TrueFreeThinker

Let us face the fact that The God Delusion is a great book.

It is a great book if you want to witness the utter bankruptcy of Atheist apologetics.

It is great for a window into how very, very popular one can get even whilst basing arguments on poor history, poor logic, poor science and poor biblical hermeneutics.

Great for seeing how a scientist can actually appeal to “luck” in order to explain life and the universe itself.

It is actually a great heuristic device as you can learn a lot by correcting its very, very, very, very many fallacies as you go (see here, here and here for examples).

This was supposed to be Richard Dawkins’ magnum opus which he said would cause people to become atheists by the time they read it, then he downgraded it to being useful in appealing to fence sitters (see here) and finally, he said that it was a funny and amusing book (see here and here).

The entire text is available online and the great thing is that you can use the Ctrl+f function on your keyboard to search it. So, for instance, if you want to see how ignorant he is about Adolf Hitler and Nazism and see how he correlated anyone with whom he disagrees (see here) with Hitler and Nazism you can search for those terms (and search “Neville Chamberlain” as he thinks that not being as extremist about evolution as he is, is tantamount to acquiescing to Hitler).

You can find the free e-book online at this link.

Was the Bible’s character Samson buff? Was he a hulking bodybuilder-like individual?

The question may see irrelevant but it seems to me to cut to the core of distinguishing between what the Bible says about him (and others?), on the one hand, and what we make of him (and others?).

Certainly, we seem to tend to picture him as a big, tall, muscular, macho guy with an all around impressive physique. Most illustrations of him—from film to paintings and cartoons—do depict him as such. Yet, how did we end up with this idea of Samson?

The Bible states nothing about his physical appearance other than he wore long hair; until Delilah cut it. His hair bring us to another very, very important point about Samson: it seems to be ubiquitously claimed that Samson’s impressive strength was due to his hair. Was it?

What his physique was like and what his hair had to do with it brings us to the disparity between what the Bible is telling us about him, and his life-story, and what we make of it which turns out to be a mere characterization.

Now, I do not propose to review or write a commentary of the entire book in which Samson appears—Judges ch. 13-16—but only seek to elucidate the questions at hand.

If I saw a hulk-like individual performing feats of strength I may be amazed at their having developed such a physique and strength but the feats would not be surprising as the physique and strength would lend themselves to the feats.

So, what about his hair? Let us consider Samson’s birth:

Now there was a certain man from Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren and had no children. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Indeed now, you are barren and have borne no children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. Now therefore, please be careful not to drink wine or similar drink, and not to eat anything unclean. For behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. And no razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.”

Thus, he wore his hair long because he was to be a Nazirite to God. What is a Nazirite?

When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD, he shall separate himself from wine and similar drink; he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins. All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, from seed to skin. All the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD, he shall be holy. Then he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow (see Numbers Ch. 6).

The regulations go on from there.

Thus, from his birth, Samson was appointed as having a special purpose. His long hair signified this purpose, this mission, this vow. His strength came about due to his having the purpose/mission/vow which was to be a “judge” of Israel. We learn that Samson’s mother “…bore a son and called his name Samson; and the child grew, and the LORD blessed him. And the Spirit of the LORD began to move upon him…”

We learn that Samson fell in love with a woman of the Philistines—much to the chagrin of his parents as he had not chosen a nice Jewish girl (my grandmother asked me if my girlfriend/fiance/spouse was Jewish as did my childhood friends’ Jewish grandma)—and we learn that according to God’s plan Samson was to have done so because he was supposed to get involved with the Philistines and this “was of the LORD—that He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines. For at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.” Philistine oppression of Israel was due come to an end.

On one occasion, “a young lion came roaring against him. And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and he tore the lion apart as one would have torn apart a young goat, though he had nothing in his hand.” In such occasion we see that his physique, his physical strength was not the reason for, not the cause of, his strength.

Likewise, on another occasion we learn that, “Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, and he went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty of their men.”

Another time when Samson was tied up “with two new ropes” awaiting arrest by the Philistines, “the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him; and the ropes that were on his arms became like flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds broke loose from his hands. He found a fresh jawbone of a donkey, reached out his hand and took it, and killed a thousand men with it.”

