other. Of course, Dan Barker is way off here in any account since Jesus was not addressing Christians attending “church” but was addressing Jews attending the Temple and supporting its priests.

The concept of deciding for ourselves how much we give is reinforced in 2nd Corinthians 9:5-8,

“Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren to go to you ahead of time, and prepare your generous gift beforehand, which you had previously promised, that it may be ready as a matter of generosity and not as a grudging obligation. But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work.”

Much may be stated regarding the New Testament concept of tithing. Certainly, there are churches that claim that a ten percent tithe is biblically mandated, something that I believe is unsupportable. I happen to attend a church that does not pass collection plates but has boxes around the property into which you can place any amount you want whenever you want. In fact, the only time that collection plates (actually, fried chicken buckets) are passed around is during community events. For instance, the Easter sunrise service takes place in the city’s football stadium. When the buckets are passed around an announcement is made to the effect of: if you do not attend our church please do not give your money since this is a free service to the community and the only reason that buckets are being passed around is because some people attend this service instead of what would be the regular Sunday service.

Yet, the whole of the New Testament’s statements regarding Christian tithing seems to be Acts 5:4. A husband and wife sold piece of property and they appear to have come to the apostles in order to make a public show of their generosity in claiming that they were giving away all of the money they had just made while actually keeping some for themselves. In verse 4 Peter tells them “While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own authority?” When they owned it, it was theirs-to do with as their pleased and when they sold it, the money was theirs-to do with as they pleased. The problem was lying and self-aggrandizement in the process.

The following was written by a guest blogger.

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

Really I’ll try not to hog the blog, after just one more. The empiricism thing needs to be addressed, so here goes.

The Atheist’s claim that Atheism is an “empirical decision” is incorrect. Here’s why. There are very few if any literate people in the western cultures who have not heard of the concept of a deity. Now suppose we find a pocket of truly reclusive folks who have not ever been introduced to the concept. These folks might be considered a-theistic, assuming they do not worship a deity on their own. Now, take these folks and tell them about the idea of a deity. At that point the decision is forced to be made: accept or reject. The decision to become an Atheist is one of rejection, pure and simple. If one knows about the deity, one can’t just “be without”; either one accepts it, or one rejects it.

And the decision basis absolutely cannot be empirical, unless one changes the meaning of the word, empirical. Empiricism might be taken in a classical sense to mean sensory input. In this sense, if I stick my finger in a flame I can ascertain first hand that flames are hot. If I do it several times I can extrapolate that all flames are hot, and this is induction at work. Inductive logic is part of empiricism, but not all, because it has limitations that can be fatal.

Induction is subject to the “black swan issue”, which is this: “Every swan I see is white, therefore all swans are white”. But this is not true because I have not yet observed black swans, which do in fact exist. Similarly, I cannot say that “Fred does not exist, because I have never seen one”. Nor can one say that “this thing you describe does not exist, because I have not seen it”.

If “empiricism” is taken to be the modern form, then it means that experiments are devised that will both isolate and induce the hypothesized effect that is desired; the experiments will be conducted under controlled conditions, and the results analyzed objectively; the results will be screened using peer review; and other experimenters will attempt to replicate the entire thing. Plus it must be falsifiable, or it is just a tautology.

It is doubtful that any Atheist has used this procedure to eliminate the possibility of the existence of a deity. When an Atheist claims empiricism, what he generally seems to actually mean is that he, personally, sees no material evidence of a deity, and therefore the odds against are overwhelmingly against such an existence. But this of course is merely the induction talking, and the logical flaw is obvious_ except to the Atheist, it appears.

One might think that if 88% of the population claims knowledge that Fred does exist, then the denier might reconsider. But it doesn’t work that way with Atheism, because Atheism is based on denial and emotional issues, not on classical logic.

The college freshman daughter of an acquaintance recently told him that she had looked through the telescope all over outer space, and saw no god; therefore he does not exist. This is a crashingly poor piece of thinking. One does not see the carpenter when looking at a house, nor the engineer when looking at a cell phone, nor the biochemist when looking at an aspirin.

