John Loftus on the Militant Christian, Militant Muslim and the Militant Atheist

It is interesting that at the same time that John Loftus is downplaying militant atheism, American Atheists’ Al Stefanelli is preaching brimstone and fire to his militant atheist choir, urging them to eradicate the doctrines of those who “want us to die.” He also states that “True Christians” commit murder, etc.

John Loftus posted the image which has been reposted at this link. The image depict the statements Militant Christian, Militant Muslim and Militant Atheist under which is, respectively (but not respectfully) photos which will be described below.

But what does this mean? Seems like the point is:

1. Militant Christians act and speak in direct violation of the Bible, in un-, non- and anti-Biblical manners. This would call into question whether they are even Christians as “you will know them by their fruit” and their fruit stinketh. Take the specific example of the group which is depicted in the photo who is a member of the Westboro “Baptist” “Church.”

The sign calls for prayer for more dead soldiers. Pray tell, how did John the Baptist and Jesus, for examples, deal with the oppressive, Pagan, Roman soldiers? They treated them like human beings. Jesus healed their family members and urged them toward moral behavior—see Luke 3:14, Matthew 8:5-13, et al.

As brother Marcus succinctly states it,

Anyone who would pray for or take joy in the death of anyone can’t be a consistent Christian. They ain’t following God!

2. Militant Muslims act and speak in direct agreement with the doctrine of abrogation which allows them to adhere to the Qur’an’s / Koran’s 109 war verses. They seek to murder men, women and children in masses whilst being cowardly enough to hide their faces (this one is holding both, a bazooka and a Qur’an / Koran).

atheism2c20communism2c20john20loftus-9948852

3. Militant Atheists, again judging from Loftus’ image choices, are pompous and arrogant, ignorant of theology, history and logic, tar their lungs and pickle their livers while making a living raging against a God in whom they do not believe. The photo is of Christopher Hitchens looking as cool as ever, smoking a cigarette and partaking in adult beverages.

Now, a key question is that as John Loftus appears to be condemning militancy in general and particularly paints Christian and Muslim militancy in a bad light up against the clever and harmless chap representing militant atheism: upon what basis does John Loftus condemn well, anything at all: meaning, upon what basis beyond his personal preferences which are themselves based on plagiarizing Judeo-Christian ethics?

The laws of physics? The laws of the majority de jour? Bio-chemical reactions in our haphazardly evolved gray matter? What?

Consider photo 1. again, this is a person who represent an astonishing minority, a “church” made up of a handful of family members. Such a photo only exists due to the media’s anti-Christian nature and due, indeed, to the church’s anti-Christian behavior. This is a perfect example of that which the prophet Samuel said to King David, “by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme” (2 Samuel 12:14).

Photo 2. represent a viable threat and it is a threat against which even the most self-professed brave New-celebrity-Atheists have done 100% of nothing. Which one of the celeb atheists has toured Muslim countries giving interviews, lectures, debating, writing books, etc. against Allah, Muhammad, the Qur’an / Koran, Islam and Muslims? Which one? None. They much prefer to sit within the safety, comfort and lucrativeness of the USA and the UK—countries premised upon Judeo-Christian values—and make their living by urging young rebellious children to confuse rightful rejection of “religion” with rejection of “God” via denying absolute ethics.

Photo 3. this is nothing but an embarrassment and John Loftus better hope that his readers are much younger and even more slothful about conducting research than he.

Let us grant him, at least for the sake of counter-argument, that Militant Christian and Militant Muslim are the real threat.

Here are some facts:

The Encyclopedia of Wars (New York: Facts on File, 2005) was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars.

The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD.

From over 10,000 years of war 123 wars, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars. Moreover, half of those were involved Islam.

Now, why did he not, for photo 3., use images of, say, Bolesław Bierut, Fidel Castro, Nicolae Ceausescu, Khorloogiin Choibalsan, Enver Hoxha, Vladimir Lenin, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Karl Marx, Ho Chi Minh, Robert Mugabe, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot (aka Saloth Sar), Joseph Stalin, Nur Muhammad Taraki, Mao Zedong, the leaders of the Maoist Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) rebels, to name a few.

His hoped for much younger and ignorant audience may not know this but—and they are certainly dogmatheistically urged to deny the facts of the matter when they find out about it—the twentieth century, not very long ago, was both the most secular and the bloodiest century in human history. And it was the bloodiest in human history because it was the most secular.