We find that the Gazites surrounded the place where Samson was “and lay in wait for him all night at the gate of the city.” This time Samson, “took hold of the doors of the gate of the city and the two gateposts, pulled them up, bar and all, put them on his shoulders, and carried them to the top of the hill that faces Hebron.” It is not specified that he got the strength to do this from the Spirit. Based on context perhaps he did. Perhaps he did not. And perhaps he was buff but again; it would not be particularly impressive if he was.

In any case, his life is as much a story of Israel getting out from under their oppressors as it as a story about a born hero who ends up taking a downward spiral as he compromised again and again and again. This is one of the beauties of the Bible, the Bible’s realism, that it paints even its heroes with warts and all and for millennia lays out their flaws for all to see right along of their triumphs.

We find that Samson “loved a woman in the Valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah. And the lords of the Philistines came up to her and said to her, ‘Entice him, and find out where his great strength lies, and by what means we may overpower him, that we may bind him to afflict him.’” This is how it comes about that she asks Samson and he gives her false answers three times so that when they come to seize him, he overcomes them. When this first occurs it is stated, “So the secret of his strength was not known.” Finally, it is stated—in what one does not know if to say is flowery or all too realistic language—:

…she pestered him daily with her words and pressed him, so that his soul was vexed to death, that he told her all his heart, and said to her, “No razor has ever come upon my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb. If I am shaven, then my strength will leave me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man”…[they proceeded to] shave off the seven locks of his head…and his strength left him…he awoke from his sleep, and said, “I will go out as before, at other times, and shake myself free!” But he did not know that the LORD had departed from him. Then the Philistines took him and put out his eyes, and brought him down to Gaza. They bound him with bronze fetters, and he became a grinder in the prison. However, the hair of his head began to grow again after it had been shaven.

Note the combination of factors relating to his hair and his strength: if his head was shaved his strength would leave me; and so his strength did reside, as it were, in his hair. Yet, when his head was shaved, “the LORD had departed from him” and we know that God’s Spirit had given him his strength. But later his hair began to grow again which brings us to the next event.

Let us pause here to note that there was nothing magical about his hair. His hair was tied up with his strength in that it signified, was symbolic of, stood for, was a public sign that, he had a special purpose commensurate with his vow as a Nazirite. When he had compromised again and again and again until his head is shaved it demonstrated that he had finally broken his vows, neglected his divine calling, in a manner of speaking, and thus, having turned away from God, God now turns away from him. His strength left him when the LORD left him and the LORD left him when he reached a point of leaving the LORD, the LORD’s purpose for him.

Samson’s story ends in a tragic victory:

Now the lords of the Philistines gathered together to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god, and to rejoice. And they said:

“Our god has delivered into our hands Samson our enemy!”

When the people saw him, they praised their god; for they said:

“Our god has delivered into our hands our enemy, The destroyer of our land, And the one who multiplied our dead.”

So it happened, when their hearts were merry, that they said, “Call for Samson, that he may perform for us.” So they called for Samson from the prison, and he performed for them. And they stationed him between the pillars. Then Samson said to the lad who held him by the hand, “Let me feel the pillars which support the temple, so that I can lean on them.” Now the temple was full of men and women. All the lords of the Philistines were there—about three thousand men and women on the roof watching while Samson performed.
Then Samson called to the LORD, saying, “O Lord GOD, remember me, I pray! Strengthen me, I pray, just this once, O God, that I may with one blow take vengeance on the Philistines for my two eyes!” And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars which supported the temple, and he braced himself against them, one on his right and the other on his left.

Then Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!”

And he pushed with all his might, and the temple fell on the lords and all the people who were in it. So the dead that he killed at his death were more than he had killed in his life. And his brothers and all his father’s household came down and took him, and brought him up and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol in the tomb of his father Manoah. He had judged Israel twenty years.

Note that his hair had grown again which signified his renewed vows, as it where, and he calls upon the LORD for strength once more.

Thus, we see that his physique had nothing to do with it, his personal strength that is, and his hair is tied up into the concept of his strength as symbolic of his walking with God, fulfilling God’s purpose, keeping his vow.