It appears that the study of science these days does not address the issue of the limitations of science. When an Atheist says that philosophical materialism is a subset of voluntary materialism, something is just very wrong. So I will point out again: empiricism voluntarily restricts itself to material subjects because that is what it can measure; it cannot measure non-material items (I’m going slow here on purpose_). This restriction is self-imposed due to inability to measure, not because there is nothing there. Empiricism says nothing, NOTHING about the existence or non-existence of entities outside its material purview.

On the other hand, Philosophical Materialism is the philosophy that nothing exists that is not material. This is not an subset of voluntary materialism, it is an unwarranted extension, a gratuitous extrapolation beyond the boundaries of empiricism. As I showed before, it collapses immediately into self-contradiction and paradox; it is false. Except of course to the Atheist, who doesn’t use such restrictive, absolute, logical constructs.

Atheists use logic that is inverted. Because there is no grounding, no absolute basis for their thoughts, then their thoughts are free to be selected in favor of the perpetuation of their worldview dogma. In other words, it is the opposite of rational, it is rationalized.

Atheism Makes Evil Worse:
Sadly, Quentin Smith concludes this section of the statements we have been considering by delving into juvenile mockery:

“Now the theist might respond that there may be some greater good we don’t know about. But notice the theist says, ‘here may be some greater good we don’t know about.’ ell sure there may be some greater good we don’t know about.Anything is possible.It is possible there is an elephant stomping through my house.It is possible that Elvis Presley is alive and is doing the twist on the dark side of the moon.But the fact that something is possible does not show it is the least bit probable. So the fact that it is possible that God exists does not show it is the least bit probable that there is a God who created these unknown greater goods.

So if someone asks me to accept on faith that there is all these greater goods which explains all evil in the world and therefore that God exists, I respond that I’ll accept that on faith if you accept on faith that Elvis Presley is now swiveling his hips on the moon.”

This is not only mockery but logically fallacious. As in my three anecdotes above, it is self-evident to us all, or obvious to us all, or as David Hume would say “uniform experience,” that quite often apparently gratuitous evil has some purpose that we were unaware of at the time of the evil occurrence. However, there is no self-evidence-obvious-uniform-experience of Elvis Presley swiveling his hips on the moon-in fact, Quentin Smith could fund a moon landing to ascertain precisely if Elvis is moon-swiveling.

Thus, we have seen that Quentin Smith overstates his case and that all and any of us can attest to the fact that evil can have meaning/purpose even if we do not know what it is, even if we have to wait for years in order to find out what the purpose was.

Yet, I would very much like to grant Quentin Smith’s argument as an intellectual exercise. Let us grant that we have become convinced by Quentin Smith’s argument and come to accept the fact that God does not exist (his apparent definition of “atheism”). Now what?

I immediately realize that evil still occurs.

I also realize that atheism guarantees that there is no possible greater purpose. Except, perhaps, as a very good thing for evolution. For example, Sam Harris argues that rape played a beneficial evolutionary function-see Sam Harris: The Rape Comments.

In the case of evil perpetrated by human beings, I realize that it is not quite accurate to state that atheism guarantees that there is no possible greater purpose. This is; because atheism guarantees that the evildoer enjoyed their evildoing and if they did not get caught then they simply got away with it.

Therefore, I realize that atheism not only does not do anything about evil but actually makes evil worse.

Thus, the fact of evil in the world is one of the very best reasons for rejecting atheism.

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

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.