These were the true Militant Atheists who mass murdered millions upon millions, upon tens of millions, upon hundreds of millions, and here is the key, not during war time but of their very own people who where, according to their secular worldviews, nothing but bio-organisms who were either useful or not—“useless eaters.”

Youth, sloth, naivety, ignorance and a high regard for denying inconvenient truths may shrug off these facts but they are, nevertheless, facts.

For more on these issues see:

Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

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

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 out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Proving God's Existence

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

It is interesting to note that when having a theological discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness it is advisable to learn the particularities, and peculiarities, of their own version of the Bible. In this way they accept the premise form which you are arguing, they accept the source of authority from which you are making your arguments.

When having a discussion with Roman Catholics it is important to discuss church history, the apocrypha, the Papacy and various other issues of contention.

It would be presuppositional to quote the Bible to people who do not believe it to be authoritative. Although, I will make a presupositional statement and say that it is still worthwhile since God’s word has power and will not return void-but that is another issue.

The point is that we ought to engage people with a premise that they will accept, discuss issues that they will accept, and utilize materials that they will accept.

If someone told me, “I’m an atheist,” I would ask them, “Which denomination?” This is an odd enough question that should insight interest, as well as confusion. The confusion ought to heighten the interest and the interest ought to cause the posing of the logical question, “What on Earth are you talking about?” We have dealt with this issue in Atheism’s Sects.

That is a good place to start and do keep in mind that you should be prepared to answer any question that you yourself ask-anything could be turned around on you. In fact, keep in mind to turn around anything that is asked of you. There is a saying about good lawyers “They don’t exist!” Just kidding, the saying is “A good lawyer never asks a question that they don’t already know the answer to.” Certainly, some questions are to be asked simply in order to acquire information. Yet, the reason for asking questions that you already know the answer to is so that, having an approximation of what the answer will be, you can lead the discussion and be prepared with your own comment to their response. Again, keep in mind that this will be done to you as well.

Now to my advice about offering proof for God’s existence-do not offer any.

You must first ascertain what the atheist considers “proof.” This is what you must ask, “What do you consider proof when it comes to an issue such as God’s existence?” Ask them what they would consider clear, irrefutable, absolute proof.

Clearly, historical proofs are not applicable, except in the case of a historical discussion of the bibliography of the Bible. As a side note, keep in mind that if an atheist is questioning the Bible’s reliability you can simply grant to them that it is utterly unreliable and not God’s word. Why would you grant this? Because even if the Bible was utterly unreliable and not God’s word this would not mean that God does not exist. It may mean that Judaism and Christianity are false and that their theology is false but it would not discredit God’s existence by the least bit.

Scientific proofs are not applicable, except in the case of testing certain biblical statements over against scientific claims-the beginning of the universe, its composition of time, space and matter, its expansion, the Earth’s spherical form, its hanging on nothing, etc. Although, it is important to keep in mind that one ought never base one’s beliefs upon science because science is constantly changing (perhaps draw a distinction between hard and soft science-engineering versus speculative cosmology for instance).

Oddly enough, it may very well be that what the atheist would consider the best proof of God’s existence is actually the worse. And that the proof that a theist considers the worse is actually the best (at least, those who are involved in the real or intellectual argumentation).I have heard may atheists offer the opinion that the best, absolute, clear, irrefutable proof of God’s existence would be if God would personally appear to them (individually or appear to the whole world). Theists consider the worse proof to be personal experience with God (although it often is considered a proof).

It would be interesting to point this out to an atheist, “You are saying that the most convincing proof for God’s existence is a subjective experience. Yet, this is the same kind of experience that you reject when it is claimed by theists.” We have discussed this topic in our essay What Would Atheists Do If God Appeared To Them?.

Now to the point of claiming that we know God exists because we have had a personal experience with God-a personal relationship. This is thought to be the worse claim of proof since it is highly subjective. It certainly is, but it is the best argument to make in order to demonstrate atheism’s circular logic. The atheist will counter argue that this is no proof at all.
But the point is that the atheist does not believe that people have experiences with God because God does not exist and one way to know that God does not exist is that people do not have experiences with God. Yet, the only way that the atheist could know for certain that no one has ever had an experience with God is if they had a prior commitment to the idea that God does not exist. Either that, an a priori commitment, or they could personally investigate every single instance, regardless of chronology, geography or theology, of claims to personal experiences with God.