I would love to see a play or movie about Samson wherein he is played by an actor who is a scrawny, skinny, little, pencil-neck geek in order to emphasize these points. It was not about physical strength and hair but about walking with the LORD.

The company “Steam” has produced a perverted survival style game called “Rust” which includes a feature which randomly makes a player’s character male or female this is even though 95% of Steam gamers are male. Wait, what?!?! Only those two?!?! This is gender binary tyranny?!?!

Rust game developers noted, “We understand this is a sore subject for a lot of people. We understand that you may now be a gender that you don’t identify with in real-life. We understand this causes you distress and makes you not want to play the game anymore…The only difference is that whether you feel like this is now decided by your SteamID instead of your real life gender.”

The moderators of the Games subreddit have censored many comments regarding this issue which means that a game which includes nudity (for example, the game selects the size of your schmekel for you at random) find certain statements in opposition to transgender / transsexual propaganda to be much too much.

They previously had issue with a certain oddity as game developer Garry Newman puts it, “A man’s voice coming out of a woman’s body is no more weird than an 8 year-old boy’s voice coming out of a man’s body” all of which occurred during the Pavlovian mind control programming—I mean game, yeah, it’s, like, just a game and stuff.

Herein we will consider when and why certain personages became Atheists. We will parse these into Statistics, Influential Atheists, Ex-Catholics, Ex-Hindus and Hoi Polloi Atheists. As of now, I list the tales of 107 Atheists. You can find them all at the When and Why They Became Atheists Project page.

These examples are taken from Quora.

Sreehari Km:
Notes, “I was born as a Hindu. I was taken to temples and used to celebrate religious festivals. When I was 9, I used to attend the service in a church every sunday, mostly because my friend was going there.”

Main points:
Timeline implies circa 12-13 yrs old.

Was “about 12 or 13 when…I tried to find answers” for, for example, why “500,000 kids below age 5 die of hunger and poverty. Natural disasters, terrorist and racist acts, diseases- there were many things which i could not digest.”
They will claim that this has something to do with God not existing and yet, Atheism leaves them with only the ability to assert that they have decided to subjectively and emotively condemn kids dying of hunger and poverty, natural disasters, terrorist and racist acts, diseases, etc. since on Atheism these things just are amoral brute factoids.

Basically, Sreehari jumps from condemning God for one reason, then the opposite reason and basically damned if God does and damned if God does not, “tried to relate it to god and his power” if “there is no devil/satan. Then logically these acts are done by god” then “let us assume there was a devil” then maybe “we were born with innate sin. Why did god let us sin in the first place. Is he f***ing gambling with our lives?”

Sreehari then merely subjectively asserts without an argument that “Eternal life, multiple lives etc do not make sense to me” which is simply irrelevant.
Sreehari then falls for a very an Atheist assertion that is a popular as it is fallacious, “i want to do good, i will- for the satisfaction and happiness i get out of it. I do not do it for the virgins after my death or to make my life better…” 1) note the selfish nature of the motivation as it is not to do good because others need good done to them but to do good “for the satisfaction and happiness i get out of it” and 2) Sreehari is condemning alternate motivations (whether we agree that wanting virgins in the afterlife is vice or virtue).

Based on such a selfish view of doing good Sreehari then essentially concludes that if the latter motivation is the case then it would mean something to the likes of that “god is the head in a supermarket where you pay him to make your life better.” Well, speaking biblically, God’s grace is a free gift thus, we pay nothing as it is priceless.

Len Gould:
Sadly, this one is very short and based on mere generic assertions, “I grew up in a fairly strongly Anglican family. By middle-school I had accumulated enough astronomy knowledge to realize that it directly contradicted the bible’s writings” but does not state how or why yet, “By 15 I was a certain atheist but not anti-religious.”

Main points:
15 yrs old.

Concludes by simply stating, “Then I started reading history” and leaving it at that.

Andrew Stein:
Simply wrote, “Raised without religion. I can not remember a time when anything about religion ever made sense to me” as if that which subjectively makes sense to him has anything to do with reality. As I have noted time and time and time again simply noting that something does not make sense to you it not an argument, not evidence and thus, not relevant.

