Atheist Charity – A Huge Success

In one single day a new atheist charity received donations of $80,000 from as many as 3,400 donors-and the donations keep rolling in (apparently from atheists). By day three they raised $113,000.Who said that there were no atheist charities and or that atheists are not charitable?

And as for those of you who though that Prof. Richard Dawkins was an old fuddy-duddy he is more charitable than thou as he committed to match donations up to $9,300.

But what is this hugely successful charity?

A homeless shelter?A hospital fund?A soup kitchen?An adoption agency?A disaster relief organization?A gang intervention unit?A drug and alcohol treatment center?Relief for those suffering from the worldwide financial crisis?

Anything that will actually help someone in need?

Nay.

The “charity” is mean to fund a campaign to place ads on buses in London.I am afraid that this comment will not seem charitable but I think that, at least on rare occasion, atheists should think outside of the box and not simply make statements with which their peers agree and chortle in unison.The ads will state, “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Ariane Sherine, chimed in with another well-within-the-box statement, “Atheists believe this is the only life we have, and we should enjoy it.”1 What is the answer of the theist? “Theists believe this is the only life we have, and that it continues beyond the material realm, and we should enjoy it.”

The Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association, Hanne Stinson, stated, “We wanted it to be a positive message.” I suppose that sometimes what you “wanted” to do does not turn out to be what you end up doing.

“Do, or do not.There is no ‘try.'”-Jedi Master, Yoda

atheism-yoda-2857901

Ariane Sherine, who conceived of the campaign, “said that ‘probably’ was included to ensure that the posters didn’t breach transit advertising regulations, which stipulate that ads should not offend religious people.”2Let us do the math here: if we take the sentence “There is probably no God” and we subtract the regulation required qualifying term “probably” we end up with “There is no God.” I guess this atheist does not understand atheism (or does not adhere to the tenets of the New Atheism).

Oddly, and unfortunately without further elucidation, the Associate Press reported that “Dawkins said that as an atheist he ‘wasn’t wild’ about the ad’s assertion that there was ‘probably’ no God.”3 Apparently, he would have preferred the “There is no God” reading. His reaction may be again the regulations placed upon ads. However, either way he seems to be opting for the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence position. Although, this is quite odd considering that he titled one of the chapters in his book The God Delusion “Why There Almost Certainly is No God.” And I am not aware of any regulatory restrictions being placed upon his book. A Prof. Richard Dawkins inspired ad may have read thusly, “”There is almost certainly no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Furthermore, note that the ad is pretty mild, at least by New Atheist standards. However, never to be outdone by mild statements, Prof. Richard Dawkins chimed in and stated another atheist myth, “This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion.”I don’t know what to think about that. Although, Methodist Church Rev. Jenny Ellis stated, “We are grateful to Richard [Dawkins] for his continued interest in God and for encouraging people to think about these issues.”

“The religious think tank Theos said it had donated $82 to the campaign, on the grounds that the ads were so bad they would probably attract people to religion…Theos director Paul Woolley [stated] ‘Stunts like this demonstrate how militant atheists are often great adverts for Christianity.'”4

Two donators donated the following statements along with their funds:”Hoorah for the non-believers!””Spread the word, and consign this superstitious nonsense to the dustbin of history! America, are you listening?”Just what are we supposed to think? “Yes, we heard you loud and clear from across the pond and can see that you are quite please with your quaint British wit but atheist’s urban legends are not the erudition which you claim them to be.”Should ads be placed on buses responding thusly, “There probably is a God. I am not worried and my life is filled with joy. Please, stop wasting money publicizing your personal prejudice and help someone in need.

The “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible” as a Heuristic Device

Considering that, generally but reliably speaking, those who label themselves as “skeptics” are anything but, it is not surprising that the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible is saturated with atheist talking points along with the obligatory common, and some uncommon, misconceptions and lack of scholarship.

Having conducted a study of the relevant biblical texts relating to the doctrine of the Trinity it seemed relevant to consider the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible webpage entitled, How many gods are there?

The page seeks to demonstrate biblical contradictions by referencing texts that affirm that “There is only one god” and those that conclude that “There are several gods.” I will reproduce it in its entirety below but let us first note just how simple it is to reconcile these two.
Actually, “reconcile” is giving the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible far too much credit as the problem is that they are, in truly pseudo-skeptical form, merely quoting texts while not musing upon that which the texts are stating.
Since they are not truly skeptic they are not interested in understanding the texts and connecting the dots but are merely interested in presenting the appearance of contradiction. In fact, the webpage offers no commentary at all They mere present two columns with two titles and, apparently, think that this is supposed to mean something.

The list “There is only one god” is straight forward enough: God affirms that He is the one and only God and that there is no other. The list reads as follows:

Deuteronomy 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. Deuteronomy 4:39 The LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me. 1 Kings 18:39 The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God. Isaiah 43:10 I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 44:8 Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. Isaiah 45:5-6 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. Isaiah 46:9 I am God, and there is none else: I am God, and there is none like me. Mark 12:29 The Lord our God is one Lord. Mark 12:32 There is one God; and there is none other but he. John 17:3 That they might know thee the only true God. 1 Corinthians 8:6

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him.

For some odd reason, perhaps simply an innocent overlooking of the relevant texts, the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible neglected to quote a very, very relevant text in their “There are several gods” list. They somehow missed quoting,

Now concerning things offered to idols…we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God (1st Corinthians 8:1, 5-6).