Atheists believe that 100% of people who claim to have had experiences with God have been 100% wrong 100% of the time. As we have stated, this is based on their dogmatic belief in the non-existence of God. Theists, Christians for instance, take a more liberal view of the many claims to experiences with God-some of them did and some of them did not. If, and the atheist will consider it a big “if,” but if, for instance, we could demonstrate the Bible’s reliability we could furthermore claim that if anyone claiming to have an experience with God goes against the Bible did not really have an experience with God. For example, Christians can look back at very dark periods in the history of Christendom and can condemn those actions as evil, immoral, unchristian, and unbiblical, by utilizing the Bible’s very own moral standards. The atheist can look back at very dark times when people who were atheists took political power and did very evil things. While the individual atheist can say that they personally did not like what those people did, or that those things were immoral, the atheist will have to borrow morality from a theistic system in order to condemn those actions (or simply fall back on their explanation for everything-morality just is). That is to say that they could not make an absolute statement about the absolute evil of any behavior.

Therefore, before offering anything as proof, ask for parameters. Then build off of what is offered. You may just end up demonstrating how what they consider the best proof is, in part, what has been offered for millennia.

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

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.

The National Secular Society and Malicious Atheist Activism at Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport

The latest follow up on the essay Freedom of Atheist Expression at “Liverpool’s John Lennon airport prayer room”??? is that the The National Secular Society is spinning like a top. They are attempting to paint the culprit as a martyr of persecution.

Fifty nine year old Harry Taylor found no other way in which to go about “simply challenging the views of others” than to leave “rude images in Liverpool Airport’s prayer room…images of important religious figures in sexual poses.”1

The National Secular Society decries the fact that he was released on bail and will be sentenced on 23 April as “draconian” because they claim that Taylor is being persecuted via a blasphemy law.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said the prosecution had brought blasphemy laws “in through the back door…This is a disgraceful verdict, but an inevitable one under this pernicious law. It seems incredible in the 21st Century that you might be sent to prison because someone is ‘offended’ by your views on their religion. The blasphemy law was abolished three years ago, but it lives on under the guise of religiously aggravated offences and is several times more dangerous. Mr Taylor struck me as slightly eccentric and he acted in a provocative way…In a multicultural society, none of us should have the legal right not to be offended. This law needs to be re-examined urgently.

The BBC did not actually specify under which law he is being charged. One may imagine that it had something to do with posting pornographic images in public. Note that Sanderson referenced his opinion—perhaps his desperate grasping at straws—that the blasphemy law was being brought in through the back door. It seems like a case of we have nothing to argue so we will imagine a problem so as to turn a childishly malicious atheist into a martyr.
“The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said it treated each case on an individual basis. A spokeswoman said: “All we can do is to look at each on its merits.”

Lewis Wolpert – Still a Child at Heart

Lewis Wolpert, author of Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief (reviewed here and here) is still a child at heart; at least as regards his atheism.

The cell biologist and vice president of the British Humanist Association has elucidated the reasonable reason which reasonably lead him to reason his way to atheism.

He has stated,

[I] stopped believing in God when I was 15 or 16 because he didn’t give me what I asked for.[1]

During an interview, he also stated:

I used to pray but I gave it up because when I asked God to help me find my cricket bat, he didn’t help.

When asked by Justin Brieley (Unbelievable show episode, “What Does Science Tell Us About God?”):

Right, and that was enough for you to prove that God did not exist.

He replied:

Well, yes. I just gave it up completely.

Certainly, this is the very opposite of a reasonable reason and yet, commensurate of a child’s reasons. Lewis Wolpert thus joins a long list of atheists who became atheists as children, for childish reasons and have not developed their reasons for rejecting God beyond a child’s level. But is that really so? Has Lewis Wolpert really not developed his rejection of God any further? Is he truly stagnant in this regards?

Perhaps not as he has, after all, continued rejecting God via a virtual one liner,

There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God.[2]

Thus, he has matured from rejecting God because God did not give him that for which he asked to actually taking into consideration every supposed evidence for God and finding it wanting—apparently. We should, at this juncture, note that Lewis Wolpert is of the Circularity School of Atheism which “reasons” thusly: there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God because God does not exist. We know that God does not exist because there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God. And there actually cannot be any, nothing will ever count as evidence, because God does not exist.