Karl Mochel:
States that he “Believes in a lack of belief” which I believe as lack of belief is indeed, not a lack of belief but a belief. Karl seems to merely copy and paste from what another Atheist stated and the statement is from someone who came to very firm conclusions based on utter miscomprehensions, misunderstandings, mistakes, misinformation, etc.

Karl writes, “From the site Letters of Note: Why I am an Atheist” and pastes a statement from which I will glean.

“Because it has dawned upon me that it is right to be so, and upon investigation I find no real evidence of the divine origin of the scriptures” which was “Written by a lot of priests, I cannot accept a salvation that is based wholly upon the dreams of an ancient and superstitious people, with no proof save blind faith.” This seems like elephant hurling as it dawned on whomever Karl is quoting “upon investigation” but by what means is not stated. Thus, they “find no real evidence” but we know not where they have even looked. Thus, take my word for it, I investigated it in some unstated reason—period. Now, as far as I know, the only priest to write anything in the Bible was Joshua. This person is merely asserting a conspiracy theory about some unspecified smoky backrooms some unspecified priests wrote that Bible at some unspecified time.

Based on such vague assertions, this person declares “I cannot accept a salvation that is based wholly upon” and here comes a typical Atheist logical genetic fallacy, “the dreams of an ancient and superstitious people” whom, recall it has merely been asserted had “no proof save blind faith.”

This person also wrote, “because I cannot, as a refined and respectable woman, take to my bosom as a daily guide a book of such low morals and degrading influences” but does not bother stating to what “morals” or influences” she is referring to nor upon what standards she declares herself “respectable” or how she defines, “morals.” The fact is that clearly, Karl is quoting this in an utterly un-skeptical manner and likely accepting it on “no proof save blind faith.”

She also asserts that “It is ignorance of the scientific working of their own natures and mind that keep so much ‘mystery’ in the air; and as long as there is a mystery afloat the people will ascribe it to the supernatural.” This is merely playing the scientism card and she will never have to give up this merely claim since it is unlikely that we will ever scientifically discern everything about everything. It is frustrating dealing with such unspecific jumpers to conclusion as for example, she notes that she is “an Atheist because I know the Bible will not do to depend upon. I have tried it, and found it wanting” but says nothing about what this is supposed to mean.

Now, there is one specific point and yet it defeats itself as she writes, “In fact, I found in the scriptures the origin of woman’s slayer” whatever that means, “and that it was one of God’s main points to oppress women and keep them in the realms of ignorance.” Well, someone kept her in ignorance and it must have be she herself as she claims to have tried the Bible and found it wanting yet, utterly misrepresent its view on women—which begins by affirming that women were created in God’s image. The reason I noted that this defeats itself is that as an Atheist, she can no longer condemn woman slaying, oppression of women, keep them ignorant, etc. on any basis but the one they have appealed to the whole time which is merely the unsubstantiated expressions of emotions and not reason, logic, philosophy, science, etc.

Ah but, not so fast as she does, in the end, reveal her standards in writing, “I am in the ranks of Liberalism because of its elevating principles, its broad road to freedom of thought, speech, and investigation.” A but, no so fast as this is just as vague as anything else that was stated since we are authoritatively told that “Liberalism” whatever that means pertains to “elevating principles” but we are not told how nor what they are and that “its broad road” may be true as “wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:13-14).
Lastly, again and again and again it is merely authoritatively asserted that whatever “Liberalism” is and however it pertains to “elevating principles” is that which leads to “freedom of thought, speech, and investigation” and we are not even told upon what premise we are to think that freedom of thought, speech, and investigation” are virtues. Note that this is not to say that they are not but that it is one vague assertion after another.

Omorogbe Usuomon:
This is a one paragraph statement and begins with a very good and biblically solid point, in a manner of speaking, “I was born a Christian (to a Christian family, clearly babies have no religious affiliation no matter what anyone says).” Well, I am unsure who claims that babies have “religious affiliation” but no one is “born a Christian” which is why we must be born again (John 3:3-7).