‹ Quentin Smith – The Gratuitous Fallacy, part IV of V up

Child Sacrifice: Sanctioned and “the right thing to do”?
Please pardon my references to having already written responses to various atheist critiques of the Bible and Christianity but their criticisms are not exactly original but appear to be virtually plagiarized. Prof. Richard Dawkins has commented on the following text and I have responded to it in detail in my essay Planting God More Firmly on His Throne. Thus, once again I must state that Dan Barker makes a statement which Prof. Richard Dawkins has also made in the following statement:

“After Jephthah was victorious in battle, what sacrifice did he burn on the altar, as he had vowed to the Lord?…His virgin daughter.-Another example of family values from the ‘Good Book.’ Jephthah’s nameless daughter is burned as a sacrifice in order to appease the wrath and flatter the vanity of God, who tacitly accepts and never denounces this horrible practice.
‘And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering…And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child;…And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed.’ (Judges 11:30-39)
The bible sanctions child sacrifice here. Notice how everyone assumed the correctness of Jephthah’s actions: there is no denunciation of this pointless murder from God, or from anyone in Jephthah’s community, or from the biblical writers. It was the right thing to do.
The ultimate child sacrifice, of course, is the story of Jesus being put to death to appease the wrath of his offended father. Ruth Green, author of The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible, puts it this way: ‘If the concept of a father who plots to have his own son put to death is presented to children as beautiful and worthy of society’s admiration, what types of human behavior can be presented to them as reprehensible?‘
The biblical god often requested and accepted human sacrifice: ‘And he [God] said [to Abraham], Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.’ (Genesis 22:2) ‘For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.’ (Exodus 22:29) ‘But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah…and the five sons of Michal…and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest…And after that God was intreated for the land.’ (II Samuel 21:8-14) ‘We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ…But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.’ (Hebrews 10:10-12)“1

Dan Barker appears quite desperate to make his point and he is forced to engage in circuitous argumentation and conveniently selected token portions of texts. How many of the things that he claims are actually stated in the token verses (some are even partial verses)? Keeping in mind that we are not discussing what we personally believe, think or feel but are questioning Dan Barker’s accuracy. With that in mind, please note the following:

Nowhere does the text state that she “is burned as a sacrifice.”Nowhere does the text state that she “is burned as a sacrifice in order to appease the wrath and flatter the vanity of God.”Nowhere does the text state that God “tacitly accepts…this horrible practice.”Nowhere does the text state that God “never denounces this horrible practice.”Nowhere does the Bible sanction “child sacrifice.”Nowhere does the text state that “everyone assumed the correctness of Jephthah’s actions.”Nowhere does the text state that “there is no denunciation of this.”Nowhere does the text state that “this pointless murder” is “from God.”Nowhere does the text state that “there is no denunciation…from anyone in Jephthah’s community.”Nowhere does the text state that “there is no denunciation_from the biblical writers.”

Nowhere does the text state that “It was the right thing to do.”

Once again, since I have written a detailed account of this text, in its entirety, elsewhere I will provide succinct comments to my claims that the text does not state Dan Barker’s above listed claims.

——Let us combine a few: nowhere does the text state that she “is burned as a sacrifice in order to appease the wrath and flatter the vanity of God.” Nor that “everyone assumed the correctness of Jephthah’s actions.” Nor that “there is no denunciation of this.” Nor that “this pointless murder,” is “from God.” Nor that “It was the right thing to do.”
Plainly and simply, Dan Barker’s statements in this case are fallacious inferences and the text states no such things. We will comment further on some of these claims below.

——Nowhere does the text state that she “is burned as a sacrifice.”
The text seems clear enough right? After all it does state, “Jephthah vowed a vow…and I will offer it up for a burnt offering…And Jephthah…did with her according to his vow which he had vowed.” He does appear to have sacrificed her-even though the minutia of the Torah’s law not once allowed for human/child sacrifice and what kosher high priest would allow such a thing. Note that the “and” in the vow “be the LORD’s, and I will offer it” consists of the Hebrew construct made up of two conjunctions for “either/or.” Therefore, the vow reads as Robert Young has it in his strictly literal translation (Young’s Literal Translation), “it hath been to Jehovah, or I have offered up for it – a burnt-offering.” Clearly, if we do not choose and pick but consider the greater context of the Torah we know that if it was a clean animal he would have offered it as a burnt-offering and if a human then they would be consecrated to the LORD. This would be done by the daughter being sent, with her consent (v. 37 “Let this thing be done for me”), to serve in the sanctuary.