Thus, yes—and this is key—“there are so-called gods” and these so-called gods are “many” yet, “there is no other God but one.” In fact, note that just above, in the “There is only one god” list they quote the monotheistic affirmation from in 1st Corinthians 8:6a but they did not bother providing the context, which would have done away with their whole webpage, when listing “There are several gods.” Thus, there you have it: since there are many so-called gods who are not gods then references to “gods” and for that matter “goddesses” are references to demons or simply fictitious characters that are worshiped as idols.

Below we will note that Exodus 12:12 is quoted as, “And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.” Indeed, and it was in executing these judgments that God demonstrated that these so-called gods were not gods but impotent idols.

Also, below we will note that Psalm 82:6a is quoted as “I have said, Ye are gods” and also John 10:33-34 in which Jesus references that Psalm:

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Perhaps, the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible thought that we would take them on authority or by “faith” yet, when we practice the true and honest skepticism enjoined upon us by the Bible we look up the citation, read for context and note that the Psalm reads:

God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; free them from the hand of the wicked. They do not know, nor do they understand; they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are unstable. I said, “You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”

Arise, O God, judge the earth; for You shall inherit all nations.

The term for “gods” here, as in most places of plurality, is the Hebrew elohim and means “mighty ones” which was used in reference to the judges. Even though God called the judges mighty ones they are His creation and will die like any other person. El, Eloah, Elohim or Eloheinu are titles generically used to mean God, god, gods, goddess, judges, great, mighty, angels or power [im being plural for a masculine Hebrew word, ot being plural for feminine words].

They also do not seem to consider that since God is a Triune being plural references to the one
God are not mistaken or contradictory. In fact, below they quote 1st John 5:7 to which no one making a scholarly theological case for the Trinity would refer as it is known to be a late dated accretion and reads thusly,

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

But do not miss the point: even in the face of a text which makes reference to the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost as being “one” they include it in a list prefaced as “There are several gods.” But how are there “several gods” in view when they are said to be “one.” The answer is twofold: 1) the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible know not what they do and 2) the doctrine of the Trinity affirms one God, one being, in three co-equal, co-eternal, distinct persons.

I designed this illustration of the Trinity and you can purchase this design on a t-shirt by calling the store “Parchments” at (505) 344-2728:

trinity2c20true20freethinker2c20god-1710901

These few facts are quite enough to dispel whatever negative implication the following references were meant to convey:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, let us make man in our image. Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. Genesis 11:7 Let us go down, and there confound their language. Exodus 12:12 And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. Exodus 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? Exodus 18:11 Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods. Exodus 20:3, 5 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. … Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods. Exodus 23:13 Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. Exodus 23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. Exodus 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Numbers 33:4 Upon their gods also theLORD executed judgments. Deuteronomy 3:24 What God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works? Deuteronomy 6:14-15 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords. Deuteronomy 28:14 Thou shalt not … go after other gods to serve them. Joshua 24:2 They served other gods. Joshua 24:14 Fear the Lord … and put away the gods which your fathers served. Judges 11:24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? 1 Samuel 6:5 Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods. 1 Samuel 28:13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 1 Chronicles 16:25 The Lord … is to be feared above all gods. Psalm 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods. Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods. Psalm 86:8 Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord. Psalm 96:4 For the Lord … is to be feared above all gods. Psalm 97:7 Worship him, all ye gods. Psalm 135:5 Our Lord is above all gods. Psalm 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods. Jeremiah 1:16 I will utter my judgments against them … who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods. Jeremiah 10:11 The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. Jeremiah 25:6 And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt. Jeremiah 46:25 I will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods. Zephaniah 2:11 The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth. John 10:33-34 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

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

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.

Quentin Smith – The Gratuitous Fallacy, part II of V

Emotions in Motion:
Allow me to begin this segment by pointing out that I could not help but notice that no one has taken Quentin Smith to task for his claim to “prove atheism.” How does one prove a mere lack of belief in god(s) besides by stating, “I lack therefore, I lack”?

Let us consider Quentin Smith’s emotional investment:

“Consider, for example, the Spanish influenza. In World War I (1914-1918), ten million people died. But in three months, from September to November of 1919, twenty million people died — just as many as in the plague in the fourteenth century — from Spanish influenza. Then suddenly, this virus that caused this deadly flu disappeared, and no one has seen it again.”

Now that we are wrapped up in thinking and feeling about what a terrible occurrence that was, Quentin Smith comes in for the rhetorical kill:

“So how could this possibly have occurred if God exists? Is God not powerful enough to kill this virus or prevent it from growing? If so, then He’s not all-powerful and is not really the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition. He’s just a sort of extraterrestrial intelligence. He’s just more powerful than us by degrees, just as we are more powerful than ants by degrees. But that is no god; that is a finite being. You would no more worship this being than you would worship ET. Suppose God is all-powerful and is capable of killing the Spanish influenza virus before it killed off twenty million people. Why didn’t He? Is it because He’s not perfectly good? Because He does not care enough about human beings? That is no god. Sounds like more an evil being governs our universe [sic]. So that’s just one example of many gratuitous evils in the universe.”

quentinsmith-part2-9289171
Let us review the charges one by one before Quentin Smith informs us as to how theists, apparently Christians since he did not besmirch the gods of Islam, Hinduism or any other religion, respond to these arguments.