In fact, Tom Price authored the following succinct mock retelling of a debate that took place between Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig:

Craig: God exists, here is the evidence.
Wolpert: God doesn’t exist, there is no evidence.
Craig: God exists, here is the evidence.
Wolpert: God doesn’t exist, who made God?
Craig: God does exist, he is an uncaused eternal being. Here is the evidence.
Wolpert: God doesn’t exist. He hasn’t done anything in the last 2,000 years.
Craig: That’s chronological snobbery. You don’t tell the time with an argument, you don’t tell if an argument is true or false, of if evidence is good or bad with a watch.
Wolpert: God doesn’t exist. We believe because we have a notion of cause and effect, this leads to toolmaking, and also to belief in God.
Craig: That’s the genetic fallacy. To confuse the origin of a belief with its truth or falsity. You need to deal with the arguments and evidence that I have presented.
Wolpert: God doesn’t exist. There is no evidence. Who made God?
Craig: Here is the evidence. God is an uncaused being. God does exist.
Wolpert: God doesn’t exist. There is no evidence.
Craig: God does exist. Here is the evidence.

Apparently, the adult, mature and erudite Professor Wolpert now has a much more adult, mature and erudite reason for rejecting God, “There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God.” Now, note the response that Wolpert offered when he was asked the following question by Keith Ward,

Ward: What sort of evidence would count for you? Would it have to be scientific evidence of some sort?
Wolpert: Well, no… I think I read somewhere: If he turned the pond on Hamstead Heath into good champagne, it would be quite impressive…[3]

Well, what have we here? It turns out that the adult Wolpert is still “reasoning” like the child Wolpert.
The child rejected God because “he didn’t give me what I asked for” and the adult says “he didn’t give me what I asked for” when I wanted to see a pond turn into good champagne. It is still about what God will or will not do for the demanding Wolpert. This is a typical human error: we place ourselves in the position of making ourselves God’s god by demanding that He serve us and do what we please: He better! Or we will reject Him!

But what does “If he turned the pond on Hamstead Heath into good champagne” mean?
What if someone were to report to Lewis Wolpert that the pond turned into champagne? He may inspect the contents of the pond, determine that it was champagne but concoct a story about how someone could have drained the water and replaced it with champagne—the reported miracle would be denied.

Does it mean that Wolpert would examine the contents of the pond, determine that it contains only water, that there is not a champagne producer just uphill, would sit by, wait for the miracles and would thereafter inspect the pond again, etc. He may then become convinced of the occurrence of a miracle. This would convince him.

It would however, convince him despite materialistic explanations such as him experiencing a hallucination, manipulation by high-tech hologram projecting aliens, an rare and unexpected concoction of nature’s laws, the outworking on an as of yet unknown law of nature, or simply stating a tenet of dogmatheism: “we do not yet understand how it happened but as science develops we will surely find a materialistic explanation.”

This may be enough for him but what would he do next? Would he shout it from the rooftops? Well, in that case his claim may be denied by the next examiner who would concoct a story about how someone could have drained the water and replaced it with champagne—his report of a miracle would be denied.

Perhaps each person on Earth could make a demand and God would have to fulfill each and every request like a wish granting genie—my first wish is unlimited wished :o). Or perhaps, God would determine what is sufficient—such as oh, I don’t know the creation of the universe and everything in it including humans who reject him for not giving them what they want.

What else can we learn from Lewis Wolpert’s foundations for atheism? Even at the tender age of 15 or 16 he held to a very strict theology. All atheists are theologians—they hold, very rigidly to theologies, or atheologies, of their own authorship.

Wolpert’s theology declared that God would do what the young Lewis pleased. Since God did not do what the young Lewis pleased then, theo“logically,” God was not. Thus, God was rejected, as He often is, for violating a human’s concept of what God is and is not, does and does not do, should and should not, etc.

Moreover, note that atheists such as Lewis Wolpert do not exist in a vacuum. They do not come to ideas about what God does and does not do and only then emerge from their vacuums and take an unbiased look around to see if God is or is not doing thus and such. Rather, they become fairly certain of that which God does not do—such as granting a 15 or 16 whatever they ask (whatever that may have been)—and then, premised upon prior knowledge, determine that God is not.

Lastly, note that Lewis Wolpert a priori doubts his very own proposed theistic proofs. This is how the conversation between Wolper and Ward continued:

Wolpert: …If he turned the pond on Hamstead Heath into good champagne, it would be quite impressive . . .