——Let us now combine a couple: nowhere does the text state that God “tacitly accepts and never denounces this horrible practice” and nowhere does the Bible sanction “child sacrifice.”Quite the opposite, the Bible states:

“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 Molech, neither shall you profane the name of your God. I am the LORD” (Leviticus 18:21).

The Bible states that God commands that He not be worshipped by child sacrifice as was the common practice of many nations, “pass through the fire to Molech” meant to literally burn your very own children to death as worship of the false god Molech.

——Let us again combine a couple: nowhere does the text state that “there is no denunciation…from anyone in Jephthah’s community” nor “from the biblical writers.”For reasons known only to himself, Dan Barker did not bother quoting one verse further than what he cited i.e., Judges 11:40. Actually, Dan Barker ended his quote at the first half of verse 39 or 39a. Verses 39b-40 state,

“And she knew no man. And it is a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to tell again of the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year.”

Dan Barker claimed that “there is no denunciation…from anyone in Jephthah’s community” but this is not because there is not any denunciation but because Dan Barker chose to overlook verses 39b-40. There are two ways to consider this text, both of which refute Dan Barker’s faulty inferences.If we take the view that she was sacrificed: he is wrong in stating that “there is no denunciation…from anyone in Jephthah’s community” because Jephthah’s actions gave rise to an annual event the point of which was to consider his actions the cause of mourning. By extension, Dan Barker is also wrong in claiming that “there is no denunciation…from the biblical writers” since it is the Biblical writers who ensured that this event would be remembered to the point that over three millennia later we are still remembering Jephath’s daughter and his actions.

The other option comes from our consideration of Young’s Literal Translation which renders verse 40 as reading thusly, “And it was an ordinance in Israel that the daughters of Israel went from year to year to the daughter of Jephthah, that they might comfort her for four days in a year.” The daughters of Israel meet with her on an annual basis in order to comfort her in her childless state which is why this event comes across as such a lamentable-to a Jewish woman, having no children was quite lamentable.

But we are not done yet. Dan Barker quotes what is surely an unbiased scholarly text: The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible, or as they say in common parlance, “Not!” The comment quoted demonstrates that Ruth Green is another in the long list of unscholarly pseudo-elucidators.

Regarding the point about Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac (see Planting God More Firmly on His Throne) Dan Barker quoted Genesis 22:2 but he may want to mention verse 12 where Abraham is stopped by a messenger from God. It is simply tragic that people such as Dan Barker utilize Genesis 22 in order to make the exact opposite point that the text is making. A god asking his adherents to sacrifice their very own children was a normal part of the worship systems de jour. Amongst other things, the God of the Bible makes this request of Abraham in order to make it clear, as it has been clear to Jews, Christians and even Muslims, that the God of the Bible (and the Biblical influence on the Qur’an) not only does not accept but, as we saw above, denounces and condemns child sacrifice.

Dan Barker’s referenced Exodus 22:29 yet, this text states nothing about child sacrifice but speaks volumes about his modus operandi. He makes a claim, then quotes half of a verse or even a whole verse, and then tells you that he has just justified his claim. The statement: “the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me” clearly refers to sanctification such as the greater context of the book of Exodus states in 13:2, where God states “Sanctify all the first-born to Me.” Moreover, Exodus 34:19b-20a make this even clearer, “_the firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb…All the first-born of your sons you shall redeem.” Dan Barker appears to be so desperate to prove his fallacious point that he reads “the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me” and turns it, un-biblically, un-historically and unreasonably, into “child sacrifice.”

Regarding 2nd Samuel 21:8-14 nowhere are children mentioned (sons and daughters are not necessarily children). The topic of the chapter is that Saul and his “bloody house” had killed certain Gibeonites. The issue is a complex interaction of ancient customs and treaties amongst nations and individuals. It was the Gibeonites who hanged them even though David may be said to have been complicit in honoring a pact of sorts.