So how could this possibly have occurred if God exists?
We must understand that atheists are very theologically minded people. Just as G. K. Chesterton pointed out that “all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind”1 we may likewise state that all denunciation of a particular theology implies a different theology of some kind. Anytime that an atheist states, “Why would God allow_” or “Why doesn’t God_” or “God should_” et al they are speaking from their personal theology. In other words, they have a theological concept and then judge all others according to theirs (see my essay Atheism’s Theistic Concepts).

Is God not powerful enough to kill this virus or prevent it from growing?
The answer could be “Yes,” God is powerful enough but did not do so for reasons that Quentin Smith will refer to as “mysterious.”

If so, then He’s not all-powerful and is not really the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition.Actually, God can be all powerful and yet not be required to perform as Quentin Smith demands.

He’s just a sort of extraterrestrial intelligence. He’s just more powerful than us by degrees, just as we are more powerful than ants by degrees. But that is no god; that is a finite being. You would no more worship this being than you would worship ET.

In some New Age circles aliens are virtually, if not literally, worshipped.

Suppose God is all-powerful and is capable of killing the Spanish influenza virus before it killed off twenty million people. Why didn’t He?
This is the “mystery” to which we shall come in part III.

Is it because He’s not perfectly good?
Perhaps, but one can be good, or perfectly good, and allow evil, or apparent evil.

Because He does not care enough about human beings?
Perhaps, but again this does not necessarily follow.

That is no god. Sounds like more an evil being governs our universe [sic].
Indeed, the Bible states that an evil being is “the god of this world” (2nd Corinthians 4:4).

So that’s just one example of many gratuitous evils in the universe.
It was gratuitous if it was gratuitous but it was not gratuitous if it was not gratuitous. Quentin Smith claims to know that it was.

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

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.

False Teachers Reveal Truth

Have you ever shaken your head in disbelief at the expounding of certain Christian teachers? Do these people seem to be false prophets, deceivers, ignorant and unstable, promoters of controversies, ferocious wolves, who offer meaningless talk, who are conceited and understand nothing, who exploit you, who tell fortunes for money, and use godliness as a means to financial gain?

If you agree, you have just agreed with the Biblical teaching on this subject. Rather than encouraging the sort of tactics used by these teachers the Bible warns us of them and tells us to be aware and to beware. We are to be ready for them as we are to prepare against theft, regarding these teachers Jesus said, “See, I have told you ahead of time” (Matthew 24:25). In this way false teachers reveal the truth of the Word of God.

How many times have we Christians had to answer for the televangelist with the big hair and big boasting? Or the false teacher crying for money? Or the faith healer knocking people down? Or the false prophet claiming divine revelation? It’s about time we turn the tables and use these wolves, goats and prodigal sons to reveal the truth of God’s Word.

It must be noted that sometimes false teacher are not so obvious, if they come out and preach for two hours it will not necessarily be heresy from beginning to end. Remember that the most believable sort of lie will always contain some truth. And so you might really be keeping up and being drawn into the service and all of a sudden some very odd teachings will surface. Then you are either learned enough, or are lead by the Holy Spirit, to discerning them or you might just get caught up in the excitement of it all. This is why so many of these preachers are so charismatic, because if you fall in love with the person then what they teach is secondary, also criticism of the preacher is harder to accept because you have an emotional bond. This is a cult of personality.

God has been warning us about these sorts of people for thousands of years. And although we cannot judge the motivations of the hearts of individuals, we are told in the Bible some of their general motivations and tactics.

FAITH EQUALS MONEY:
One of the most popular money grubbing tactics used today is to talk us into believing that if we send money to the ministry we are planting a seed and that seed will grow and produce for you 30, 60 or 100 fold. Apparently this does work, for the televangelist anyhow, because they ask for money and they get it. But what if you are on a fixed income and this leaves you in more debt than before? Well, Brother Shambock said that God told him to tell people to give him $2,000 each, and he said that if you are telling yourself that you tried it last year and it did not work then you should try it again.He then repeated the words “try it again, try it againc” and “get to your phone quickly, quickly…” so many times that he could have hypnotized you. It’s really very convenient, if you gave your seed-faith offering and nothing good came out of it, then it’s your own fault because you did not have enough faith. So try it again and again.If this really works then instead of them asking us for money why don’t these televangelist send all the people on their mailing list $100 or $1,000, this way they could get back 30, 60 or 100 fold. If they did this once a month they could get rich by giving us money. But no, apparently this only works if we are giving to them and never the other way around.But what was Jesus talking about when He said, “they who have been sown on the good ground, such as hear the word and receive it, and bear fruit; one thirty, and one sixty, and one a hundred fold” (Mark 4:20). While I might not have 100 houses in my name, I know that I could go anywhere in the world and find a Christian who would be willing to house and feed me (plus our rewards in heaven).

Doubtless that a minister can make a living from his ministry, after all “The worker deserves his wages” (Luke 10:7; 1st Timothy 5:18). But there are fair, correct, moral ways of doing this and there are deceptive ways of doing this.

The Bible Teaches:
Tell the skeptics that while we too are saddened by these doings, we know to expect them because the Bible warns us of them.

Micah 3:11 “Her leaders judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets tell fortunes for money.”

1st Timothy 6:3-5 “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.”

2nd Peter 2:1-3 “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.”

Acts 8:18-23 “When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, ‘Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.’ Peter answered: ‘May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.'”