Omorogbe also notes, “At a very young age, I realised I didn’t pay much heed to Christianity” as if that to which Omorogbe subjectively paid heed to is any sort of argument, evidence or standard.
Lastly, “as you expose yourself to reading books on Science you begin to realise the folly of many religious beliefs” while this is true of “many” such beliefs, Atheists have a tendency to ignore true and proper science and turn to scientism.

Nikita Kiryanov:
This sad tale begins with poor theology from the parents, “I was 5 or 6 years old. My parents…told me that some people believe there is a God, and they pray to him so that he will make their wishes come true.” Well, this was a set up for failure as “I used to get frequent stomach aches…I prayed to God asking for the stomach ache to go away” and when they did not, the conclusion was that “the assumption that this wish granting God exists must be false.”

Main points:
5-6 yrs old.

Interestingly, Nikita admits that “The concept of God which I tested back then was of course a very simplistic, and…inaccurate, idea of what God is.” She then claims, without examples, that “since then every time I was presented with new arguments and refinements for the concept of God I did the same thing” and concludes that there is “No ‘evidence’ for the existence of God” which one can only conclude if one is omniscient which is a traditional characteristic of God.

Thus, this is much ado about nothing since after admittedly dealing with a “very simplistic, and…inaccurate, idea of what God” we get nothing more than an assertion.

Anonymous:
Well, this person is obviously saturated with hatred and an example of the damage that Atheism and/or evolution can inflict on a person who would otherwise have been smart and descent.

Main points:
No age given.

The comment is three sentences long and yet, manages to be saturated with fallacy.

1) “Because I realized how contradictory ‘strong’ believers like my mother are” yet, they now ignore how contradictory “strong” Atheists are. Yet, I am assuming that Atheists would have some standard in the first place, that violating them would mean something, etc. Also, note the stereotypical rebellion against the parent.

2) “I don’t plan to be lumped in with unreasoning wastes of the evolutionary process” note the charge of thought crime since if you believe in God then you are “wastes of the evolutionary process” so that Anonymous thus declares themselves to be more evolved than thou. Also, they demand that theists are unreasoning which is an unreasonable assertion.

3) “If God exists, he sure isn’t the one the Bible talks about” but coming from a supposedly more evolved and reasonable person this is merely stating a prejudice since no argument, evidence or anything of the likes but only hatred.

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

Twitter: #atheism, #atheists
Facebook: #atheism, #atheists

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

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.

[FYI: this post was just moved over from its previous cyber home]

This may be occasion for presenting Richard Dawkins with the Can Dish it Out But Cannot Take it award.
Except that Phillip Pullman has already deserved it as shown here.

Indeed, following on Phillip Pullman’s steps, Richard Dawkins suddenly turned into the prim and proper English gentleman and reacts towards disparaging remarks made towards him with a Oh, my! attitude.

Hannah Devlin and Ruth Gledhill reported in The Times that Outraged atheists lose faith in Dawkins as he censors website

Richard Dawkins is accustomed to provoking the wrath of religious communities, but now a schism seems to have opened up within the atheist community who make up his fan-base.
The split occurred after he announced that a discussion section on his website, considered one of the busiest online atheist forums, would in future be tightly moderated and “irrelevant postings and frivolous gossip” would no longer be allowed.

This is utterly fascinating since if you read The God Delusion (that funny and amusing book) you will note that if you remove the personal anecdotes from it—the irrelevant asides and frivolous gossip—you are left with about enough material to fill a pamphlet (a pocket sized one; that little pocket above the big pocket on the right hand side of your jeans).

Writing on RichardDawkins.net yesterday, in a posting entitled “Outrage”, he said that there was “something rotten” in internet culture and pledged to rid his website of its abusive element. “Imagine seeing your face described by an anonymous poster, as ‘a slack-jawed turd-in-the-mouth mug’,” he wrote. “Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, overreacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. “Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical.”

The cloak of anonymity under which many people contributed to discussions had led to a culture of extreme language that would not be possible if people wrote under their name.