Ward: A miracle would be sufficient?

Wolpert: But then you have to remember what David Hume said, that you wouldn’t believe in a reported miracle unless “the falsehood of [the] testimony would be more miraculous than the event which [it] relates.”

Ward: It’s one of his worst arguments, in my view.

Wolpert: Hume is the only philosopher I take seriously. I’m big against philosophy.[4]

Thus, evidence of God would be a miracle such as turning water into good champagne. But then, as I noted above, he would deny the very miracle which he himself suggested would constitute evidence of God’s existence. Therefore, Lewis Wolpert is a dogmatheist who will not allow even the possibility of considering that anything at all could, would or should count as evidence of God’s existence.

Overall, we seem to have gotten a fascinating window into the heart and mind of someone who rejected God due to selfish and childish reasons and has subsequently merely sought further un-matured reasons for continuing to justify their rejection of God. God answers all prayers by either saying “Yes” or “No” (and/or “Wait”). Many of you will know to be thankful for “unanswered” prayer as you look back and realize that you were being hasty, selfish, misunderstood the situation that caused you to pray in the first place, etc.

[1] Lewis Wolpert, “The Hard Cell,” Third Way, March 2007, p. 16
[2] Ibid., p. 17
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.

Sceptics's Guide to Atheism

[Note: I am reposting this as I have to move it from whence it was originally posted long ago]

Hereinafter is an interview with philosopher, apologetics researcher, lecturer and author Peter S. Williams—author of Sceptics’s Guide to Atheism: God is Not Dead (and other titles)—by the Evangelical Philosophical Society.1

An audio interview with Peter about his new book can be downloaded by clicking here.

What is unique about your book compared to other critical treatments on the “new atheists”?

The new atheism is characterised by the propositions that belief in God is false and evil. The new atheists believe that at the core of even the most outwardly benign theism is an immoral commitment to flouting one’s intellectual responsibilities. That means that the new atheism presupposes both an account of rationality and an account of morality. What’s unique about my book is that I examine those accounts and turn the results of this analysis against the new atheism. By systematically reviewing their major arguments, I show how the new atheism is grounded in incoherent accounts of knowledge and morality.

It’s not just that the new atheists are wrong to define ‘faith’ as ‘belief without evidence’ or ‘belief against the evidence’. It’s that their positive account of what it means to live up to one’s intellectual responsibilities is self-contradictory. I counter with an epistemology that isn’t self-contradictory, which frowns upon both ‘blind faith’ and belief despite overwhelming counter evidence, but which opens up the possibility of a faith in God that’s compatible with living up to one’s genuine intellectual responsibilities.

Then again, the new atheists put a lot of emphasis on arguments against belief in God, as opposed to arguments against the existence of God, and these arguments all have a moral dimension. For example, the argument that faith means being committed to ignoring one’s intellectual responsibilities presupposes that we have an objective moral responsibility to reason in a certain way. However, for the new atheists to invoke objective moral responsibilities is self-contradictory, since the naturalistic worldview of the new atheism excludes the reality of any objective moral values. For example, Dawkins says both that there are no normative facts, no good, no evil, and that faith is an evil that leads people to do evil things. These claims form an in consistent set.

Of all the different new atheist voices that are out there, who do you find to be the most compelling in their case against the existence of God?

Dawkins makes the most compelling case against the truth of belief in God; but that’s partly because, despite being such a poor logician, he is a good rhetoritician, and partly because the other new atheists are even worse on this issue! The God Delusion was the first new atheist book I read, and I thought at the time that it was a low point for atheistic apologetics. Dawkins clearly doesn’t even understand the theistic arguments he critiques, and his book is consequently full of embarrassing errors. When it comes to his ‘central’ argument against theism, it turns out to be an exercise begging the question. Dawkins’ engagement with natural theology is a litany of formal and informal logical fallacies; but he’s a zoologist and not a philosopher. I expected more from new atheists who are philosophers, and I was disappointed to discover that Dawkins is actually the high water mark for new atheist engagement with the question of God’s existence!

The new atheists spend very little time arguing against the existence of God, or trying to counter the arguments for God’s existence. Dawkins’ is the most sustained effort on offer. Dennett’s Breaking the Spell is crucially predicated upon the non-existence of God, but he only spends eleven paragraphs (from pages 240-245) on this issue! Like his compatriots, Dennett skims over straw-man presentations of a small sub-set of theistic arguments which he dismisses using long discredited counter-arguments.