MIRACLE WORKERS:
Miracles, in and of themselves, are not credible proof of divine approval. Do you ever wonder why, if these faith healers can really heal, why is it always something that you cannot see? You might hear a great story like a person has had back problems for decades and all of a sudden the faith healer slaps them on the forehead and suddenly they can stand up straight and jump up and down. Why don’t we ever see an amputated limb grow back, cancerous skin suddenly look clean and new, withered limbs return to life, or third degree burns suddenly vanish? Why don’t these healers clearing out hospitals?

The Bible Teaches:

Revelation 19:20 “But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf.”

Matthew 24:24-25 “For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect-if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.”

FALSE PROPHETS:
Some people seem to think that any statement that is preceded or followed by the words, “Thus saith the Lord” is automatically divinely revealed truth. In reality there are many teachers who are notorious for making such statements and proving over and over that they are false prophets.The Jehovah’s Witnesses have come up with a convenient explanation for their various predictions of the world’s end, they say that the light is getting brighter and things are getting clearer and clearer.

First of all, their predictions of the world’s end were not made by mere men who make mistakes and need brighter light. They were made by an organization that claims to be the one and only one that is not only lead directly by the Holy Spirit but who is headed by Jesus Himself ever since He returned to Earth invincibly in 1914. Secondly, if this is their explanation (or excuse) then we should never believe a thing they say because after all everything that the Jehovah’s Witness preach today may just be wrong in a few years when the light get brighter.

The Bible Teaches:

Jeremiah 29:9 “‘They are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them,’ declares the LORD.”

Jeremiah 14:14, “Then the LORD said to me, ‘The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.'”
It is very interesting to note that someone can hype themselves up so much so that they can have experiences that they themselves forced to occur.

Deuteronomy 13:1-4 “If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (gods you have not known) ‘and let us worship them,’ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.”

Matthew 7:15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”

Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said, “‘Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'”

1st John 4:1 “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

FALSE TEACHERS:A false teacher teaches odd ideas that are usually a way to get themselves noticed. Their hype and scandal brings them attention, this attention brings them fame, and fame brings them money. Some favorite tactics are taking a verse or passage out of its intended context and forcing it to say what ever they want (a pretext).

Or they might concoct doctrines by attempting to glue together bits and pieces from the whole Bible which in reality have nothing to do with each other. They will also follow trends, when holy laughter is popular they will practice that. When slaying in the spirit is popular they will do that. When health and wealth is popular they will practice that, etc., etc.

The Bible Teaches:

2nd Timothy 4:3-5 “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.”

1st Timothy 1:3-6 “As I urged you…command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work-which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk.”

2nd Peter 3:15-16 “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

DECIEVERS:Simply stated these are people who are out to purposefully deceive. In most cases we might suspect that someone might be doing this but when it comes right down to it we cannot judge their heart, their motivation, whether or not they are doing it on purpose or whether they themselves are deceived.However, in some cases the truth comes out, like in the case of Peter Popov. He would claim to have received divine revelation and would know personal things about people such as their illnesses. He would astonish the crowds by this miraculous knowledge.However, he was exposed as a charlatan because as it turns out, before his appearances those in attendance would write down their prayer requests. Popov’s wife would collect them, next she would direct him as to whom to speak with in the crown via a small hearing device that he would wear and she would read from the prayer requests and he made it seem as if this intimate knowledge was coming from God.

You can also see footage of Benny Hinn renouncing every odd practice that he indulged in, he explained why it was wrong and why he is giving them up. However, he is now back doing the same exact things as before. And so in some cases the deception is obvious but we advice caution lest we find ourselves in unrighteous judgment.

The Bible Teaches:

Jeremiah 29:8-9 “Yes, this is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you. Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to have. They are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them,’ declares the LORD.”

Matthew 24:11 “many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.”

2nd John 1:7 “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.”

SLAYING IN THE SPIRIT:
The concept of getting slain in the spirit is that the Holy Spirit is used like a defibrillator. At hyper-charismatic events faith healers will slap people on the forehead and knock them backwards. The Holy Spirit can be shot out at people so that whole crowds fall over and loose all control, they may yell or act like animals (literally). There simply is no Biblical support for the practice of slaying in the spirit.

The Bible Teaches:

John 18:2-6 “Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, ‘Who is it you want?’ ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ they replied. ‘I am he,’ Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, ‘I am he,’ they drew back and fell to the ground. [KJV As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground].”

“My brethren, let not many of you become teachers,knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment others”James 3:1

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

The Quadripartite Equine Riders, part 10 of 11

The Universe is All About MeChristopher Hitchens states:

“I think it’s a deformity or a shortcoming in the human personality, frankly, because religion keeps stressing how humble it is, and how meek it is, and how accepting, almost to the point of self-abnegationist. But actually it makes extraordinarily arrogant claims for these moments, it says that I suddenly realize that the universe is all about me. And I felt terrifically humble about it. Come on! You know, we can laugh people out of that.”

This comment was peppered with the other saying, “Yeah, yeah,” “Yes,” “Right,” “Yeah,” and Prof. Daniel Dennett stating, “I am so tired of the ‘if only Professor Dennett had the humility to blah, blah, blah’ and humility, humility _ and this from people of breathtaking arrogance.”Again, it is difficult to know to whom they are generically referring. I will succinctly respond from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Even if the argument is made that the Bible implies that the universe is all about me, or we human beings, it cannot be inferred that the Bible is implying justification for arrogant human lack of humility.