Also, fascinating; Richard Dawkins has literally built the New Atheist movement upon vociferously pouring down abusive language based derision upon anyone who dares to disagree with him and now…the monster which he created, nurtured and let lose upon the word has come home to roost. Actually, it has come home to burn down the laboratory of its creator.

Dawkins promulgates the mere that I, a Jew, am to be likened to a Holocaust denier because I doubt that human beings are related to “bananas and turnips” and he takes offence at an admittedly uncalled for description of his visage. Please get over yourself professor.

Unwilling to be silenced, however, the members of the website and the 15 moderators, some of whom worked unpaid, vented their own outrage elsewhere. “A lot of people have lost respect for Dawkins after this, although I do still support the work that he does,” said Peter Harrison, a former moderator. “Thousands of loyal, intelligent, rational forum members have been misrepresented as a bunch of foul-mouthed, vitriolic thugs by the man who so inspired them.”

Another former fan said: “It may sound ridiculous to those not involved with online communities, but I feel hurt and displaced. It was like coming home to find the locks have been changed. My respect for Richard’s work is still intact but my respect for him as a person is in tatters.”

In short, Richard Dawkins is upset at experiencing the very same things that those of us who critique his views have been dealing with for decades. How do you like the taste of your own porridge professor?

Professor Dawkins now faces a confrontation with his adversaries at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne in two weeks.

No shortage of fascination for me with regards to this issue as Dawkins now faces a confrontation with his adversaries at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne even whilst he refused to face a confrontation with Creation Ministries International—he refused to debate them; he specifically selected to reject their debate challenge (see here).

He denied that the forum was closing but said that it was being improved. “The forum is going to be more tightly controlled and will be under more central control. So it won’t be available for anyone who wants to sound off freely,” he said. He conceded that there was a good case for anonymity for some contributors and such contributions would still be allowed. “I can see why people in America who lost their faith and do not want their families to know, or perhaps people of an Islamic background who have lost their faith or become Christian, have every reason to be anonymous,” he said.

The forum’s implosion has been jumped on by Christian groups as a sign that the Dawkins community is not as free-thinking as it is claimed.

He makes a good point about improvement and control; perhaps his next book, lecture, TV/radio appearance, article, etc. will be subject to the same improvement and control that will keep him from spewing forth his usual brand of malicious statements.

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

Now, I do not know about “slack-jawed…” and all of that but…is it just me or does his photo from The Times bare a striking resemblance to the video game that is being advertised right along side of it?—you be the judge.

We now continue considering the legend of Bart the gnostic hero Ehrman as he attempts to discredit the Bible and Christianity.

Let us consider the physical resurrection:

Ehrman says he doesn’t think the resurrection took place. There’s no proof Jesus physically rose from the dead, and the resurrection stories contradict one another, he says. He says he doesn’t believe the followers of Jesus saw their master bodily rise from the dead, but something else.
“My best guess is that what happened is what commonly happens today when someone has a loved one die — they sometimes think they see them in a vision,” Ehrman says. “I think some of the disciples had visions.”1

This is fascinating as we get a window into Bart Ehrman’s conflicted mind. How so?
Well, he 1) denies that the resurrection occurred because 2) there is no proof 3) Jesus’ followers did not see His body rise from the dead and 4) the resurrection stories contradict one another therefore, 5) something else took place.

But why the affirmation of the “something else” such as his evidence-free assertion that they had visions? After all, Ehrman supposedly proved that “At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries”2 and all of them are concocted tall tales which are unreliable. Why does he still feel the need to explain the resurrection? Because he somehow knows that he cannot deny it and simply must do something about it. Why not simply state that there is no evidence, there are contradictions, the New Testament is a late dated error filled concoction and the resurrection is a quaint story like them all?

Moreover, for Bart Ehrman the issue of the resurrection is not only about no evidence, no witnesses, contradictions and visions but even if it did take place it would be un-provable:

The debate [with Mike Licona] topic is, “Can historians prove that Jesus was raised from the dead?” and he’s going to be arguing yes and I’m going to be arguing no. I’m not going to be arguing that Jesus was not raised from the dead; what I’m going to be arguing is that even if he was raised from the dead, historians can’t prove it, because of the nature of historical evidence, you can’t prove something like a miracle. You can believe it, but you can’t prove it.