Lastly, we see the utter cynicism and pessimism of Dan Barker’s atheism in his citation of Hebrews 10. Is it any wonder that the Bible states, “For the Jews ask for a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness” (1st Corinthians 1:22-23). Even here Dan Barker is wrong since he was referencing alleged “child scarifies” but Jesus died at the age of 33.

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

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.

Filial Misanthropy?

In another instance of agreement with Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker wrote:

“According to Jesus, how should Christian disciples treat their parents?…Parents should be hated. -More family values from the ‘Good Book.’ ‘If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.’ (Luke 14:26)“1

He then points out that in Greek the word translated as “hate” means “hate” and goes on to write:

The concept of devaluing your family is reflected by Matthew: ‘And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.’ (Matthew 10:37-38) Why not love your family first? This sounds like something an uneasy dictator would say.
Parents should be ignored-‘Let the dead bury the dead’-because when you are born again, God becomes your true parent.” [underlining in original]

We may have stumbled across another fallacy to the tune of the assumption of: thou shall do what the etymology commands. Studying the original Hebrew or Greek words is important and also researching the origins of words, the root words. However, that may not necessarily tell us anything about what the text is stating, how the word is being used. This is because a careful researcher considers that the important thing is-usage. I may use a term that means something very particular but by applying the term hyperbolically, symbiotically, metaphorically, etc. I could give the term varied meaning. If I wrote, “It was raining cats and dogs” it may be the case that 2,000 years from now someone like Dan Barker would read my words and write, “True to the superstitious ignorance of the time, an author of two millennia ago actually believed that felines and canines fell out of the sky, simply preposterous!”

Jesus’ statements are surely hyperbolic: as much as you love your father, mother, wife, children, brethren, sisters and, note this one, your own life they are to seem as hate in comparison to your love of Jesus. This is not simply a diminution of our love for our family but an exaltation of our love of Jesus. Moreover, this is not merely a fancy excuse at my embarrassment at Jesus’ words. Another important aspect of being a careful researcher is asking how Jesus’ words were understood at the time and, in this case, how did His followers treat their families?

In Matthew 20:20 the mother of two of the apostles, James and John, makes an appearance with them.
In Mark 7:9-13 Jesus taught the following:

Do you do well to set aside the commandment of God, so that you may keep your own tradition? For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ And, ‘Whoever curses father or mother, let him die the death.’ But you say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban! (that is, A gift to God, whatever you may profit by me) and you no longer allow him to do anything toward his father or mother, making the Word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have delivered. And you do many such things.

Jesus speaks out against the traditions of men that, in this case, were concocted to benefit the religious leaders but neglect the parents of the giver of corban. In Mark 1:30-31 Jesus goes with Simon/Peter in order to visit and heal his mother-in-law. In 1st Corinthians 9:5 Paul makes reference to the apostle’s authority to lead about, taking along or traveling with a sister or wife as the apostles are known to do. In John 19:26-27 as Jesus is dying on the cross He ensures that His mother will be cared for by asking John to take her into his home.

They, and subsequent Christians, utilized basic common sense and discernment in understanding what Jesus actually meant and were not simply out to play gotcha!

Dan Barker has committed the same fallacy in writing, “Jesus did talk gruesomely about plucking out eyes and cutting off hands (Matthew 5:29 [also see Mark 9:43-47]).”2 But again, it is very easy to see the way that even those closest to Jesus understood His words-how many apostles, disciple and good old fashioned Christians have gouged their own eyes out? How many chopped off their own hands and feet? Zero would be a fair guess. Same point as above, we can see how they understood the teaching-they discerned rationally and common sensibly. What we must do is to employ the contexts of history, culture, grammar, etc.