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

Job suffers great calamities and determines to confront God in order to demand an answer as to why this is happening to him. God’s initial comment sets the tone to be the likes of “There is an entire universe going on out there, this is bigger than just you.”

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding” (Job 38:4).

I have written an essay about some of the flaccid criticism’s of the book of Job which is entitled, The Book of Job – Dismissed but Essential.
atheism, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam HarrisMoreover, in the poetic Psalms the following question is asked by David,

“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?” (Psalm 8:3-4).

David expressed deep humility when considering the vastness of God’s creation. This places his following statement into the context of humility and not self-exaltation,

“For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; you have put all things under his feet” (Psalm 8:5-6).

If the second statement was made without the first then the Christopher Hitchens might have a point. Yet, the Bible is careful to balance humanity’s, quite obvious, important role in the affairs of the world with humanity’s lowly state.
atheism, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris

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

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.

Answering Atheism – Welcome / Introduction

answering-atheism-blogspot-7410153
Answering atheism
Introduction:

Project Answering Atheism is dedicated to a consideration of atheism.Atheism will be considered from a polemical point of view.

That is to say that what project Answering Atheism has in view is a critique of atheism.

Answering atheism
This is not merely a wikipedia.org info based project, nor an infidels.org nor atheists.org nor atheism.about.com pro-atheism project.
Refuting atheism
Project Answering Atheism will serve as a directory to criticisms of atheism available online.This is in no way a complete list of all criticisms of atheism on the World Wide Web.

If you know of anything that would fit the premise of project Answering Atheism please let me know through the comments section (also, please report dead links).

Debunking atheism
Project Answering Atheism includes the following categories.
Answering atheists

Welcome / Introduction.
Refuting atheists
Specialization: these are websites / blogs that specialize in atheism. That is, either the main or only topic covered is atheism.
Debunking atheists
Partial Relevant Content: these are websites / blogs that include particular articles dealing with atheism. That is, a website / blog may include quite a few items related to atheism amongst the variety of other topics which they cover.
Atheism and science
Articles / Essays / Posts: these are particular articles / essays / posts, sometimes listing more than one by a particular author.
Atheism and morality
Audio, part 1, part 2, part 3: lectures, debates, etc.
Atheism and religion
Books, part 1, part 2, part 3 various vantage points covered by various authors
Atheism and belief
Video, part 1, part 2, part 3: lectures, debates, etc.

Atheism and Christianity
Atheism and death~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is atheism wrong

Is atheism on the riseThere is a lot of curiosity about atheism, many questions asked, much information sought and much written.

Is atheism a faith

You may have wondered about and or searched the following information:

Atheist, atheist, New Atheism, atheist quotes or atheism quotes, atheist experience, atheist definition or atheism definition, atheist forum, atheist blog, atheism in America, atheism and beliefs, history of atheism, spirituality atheism practice or atheism ‘spirituality’, Descartes on atheism, what is atheism, atheism atheist, atheism symbol or symbol of atheism and even atheism t-shirts and atheist bumper stickers, atheist events, famous atheists, atheist religion, atheist belief, atheist jokes, difference between agnostic and atheist, conservative atheist, atheist films, atheist opinion poll, what do atheists believe, how can a atheist person be moral, celebrity atheists, spore atheist, atheist debate, the portable atheist, anti-atheism, or even atheisme and ateismo.

Are atheists badMaybe you have even wondered about skeptics or skepticism, perhaps agnostics or agnosticism. Or how atheism and atheists relate to morals or morality, ethics, or the science of biology, anthropology, astronomy, cosmology, evolution, Charles Darwin or Darwinism or Darwinian evolution, microevolution, macroevolution, creationism or creation science, intelligent design, religion, philosophy, reason, rationality, the Bible, or any of life’s questions relate to atheism and atheists.

Are atheists moral

What of some of the well know atheists of history or contemporary atheists such as: Charles Bradlaugh, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, G.A. Wells, Marquis de Sade, Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre, Ayn Rand, Ernst Haeckel, Margaret Mead, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Voltaire, Paul-Henri Dietrich / Baron d’Holbach, Denis Diderot, Aldous Huxley, T. H. Huxley, Julian Huxley, Oscar Wilde, Bertrand Russell, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Arthur Schopenhauer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Earl Doherty, Madelyn O’Hair, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Dan Barker, Michael Shermer, Michael Martin, PZ Myers, Richard Carrier, Stephen Carr, Jeffery Jay Lowder, Kyle Gerkin, Farrell Till, John Loftus, Austin Cline, et al.

Are atheists happy

Have you ever wondered about ex-atheists such as: C.S. Lewis, Anthony Flew, Lee Strobel, Steve Beren, Anders Borg, Whittaker Chambers, Francis Collins, Joy Davidman, Andre Frossard, Eugene D. Genovese, Nicky Gumbel, Keir Hardie, Anna Haycraft, Ignace Lepp, Felix Leseur, Alister McGrath, Claude McKay, Lacey Mosley, William J. Murray, Bernard Nathanson, Marvin Olasky, Enoch Powell, George R. Price, Gerald Priestland, Dame Cicely Saunders, Edith Stein, Peter Steele, Stewart Traill, Fay Weldon, John C. Wright, Simon Greenleaf, William Ramsay, et al.

Are atheists evil

What about the varieties of atheism such as: strong atheism, positive atheism, explicit atheism, critical atheism, weak atheism, negative atheism, implicit atheism, anti-theist, non-theist, misotheist, Brights, Freethinkers, Humanist, Secular Humanist, Naturalist, Materialist, Rationalist, Philosophical Skepticism, Universism, et al.