Anyone who didn’t know better and was inclined to trust what the new atheist’s say would come away from their books with the false impression that the cosmological argument depends upon the premise that ‘everything has a cause’ (thus leading to the question ‘Who made God?’), and that the moral argument claims that people can’t discern or behave in accordance with the good unless they believe in God (or in the Bible as the inspired word of God). As far as I’m concerned, that’s an academic scandal.

What are some of the sociological, cultural-historical or philosophical factors that have empowered the new atheism to emerge now compared to, say, fifty years ago?

I think the explanation is multi-factorial. The terrorist attacks of September 2001 clearly put the issue of religiously motivated violence smack in the centre of Western public consciousness; but I don’t think we can simply point the finger at the actions of a certain type of Muslim and say that the new atheism is a secular reaction to their actions. For one thing, Christians shouldn’t let themselves off the hook here. Many atheists have legitimate cause to feel themselves an oppressed minority. In 2006 researchers at the University of Minnesota identified atheists as America’s most distrusted minority, and the American Sociological Review reported that it is generally thought socially acceptable in America to say that you are intolerant of atheists. I think that the Church must ask itself if it is ‘speaking the truth’ to atheists ‘in love’, or in fear and hate? Perhaps we’ve had a hand in creating a stick with which to beat out own backs.

Another factor is the way in which the new atheism offers an apparently meaningful and purposeful existence to its converts. Materialism is the metaphysics of nihilism par excellence (cf. my book I Wish I Could Believe in Meaning: A Response to Nihilism) but the new atheism dresses itself up in fake robes of meaning and purpose, like the fairy-tale about the Emperor’s New Clothes. The fake meaning comes in the guise of moral outrage at the (generalised) behaviour of theists. The fake purpose comes in the form of an intellectual-cum-socio-political crusade against theistic belief and for a metaphysically naturalistic worldview. The ‘new atheism’ thus offers an apparently valuable meaning and purpose to people’s lives, a daring intellectual identity and a community of like-minded fellow-pilgrims. And the Emperor’s new tailor appeared to offer him the finest new robes…

Where do you think the discussion is going between new atheists and theists in the years to come?

I suspect that the new atheism has already had its cultural hay-day. It has now lost something of that ‘lure of the new’ to which our media-saturated culture is so in thralled, and it seems unlikely that Dawkins et al can sustain their movement’s momentum even if they manage to write a new set of books to keep their ideas in the public eye.

Nevertheless, significant numbers of people have been profoundly influenced by the new atheism. If there’s one thing to be said for the new atheism it is that antipathy towards Christianity is better than apathy; and the new atheism means Christians will meet more antipathy, albeit an intellectually under-resourced antipathy. Christians must ‘speak the truth in love’ to those influenced by the new atheism, engaging them with the real reasons for the hope that we have (rather than the straw-men boldly eviscerated by Dawkins et al), but also engaging with them on a personal level as friends whom Christ loves. If the new atheism can lead to more disagreements that are not disagreeable, then it may be a blessing in disguise!

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

For a taste of Peter William’s philosophic stylings I recommend reading his, Sorting the Chaff from the Wheat – A Review of Julian Baggini’s Atheism: A Very Short Introduction

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

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 out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Atheism, #ChristianApologetics, #Books
Facebook: #Atheism, #ChristianApologetics, #Books

Positive Atheism – Cliff Walker : Weak Bible Week Poster, part 4 of 7

Children: Beatings, Stubbornness, Mockers and Sacrifice:In the section entitled “Children” we are told “Beatings don’t kill kids” (Proverbs 23:13). I suppose that, logically, if a beating does not kill a kid then a beating did not kill a kid. Let us keep in mind that when reading, quoting and interpreting the book of Proverbs we are dealing with, you guessed it, proverbs. A “proverb” is “a pithy maxim, usually of a metaphorical nature; hence a simile (as an adage, poem, discourse): a byword, like, parable, proverb, an aphorism, a similitude.” To begin with spanking, even with a switch or “rod” is a tool that many parents have found useful. Yet, we must recall what a proverb is. For instance, the beginning of ch. 23 states:

“When you sit down to eat with a ruler, look carefully at what is before you; and put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite. Do not desire his delicacies, for they are deceitful food”

Yet, there is no indication of Jews wearing knives so that they could hold them to their own throats in case they were called in to dine with a ruler-this is a proverb.
Ultimately, we must keep in mind that the historical context informs us that this was a culture well acquainted with shepherds. Consider Psalm 23, “The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want_” Shepherds utilized two basic tools: the staff and rod. The staff was used to guide the sheep and the rod was used to fight off predators and to break the legs of the sheep who had a tendency to stray. The rod was thus used to drive away destructive evils-the predators, and to bring intimacy-while the sheep’s leg was healing the shepherd would carry it on his back and thus build a bond that the sheep would not break again.