As for “Parents should be ignored,” Dan Barker does not bother providing a citation to his conveniently partial quote “Let the dead bury the dead.” The text in question is Luke 9:57-62 (also Matthew 8:19-22):

Now it happened as they journeyed on the road, that someone said to Him, ‘Lord, I will follow You wherever You go.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.’ Then He said to another, ‘Follow Me.’ But he said, ‘Lord, let me first go and bury my father.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.’ And another also said, ‘Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.’ But Jesus said to him, ‘No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.’

The issue is the making of excuse, “Sure, I’ll get around to it but first I have to do…” Jesus appears to be testing their sincerity. Was that person really saying, “Oh, wait! I just remembered that I left my father’s corpse laying around and forgot to bury him. Let me go do that and I’ll be right back.” Rather, “let me first go and bury my father” was idiomatic for “I will wait (however many years) until my father passes away and then I will (eventually) get around to following you.” The person claimed to want to follow Jesus but makes excuses the moment that Jesus takes him up on his offer. Dan Barker’s statement “…because when you are born again, God becomes your true parent” is a pure fabrication.

Babylon’s Raze
Dan Barker and many New Atheist attempt to demonstrate that the Bible is an immoral work from which we subjectively glean what scant good morals are found within it, they claim that we pick and choose. Dan Barker makes reference to Psalm 137 but quotes only the text which states, “Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!”

With that he assumes that he has demonstrated what macabre books the Bible is since, at least in his mind, it commands us to dashes little ones against the rocks. He also appears to think that this statement is a commandment for all people in all times and all places.

Dan Barker is committing a fallacy that is surprisingly and sadly very common amongst his brand of New Atheist pseudo-skeptics. So much so is this true that we have had to write on this matter with regards to Sam Harris (Sam Harris’ Mythunderstandings particularly the “Back Talking” section) and Prof. Richard Dawkins (Planting God More Firmly on His Throne).

The primary fallacy is quite simple to both identify and to correct. I do not seek to denigrate the intellectual prowess of the New Atheists. Yet, it must be pointed out that the fact that they so often commit such fallacies forces one to consider why they are doing so. Are they purposefully doing so or are they so outside of their field of knowledge that they simply cannot handle the process of reading a text for what it is without eisegetically injecting their emotionally spiked personal prejudices? While they quite often besmirch their opponent’s thoughts and motivation, we cannot do the same. We cannot know, unless they freely admit it, whether they are purposefully deceptive propagandists or simply not as erudite as we may think. The only thing that we can do is to consider their statements and, as the Bible praises the Bereans for doing whenever Paul preached to them, “see if those things were so” (Acts 17:11).

But what is the primary fallacy which is so simple to correct? They appear to function on the faulty premise that just because the Bible states something it is tantamount to an endorsement. In other words, the Bible describes and prescribes.
For example, the Ten Commandments clearly prescribe, “Thou shall_Thou shall not_” On the other hand, statements such as was made by the devil to Jesus were clearly not something that Jesus should do and clearly not for us to do, “Then the Devil took Him up into the holy city and set Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple. And he said to Him, If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down” (Matthew 4:5-5). Judaism and Christianity have never believed that everything written in the Bible is a prescription. New Atheists ought to reclaim their dignity and cease from constantly putting forth such unscholarly and un-commonsensical concepts. To besmirch the Bible for having printed within it pages, “Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!” Is tantamount to besmirching a newspaper for reporting rape and murder or, as is more precise in this case, for reporting the thoughts and feelings or someone thinking to themselves, “I hope that you are overthrown.”

Let us read the whole text of Psalm 137 which consists of 9 verses. Keep in mind that the important thing to do here is to just read what the text states and not consider what Dan Barker tell you it means nor what we think as we read along-what does the text state?