PZ Myers – Contra Mitch Daniels and Pro Positive Affirmation of God’s Non-Existence, part 2 of 2

PZ Myers has picked a bone with Mitch Daniels as Daniels was prompted to make certain statements about atheism. Mitch Daniels is the Governor of Indiana whom PZ Myers, in accordance with his characteristically belligerent mannerism, has chosen to refer to as, “profoundly stupid…a mindless ratbag.”[1]

PZ Myers states that “Equality was an ideal of the Enlightenment…not Christianity.” Let us consider the overarching concept that God created both males and females in His image (Genesis 1:27). Next consider the following statements:

…the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all (Colossians 3:11).

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

re all equal as there are no—gender, national or racial—ontological distinctions.
I know that iTheists such as PZ Myers not only want equality with God (Genesis 3:4), but want to be above God (see Isaiah 14:12) and finally do away with God and worship nature (see Atheism as nature worship or neo-paganism). However, it should also be noted that Myers’ concept of a hierarchy is faulty as equality amongst humans does not contradict being “topped by a god.”

atheismpzmyersmitchdanielsgodmoralsmorality-7087274

Note that Myers asserts that, “There is no eternal standard of right and wrong.” Keep this in mind as Myers is about to tell us what is right and wrong while asserting that there are no right and wrong but that he is right and Mitch Daniels and Christians are wrong but not according to any eternal standard which he thinks is wrong but he is ultimately right since there are not eternal standard………..or something.
Moreover, note Myers’ characterization of Daniel’s morality, “how hollow his morality is at the core; he cannot imagine a good life without a priest telling him what is right and wrong.” Yet, in the very next paragraph morality is bequeathed via the Myersian priesthood as PZ tells us what is right and wrong:

In the absence of a god-given absolute morality, all that matters is how we treat one another in this one life we have. What flows naturally to me is not brutality, which requires an absence of awareness of the suffering of others, but recognition of the fact that my fellow human beings really are my equals: we’re all going to die, we only have these few brief decades of life, and who am I to deny someone else the same opportunities I’ve been given?

But why “In the absence of a god-given absolute morality”? Because PZ Myers holds to a positive affirmation of God’s non-existence without evidence or proof of any sort, merely based on his wish that is be true,

There are no gods, no objective enforcement of a benign morality on us, and that has a couple of consequences. One is that we ought to reject out of hand any claims to morality based on theocratic morality as false…We should build our morality on reason.

I most certainly agree that we should build our morality on reason, “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD (Isaiah 1:18). Yet, this reason is to play off of God’s absolute moral premise; actually off of the ethos which is what is premised upon the Trinune God’s relational nature and is absolute.

His contention is that “theocratic morality” is “false” and something that “we ought to reject” it (note the moral imperative, “we ought to”) because he presupposed, again, without evidence/proof, that “There are no gods.”
So, back to “In the absence of a god-given absolute morality” as we come to PZ Myers’ very own Myers-given absolute morality and as we note that he turns his non-sequiturious opinions into a moral imperative. He doeth bequeath “all that matters” and claims that it is “how we treat one another” based on what “flows naturally” and which he personalizes via subjectivism as pertaining “to me.”
But what are his moral imperatives? “not brutality” because that causes “suffering” “but recognition of the fact that my fellow human beings really are my equals.” But upon what does he assert that this is a “fact”? Upon the arbitrary concept that “we’re all going to die, we only have these few brief decades of life.” Lastly, he appeals to denying “the same opportunities I’ve been given.”

atheismpzmyersmitchdanielsgodmoralsmorality-5132406

I know that to some this sounds oh, so very nice but it must be considered logically nonetheless. The whole assertion is a non-sequitur. Since there is no “god-given absolute morality” PZ Myers is offering the bio-chemically educed opinions of a mere bio-organism floating on the back of a pale blue dot in the universe’s backwaters (he knows this and it is why he refers to his blog posts as “random biological ejaculations”). It may sound great but it merely an arbitrary and subjective opinion. You see, I could just as easily write:

In the absence of a god-given absolute morality, all that matters is how I treat myself in this one life I have. What flows naturally to me is brutality, which follows logically from the very engine of Darwinian evolution; the suffering of others, the struggle for life. The fact that my fellow human beings are not my equals: we’re all going to die, we only have these few brief decades of life, and this is why I want to deny someone else the same opportunities I’ve been given!

Why not? Darwinian survival is specifically about being the fittest over others who do not have the same survival opportunities that I’ve been given via mutations, etc. Shout “Altruistic Darwininan mistakes” all you want the fact is that with no moral imperative in the universe, with only the opinions of a man who lives is a very comfortable and safe Christian country, my conclusions are as valid as Myers’. In a materialistic universe you find meaning for your life where you wish; you could feed the poor or you could eat the poor (see, the essays about meaning and purpose here and here).
Moreover, since there is “no objective enforcement” what is to be done with Myers’ moral imperatives? Well, hopefully we will sing Kumbaya there is no Lord, kumbaya but just how would PZ Myers enforce his commandments? He cannot, he can merely assert and hope for agreement or, perhaps, he will have to rely on “force.”