The next subsection on children states “Execute stubborn kids” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). This is certainly a favorite text from which the pseudo-skeptic builds enormous edifices of un-historical, un-contextual mockery. Notice Cliff Walker’s conveniently selective quotation:

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son…Then shall his father and his mother…bring him out unto the elders of his city…And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.” [ellipses in poster]

He not only manipulates the text but fails to consider other texts that deal with the same issue. He is pushing the idea that stubborn kids are summarily executed. However the text actually explains what their stubbornness entails:

Verse 18 “_stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them.”
Verse 20 refers to the son as “stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.”

It is fascinating to note that when Prof. Richard Dawkins mentioned this text he referred to “disobedient children.”1 When Sam Harris mentioned it he referred to children who “talk back to us.”2 But, considering the immediate and greater context we note that the Bible refers to 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). Thus, we are not dealing with little Johnny who refuses to put his toys away. Rather, the references are not to a little child but to someone who is stubborn in their rebellious, disobedience and is violently drunk to the point that they beat up their very own parents, lives off of their hard work in a gluttonous manner, then curses them, and has already been chastened. Moreover, stoning offenses does 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. For instance, reference to the two or three witnesses that were required are 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.
Furthermore, the Talmud (Sandedrin 71a) basically makes the point that such severe restrictions were placed on these commandments that “There never was, and never will be, a wayward and defiant son” or “stubborn and rebellious son.” Actually, Cliff Walker is well aware of this as he wrote, “The Pharisees, to their credit, interpreted this law so that it would be almost impossible to carry out_ I have not studied any era of Christian history where the orders of either Moses or Jesus were invoked to justify the execution of one’s own son!”3 However, and of course, he also condemns the interpretation, as I discuss in another essay that I wrote responding to Cliff Walker, which is entitled, Relative Ethics and Absolute Condemnations.

Next is “Kids killed for mocking hero” (2nd Kings 2:23-24) quoted as:

“Some small boys came out of the city and jeered at [the prophet Elisha], saying, ‘Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!’ And _he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore fortytwo of the boys.”

There is much implied in these two verses and much to be gleaned. The term used to denote the mockers refers to significance, importance as well as stature or age. They were in some sense lesser than Elisha in either social standing, stature, age or any combination thereof. Based on various Old Testament references, the mockers were between 12 and 30 years old (Isaac in his early twenties Genesis 22:12; Joseph seventeen yrs Genesis 37:2; army men between twelve and thirty 1st Kings 20:14-15). Elisha is likely to have been near their age. Elisha had just demonstrated his willingness, and miraculous ability, to help the needy as God’s representative. This event took place somewhere between Bethel and Jericho where Baal was worshipped. A large gathering of young men may denote that they were some sort of what we would term, gang. Elisha could have been bald(ing?) for various reasons including purposeful shaving as a sign of grief over Elijah’s departure (assumption into heaven). They may have been mocking his grief and telling him to get lost or, from their perspective, die. In any regard, there are various ways to look at this event. One is that of the social order of the day, a social order that was difficult to establish considering the occasional tendency of the Israelites to worship false gods. Another, and one that relates, is something quite foreign to us moderns and that is honor and respect. The gang of young men was besmirching the God of the Bible and His prophet in a land overrun with the worship of false gods who demanded human sacrifice among other “sacraments.” I understand that none of this will seem the least bit relevant when compared to the emotionally charged gut reaction that the pseudo-skeptic, and even believer, may feel. Some appear to be of the opinion that God is the ultimate pushover whom we ought to slap around at will and have His only response be, “Oh, come on guys.”