“By the rivers of Babylon,There we sat down, yea, we weptWhen we remembered Zion.We hung our harpsUpon the willows in the midst of it.For there those who carried us away captive asked of us a song,And those who plundered us requested mirth,Saying, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion!’How shall we sing the LORD’s songIn a foreign land?If I forget you, O Jerusalem,Let my right hand forget its skill!If I do not remember you,Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth–If I do not exalt JerusalemAbove my chief joy.Remember, O LORD, against the sons of EdomThe day of Jerusalem,Who said, ‘Raze it, raze it,To its very foundation!’O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed,Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!Happy the one who takes and dashes

Your little ones against the rock!”

Ultimately, what we have here are the thoughts and emotions of people who have just been utterly crushed under the iron rod of brutally oppressive aggressors. For many of us living in first world cultures where there is an overabundance of food, money, healthcare and freedom it is very difficult to empathize with people in those circumstances. Imagine that someone is utilizing wireless-high-speed-internet service on their laptop computers while sitting in the temperature controlled comfort of a coffee house sipping their double-mocha-latte with whipped cream and cinnamon sprinkled on the top when they run across references to Psalm 137 (and usually an un-contextual citation of verse 9 alone). Can such circumstances as those portrayed in the Psalm even be imagined? Even seeing images of war and oppression in the news broadcast on a daily basis I find it very difficult to even begin to image the realities on the ground and in the minds and hearts of those experiencing them.

With that in mind, let us consider what the Psalm is and is not stating.

“By the rivers of Babylon,There we sat down, yea, we wept

When we remembered Zion.”

We are introduced to the Psalm with an understanding that it is not God speaking to men but it is men who are speaking, “we sat_we wept_we remembered” and ultimately, we wrote. Why were Jews at by the rivers of Babylon? Because they had been forcefully taken captive. They find themselves overcome with sorrow for their true and former home-Zion. “Zion” being a mountain in Jerusalem and a term that is sometimes indicative of Jerusalem as a whole.

“We hung our harps
Upon the willows in the midst of it.”

We hung our harps sound like our common idiom, “We hung it up.” In other words, in the midst of Babylon, we were done for-our harps which had brought us songs of praise and merriment were hung up as useless things.

“For there those who carried us away captive asked of us a song,
And those who plundered us requested mirth,”

Not only were they taken captive, having had their city and Temple destroyed, but now in the depths of their sorrow and despair their oppressors are taunting them by asking them to liven it up and sing happy songs to them-they demand entertainment.

“Saying, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion!’How shall we sing the LORD’s song

In a foreign land?”

They do not merely request to be entertained with happy songs though, they request songs of the glory of Zion. They are asking the captives to recall the joys of Zion after having seen it destroyed and after imagining that they would likely die in captivity having never again seeing Zion. This verse denotes Judaism’s concerns for geography, religion and culture-how can we sing the LORD’s song about Zion in a Gentile pagan land and after being brutally devastated?

“If I forget you, O Jerusalem,Let my right hand forget its skill!If I do not remember you,Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth-If I do not exalt Jerusalem

Above my chief joy.”

While captive outside of Jerusalem the Psalmist would prefer to lose his ability to perform music than to forget the land for which he weeps and from which he has been taken by force.

“Remember, O LORD, against the sons of EdomThe day of Jerusalem,Who said, ‘Raze it, raze it,

To its very foundation!'”

This is not a command from God but is what men are requesting of God, a prayer of enmity (an imprecatory Psalm). Keep in mind that God is not bound to answer anything that we ask in prayer if we pray amiss (James 4:3). What is being asked is that the actions of the Edomites be recalled. Apparently, while the Babylonians were attacking Jerusalem the Edomites were encouraging them, cheering them on, to raze the city. To “raze” means to subvert from the foundation, overthrow, destroy, demolish, erase, efface, obliterate, extirpate.

“O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed,Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!Happy the one who takes and dashes

Your little ones against the rock!”