Note also that while PZ Myers asserts that he is concerned with his fellow and equal human beings he supports the brutal murder of healthy, beautiful, innocent and defenseless human babies as he dehumanizes them by stating that “the pieces of the embryo or fetus” by which he means their mutilated corpses, are merely “beautifully patterned collections of differentiated cells”—in fact, according to materialism we are all and at any age nothing but “beautifully patterned collections of differentiated cells.”

Note that what set PZ Myers’ off against Mitch Daniels was this statement:

People who reject the idea of a God -who think that we’re just accidental protoplasm- have always been with us. What bothers me is the implications -which not all such folks have thought through- because really, if we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power.

And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth.

Of course, he does go on to state,

Everyone’s certainly entitled in our country to equal treatment regardless of their opinion. But yes, I think that folks who believe they’ve come to that opinion ought to think very carefully, first of all, about how different it is from the American tradition; how it leads to a very different set of outcomes in the real world.

PZ Myers wrote that “Skipping past the obvious falsehood in his comment”—which means I have no response—“Hitler was not an atheist.” Note that he does not deny that Stalin and Mao were atheists; he seems to have quite a bit over the Arizona Atheist in this regard. Incidentally, while I generally argue that Hitler was not, strictly speaking, an atheist (as I do here) is it a fact that Hitler’s biographer says of him and he is “a man who believed neither in God nor in conscience.”[2]

Now, is it “an absurd non sequitur to declare that awareness of our mortality leads directly to oppression and abuses of power and the selfish acquisition of power at any cost”? Perhaps, ultimately, as atheism does not necessarily necessitate “oppression and abuses of power and the selfish acquisition of power at any cost.”
However, the facts are the facts and the fact is that for one, studies consistently show that atheist are amongst the least charitable, personable, sociable and most unhealthy and depressed amongst us (evidence here) and as Vox Day notes:

Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things?
If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.[3]

I am certainly not envisaging PZ Myers as some sort of up and coming monarch yet, all he can do in promulgating his morality is either hoping for a “Be good for goodness’ sake” utopia or else enforce his morality via force.

As an aside, consider this example: when, for some odd reason, spitting in the faces of “religious” parents by referring to them as “child abusers,” “brainwashers,” etc. did not work, militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins hoped that interfering in those families “might lead children to choose no religion at all.”[4]
In this he saw place for “society stepping in”[5] and now they are piggy-backing on the United Nations as the
British Humanist Association stated, “The billboards are being unveiled to coincide with Universal Children’s Day, 20 November, which is the United Nations ‘day of worldwide fraternity and understanding between children.’”
This was in reference to the ads which read, “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself” (see here and here for my reworking of the ads)
Thus, from besmirching, to appealing to society, to appealing to the United Nations—from dehumanizing belligerence to force.

PZ Myers ends thusly:

my ideal society would not be led by an autocrat who thought power was a sufficient justification for his actions…nor do I think that a culture built around obedience to tradition, as interpreted by a tribunal of priests, is my idea of a desirable society. And I’m an atheist. Why would a mindless ratbag politician like Daniels think that my dream world would be led by a dictator? I get so tired of being told by the ignorant that my goal is to put a Stalin in power, when they dream of a Palin.

The bottom line is that PZ Myers missed the point entirely and thus, his entire post is fallacious. Mitch Daniels did not claim that an atheist’s “dream world would be led by a dictator” nor that their goal “is to put a Stalin in power.” The point is that, whether they want it or not, there are logical conclusions of atheism and the history of the 20th century are evidence of this as it was the most secular and bloodies century in human history due, almost exclusively, to atheist regimes.

Over all, indeed, PZ Myers is bombastic yet, by saturating his posts with fallacies of various sorts he succeeds in doing nothing but bombing his own assertions into smithereens.

[1] PZ Myers, “I’m so sorry for you, Indiana,” Pharyngula, December 27, 2009
[2] Richard Cavendish, The Powers of Evil in Western Religion, Magic and Folk Belief (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), p. 77-78
[3] Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, Inc., 2008), p. 241
[4] Richard Dawkins, “Now Here’s a Bright Idea
[5] During his interview with Gary Wolf, “The Church of the Non-Believers

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

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.

Brad Pitt – Is Religion the Pits?

Recent comments by Brad Pitt have left me wondering if he was joking or perhaps, how much he was joking about which parts of his comments.

During an interview with Ann Curry on the Today show he was asked about some New Orleans residents who are wearing “Brad Pitt for Mayor” t-shirts.

He responded “I don’t have a chance” because “I’m running on the gay marriage, no religion, legalization and taxation of marijuana platform.”

Why would be not have a chance?

A redefinition of marriage much needed taxes and the abolishment of religion-what is there not to like? Surely, Dan Barker and his Freedom From Religion Foundation (an organization that was founded in a country which was premised upon the concept of freedom of religious expression) would support him-after all, the closer it gets to years end the more Dan Barker considers his budget and begins to file lawsuit after lawsuit in order to play the victim-underdog-martyr and reap donations (the underdog how’s not under God– little dyslexia humor).

Also, Bill Maher asked Brad Pitt, “What is it about religion you don’t like?”

You know, I grew up in a religious family, in a religious community and it just doesn’t make sense to me. It just doesn’t work for me in the long run…

I never wanted to step on anyone else’s religion and their beliefs – that’s what’s great about our country – until I started seeing it defining policy…

Like gay marriage, you have a group of people telling other people how to live their lives, and you can’t do that…

I just say you have to, you really have to check what country you’re living in because the freedom that allows you to practice religion is the same freedom you’re stepping on. That’s not right. And I want to add that if there was a nation of gay married couples who were telling you you couldn’t practice your religion, I’d be speaking up for you too. So, let’s stop the nonsense.