Our attention is next drawn to the idea that “God orders child sacrifice” (Genesis 22:1-2). The reference is to God asking Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt offering. This comment is either a scholarly hoax or the utter bankruptcy of what Cliff Walker has to offer in the way of biblical criticism. Cliff Walker neglects not only to understand the text but he again neglects historical/cultural context. The text states that God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son and then told him not to do it. Why? Did God change His mind? In Abraham’s time human/child sacrifice was a common commandment of various gods. The God of the Bible was making it clear that He did not want, and would not accept, human/child sacrifice. This is why Jews, Christians (and by extension, Muslims) have never offered human/child sacrifices to the God of the Bible (and by extension, the Qur’an). I also dealt with Prof. Richard Dawkins’ mishandling of this text in my essay, Planting God More Firmly on His Throne, part 8 of 10.

Wait just a moment because next up in Cliff Walkers poster is, “Daughter: a burnt offering” (Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39). I dealt with this text in quite a bit of detail in the aforementioned essay in part 9 of 10. The bottom line is that the text does not seem to state anything about Jephthah sacrificing his daughter and if he did, his actions were condemned annually (I also discuss this further in Relative Ethics and Absolute Condemnations).

If you are interested in a more detailed handling of human/child sacrifice in general see the section entitled “Child Sacrifice: Sanctioned and “the right thing to do”?” in my essay, Dan Barker’s Scriptural Misinterpretations and Misapplications.

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

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.

“The Dawk Pieper,” Richard Dawkins, at it again

For some reason old news is new news when Richard Dawkins continues to insist that he knows how to raise your child better than you.
In “Dawkins: Faith schools are child abuse” Ian Dunt reports something that could escape notice, two objections to the article by commentators:
Why is Richard Dawkins described as an ‘infamous’ atheist?…
What do you mean by describing Professor Dawkins as “the infamous athiest [sic] and scientist,” Mr Dent [sic]? Why, “Infamous” exactly? Betraying some prejudice of your own, perchance? Well, let us get to the rather short article and see if we may discern a reason or two:

Some faith schools constitute an act of child abuse because of the way they rid children of freedom, Professor Richard Dawkins has said.

Speaking at a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrat Conference in Bournemouth, the famous atheist and scientist told delegates that it was unacceptable to indoctrinate children into any religion or belief system.
“I’m in favour of religious education,” he said, responding to a question from the audience.
“I’m in favour of children learning about religion and its role in history.
“What I’m passionately against is indoctrination. That is wicked, that is evil, that is child abuse,” he continued.
“You would never describe a child as a Keynesian child, but we all ascribe to this anomaly where religion can be hung round the neck of a child.”
Professor Dawkins was promoting his new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, at an event organised by the British Humanist Association (BHA).
To the interested reader: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution has been commented on here. Various such notions as those expressed by Richard Dawkins have been dissected, discredited and corrected various times and in various ways—see:
Atheist Child Rearing richard20dawkins2c20atheism2c20the20pope2c20true20freethinker-5041878

Now, the article does not refer to Richard Dawkins as “infamous” but as “famous.”
This author himself has some form of (self-diagnosed) dyslexia and this makes him empathetic to a person reading “infamous” for “famous.” One may even understand two people doing it.

But what one cannot understand—and the quotes were in their entirety for both comments—is that if one refers to Richard Dawkins as “infamous” then my oh my, it is the makings of outrage, it is prejudice!
Yet, Richard Dawkins referring to religious schools as wicked, evil and child abuse is simply erudite elucidations.

As has been demonstrated time and time again:
1) Richard Dawkins does not seem to consider that referring to children by their parent’s religion is a cultural phenomenon and not a theological one.

2) That therefore, religions have specific ceremonies for the child turn adolescent or adult makes their own decision to actually become part of the religion.

3) That Richard Dawkins asks whether there is “something to be said for society stepping in”[1] to stop you from raising your children ———according to your faith.

4) Lastly, that his ultimate goal is not merely the liberation of children from those wicked, evil and child abusing schools and parent but that his interference “might lead children to choose no religion at all.”[2]

So go on and be the human shield in front of Richard Dawkins, even when nothing was fired at him except your own misreading, and express all of the outrage that you wish. But in the meanwhile more and more sensible atheists are shunning the New Belligerent Atheists.

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

[1] Gary Wolf, “The Church of the Non-Believers,” Wired Magazine
[2] Richard Dawkins, Now Here’s a Bright Idea

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

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 out. 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.

Twitter: #RichardDawkins, #Atheism
Facebook: #RichardDawkins, #Atheism