The Psalmist is now addressing Babylon itself: the daughter of Babylon-its inhabitants and descendants. This is the human heart speaking. The heart of men who had not merely taken captive but had endures witnessing their cities and Temple being destroyed and their countrymen, friends and families murdered. The statement is an accentuation of a desire to see the overthrow of the oppressors. It is in the common manner of brutal destruction and captivation that the Babylonians had conquered the then known world. The Psalmist is stating that whoever manages to overthrow the mighty Babylon will be happy in accomplishing their victory. That little ones will be taken and dashed against stones is idiomatic of the final cessation of a brutal regime by eliminating any future generations that may continue oppression and destruction. Note that “The people of Ammon_ripped open the women with child in Gilead, that they might enlarge their territory” (Amos 1:13). Even if it is meant quite literally that little ones will be murdered in this way there is no particular prescription to be found. The point is clear and has already been stated: whoever causes Babylon to fall will be happy that they have done so and so, apparently, will be those whom the Babylonians had razed in the past.

There appears to be another issue. I claimed that what the Psalm stated were the thoughts and emotions of men. Yet, Judaism and Christianity claim that the Bible, including Psalm 137, is divinely inspired. “There you have it,” I can imagine the skeptic stating, “God commands little one to be dashed against the rock.” Yes, the Bible, including Psalm 137, is divinely inspired yet, the point is the same. In this case, it is the thoughts of men that God wants us to understand. The Bible is extremely honest in presenting a full orbed view of humanity which includes pointing out the flaws and shortcomings of the Bibles heroes.

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

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.

On Jihad and AbortionHaving written on Prof. Richard Dawkins’ untenable correlation between Islamic terrorists and “Christian” abortion “doctor” murderers I was particularly interested in the following statement by Sam Harris:

“It seems to me we fail to enlist the friends we have on this subject, when we balance this. I mean, it’s a tactic, it’s a media tactic, and in some sense it’s almost an ontological commitment of atheism to say that all faith claims are in some sense equivalent. You know, the media says that Muslims have their extremists and we have our extremists. We have jihadists in the Middle-East and we have_”

Prof. Richard Dawkins interrupts for a moment to state, “There’s an imbalance there, yeah.”

Sam Harris continues:

“people who kill abortion doctors, and it’s just not a real equation. I mean, with the mayhem that’s going on under the aegis of Islam, it just cannot be compared to the fact that we have, you know people who, a decade, kill abortionists. And so I think my commitment _ I mean, this is one of the problems I have with the concept of atheism is that I just think it hobbles us in this discourse where we have to seem to kind of spread the light of criticism equally in all directions at all moment. And I think we could, on any specific question, have a majority of religious people agree with us_it seems to me once we focus on particulars, we have a real strength of numbers, and yet when we stand back from the ramparts of atheism and say it’s all bogus, we lose 90 percent of our neighbors.”

This is where the scribe of the transcript of the discussion had a difficult time hearing the word “abortion.” It was transcribed as “kill (inaudible) doctors” but was clearly “kill abortion doctors.” Moreover, there is not a “(?missing word),” Sam Harris paused between “people who” and “a decade.”
I know exactly what he is referring to because I have done the research. In my essay On Abortion, Tadpoles, Rape, Cows, Murder and Sheep (I also posted a succinct version entitled The Dawkins Correlation) I provided some statistics with regards to Prof. Richard Dawkins’ correlation, his was a mere assertion since he did not provide any statistics.I wonder what Prof. Richard Dawkins was thinking as he heard Sam Harris made the point that it is “not a real equation.” For that matter, I wonder if Sam Harris is, or at that point was, aware that Prof. Richard Dawkins had made that into an equation. The reason that it is wholly fallacious, and perhaps the reason for the pause mentioned above, is that “Christians” (if they may be referred to as such) have murdered 7 abortion “doctors” in three decades in both the USA and Canada combined.

atheism, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris

Considering the point made above about the fallacy of saying “that all faith claims are in some sense equivalent” it is no less than fascinating that Christopher Hitchens states,

“they’re all equally rotten, false, dishonest, corrupt, humourless and dangerous.”

At least he does not discriminate.
atheism, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris
In the end, the four rode into the sunset to get some shuteye and live to fight another day.

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

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.