Unfortunately, his statements are too brief and generic. For example, what does he mean by “religion”? Very many people I know who would be labeled as “religious” actually despise religion-count me in.

I, for one, grew up in a 100% secular family, in a secular community and it just doesn’t make sense to me. But there are a lot of true and evidenced things that, nevertheless, do not make sense to me.

That it does not work in the long run is also undefined: is he referring to epistemology, theology or divorcing his wife to shack up with his girlfriend?

He should consider that his freedom of speech is premised upon “religion” defining policy.

Next comes a self-defeating argument, “you have a group of people telling other people how to live their lives, and you can’t do that”-but what if I want to live a life wherein I tell other people how to live their lives? Now, Brad Pitt is telling me that I cannot do that. Yet, this is the very thing which he said we cannot do.
Moreover, there are certain concepts of marriage which any reasonable person would oppose surely, including Brad Pitt. For instance, in his personal life he seems to oppose one man and one woman together for life and until death. Yet, I am referring to concepts which are not solely related to his personal life but that of others which he would surely oppose.

He is quite reasonable is noting that “the freedom that allows you to practice religion is the same freedom you’re stepping on” and this is the very reason why in this great country some exercise the God premised freedom oppose it and some exercise the God premised freedom to support it. This is not nonsense but the manner in which a free country functions-not by Brad Pitt bequeathing that “you can’t do that,” “That’s not right” and “nonsense.”

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

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.

Sweet Home Chicago and Christians Studied

On the top of Sam Harris’ website’s current (at least as of 10-23-08) front page five articles are listed. One of them is Asking the Right God Questions by Gregory Rodriguez.

In a political season when we learn, as we have so many times before, that polls can be loaded so as to lean the results in a particular direction Sam Harris appears to have been impressed by the study discussed by Rodriguez as he writes:

“The fury of the debate between faith and atheism leaves little room for an inquiry as to why 90% of Americans say they believe in God or a supreme being and more than 40% say they attend religious services each week_

A new study out of Northwestern University_starts to provide data and insight_[about] why humans believe.
The study, by psychology professor Dan P. McAdams and researcher Michelle Albaugh, was aimed at finding out about the religious sources of political leanings. They interviewed 128 devout Christians in and around Chicago_

The study analyzes the results mostly in terms of political divisions_The political findings are intriguing, but not nearly as interesting as the way the question and the answers it elicited get at deeper, core issues. It appears that we do believe out of need, but it’s not, as Marx suggested, primarily because of material deprivation. Instead, it looks as if faith answers fear, and many different kinds of fear, which we can begin to delineate in some detail_”

The particular answers given to the questions are not the concern of this post-feel free to read the original article. Rather, what interested me is how this could even be considered a “study.”

“90% of Americans say they believe in God or a supreme being” and the study “interviewed 128 devout Christians in and around Chicago.” North Western University actually states, “The Northwestern University study sample included 128 highly religious and politically active Americans who attend church regularly.”

This is a study?

There are 305,482,700 Americans.

90% of that equals 274,934,430.

Thus, 128 individuals represent .00000004655655532120876966918950103532% (that is: point 00000004_) of the population in question (the 90%).

What about the 40% weekly religious service attendees?40% of that equals 122,193,080.

Thus, 128 individuals represent .00000010475224947271973175567716273295%.

A more accurate percentage could be derived if they provided the number of Americans whom they consider “highly religious and politically active Americans who attend church regularly.” In this way the derived percentage based on the 128 number would be more accurate although it would surely still be statistically insignificant.

Not only does the sample group represent a stunningly insignificant percentage of the population (or of the 90%) but it is a sample from a very limited locality.

If the study is considered to have provided any results at all they ought to be kept locked away in a folder until vast amounts of more research is done with which to correlate them.

More fascinating would be to learn how much this study cost, I attempted to ascertain this but have been unsuccessful. A “study” by a psychology professor and researcher who interviewed 128 people!?!?!
They could have conducted the “study” in one night whilst sipping lattes at a coffee shop.

I agree, “we learn a whole lot more if we just keep asking ourselves-in as many new ways as possible-why it is that so many of us feel compelled to pray.” And let us not forget to ask, “why it is that so many of us feel compelled not to pray.” Paul Vitz has provided some fascinating answers in his book, “Faith of the Fatherless.”

Perhaps, the good professor McAdams can stand outside of a screening of “Religulous” and ask a sample group of 3 atheists what their deal is-I’d fund that study for a peso.

The article on the North Western University’s News and Information website is even blunter in its conclusions, “Political conservatives operate out of a fear of chaos and absence of order while political liberals operate out of a fear of emptiness, a new Northwestern University study soon to be published in the Journal of Research in Personality finds.”

This, which appears to be the basic conclusion of the “study,” is a first-rate non sequitur: as Rodriguez puts it, “they asked their subjects to describe what their lives and the world would be like if they did not have faith” (whatever that means). Apparently, political conservatives think that it would result in lives/a world of chaos and absence of order and political liberals conceive operating out of a fear of emptiness. Yet, just because people believe that a life/would result does not mean that this is why they have “faith.”

Overall, I am simply not sure what the point is besides that highly religious and politically active Americans who attend church regularly are biting their fingernails off, and I am going off to become a professor-seems easy enough.