Just as with science or any other field or method of research and study: history has its limitations. He might as well argue, as he does, that history never proves anything at all. In fact, let us grant that: Bart Ehrman claims that “In my class, I don’t simply tell them my opinions”3—fine, what is be telling his students? He is presented unbiased conclusions from his historical research. He is merely presenting the historical data which proves that, for example, “At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries,” the resurrection did not happen, the New Testament books are late dated, the Trinity is not original to the original Christians, etc.

This is precisely what Dan Brown argued in stating, “How historically accurate is history itself?”4 While there is some legitimacy to this statement it is also a tool by which to deny any possibility of objectivism while likewise allowing one to deal creatively with historical facts. Let us not make the claim of pure subjectivism in history a self-fulfilling prophecy by dealing loosely with the facts—on purpose. If history is not historically accurate, how can Brown claim to base his novel of historical fact? He introduces his fictional novel The Da Vinci Code by stating, “FACT” and then goes on to claim that Jesus was married, etc.

How could history accurately prove the points that Ehrman and Brown want to make but it cannot accurately prove that which those with whom they disagree appeal to in order to debunk their claims? This is a substandard double standard.

Bart Ehrman surely knows that, for example, the affirmation of Jesus resurrection found in 1st Corinthians 15 is dated to five or so years after the resurrection as Paul affirms, in the technical language of “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received” that “Christ died for our sins” then “He was buried” that is, He, Jesus, died and His corpse, His physical body, was buried “and that He rose again” that is, He, Jesus, His corpse, his physical body, rose from the place in which it was buried. Thereafter, He, Jesus, was physically “seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve….Afterward He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain until this present day, but also some fell asleep” this means, some were still alive; go and ask them, “Afterward He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all He was seen by me also.” As for the pains to which Jesus went to prove to them that He was physically present, see my essay here.

But why, when as opposed to the Ehrmanian mythos, such information has been in print for a very long time has Ehrman become enriched, a celebrity and the go-to-guy for anti-Christian publications and documentaries?

Misquoting Jesus for some reason really sort of caught people’s attention in a way the other books didn’t, I think in part because it’s less academic than the other books…

I think people latched on to that because it made it more down to earth and they could see the significance of it better instead of just talking about it as a kind of academic exercise. That’s what I’ve continued doing… it affected my personal faith.5

When asked, “Do you think the success of your books is part of a trend of fact-based intellectually inquiry that’s being popularized?” he made reference to the popularity of anti-Christian intolerance (some which is very much deserved indeed):

there does seem to be an aspect of the culture war that’s going on right now where the religious right that has sort of controlled religion for a long time in this country, you do seem to have a backlash against it.
On the far left of that are the new atheists, people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, who are really embracing atheism and are attacking religion.6

Ad to this the contemporaneous publishing by other anti-Christian media darlings such as Elaine Pagels with her “The Gnostic Gospels” and 7 These old conspiracy theories that Christians debunked long ago and many times since are being repackaged for an antagonistic, not very well informed, short attention spanned, pop-culture. Note that indeed, Ehrman recognizes that he succeeds by playing upon the heartstrings of his readers and not upon their scholastic minds.
In fact, it is widely recognized that the academic/scholarly critiques of Bart Ehrman’s academic/scholarly books were ignored and he merely repackaged those works, peppered them with emotionally charged anecdotes and regurgitated them directly into the eager mouth of youthful pop-culture as he rode upon the tsunami wave of anti-Christian belligerence. Indeed, Misquoting Jesus is “less academic” enough to obfuscate the facts and present readymade, scare-quote based, talking points.

In this segment we will consider part of the American Humanists Association’s “Interesting Facts You Might Not Know.” Having considered one of their facts: in part 1, I will now consider: “Without a god, why be good at all?”

This fact is elucidated thusly:

“Without a god, why be good at all? Because you know you want to, anyway. Unless you were born a sociopath or had your natural sensibilities destroyed in childhood, you have the same general sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair, just and unjust, kind and mean that people have all over the world. No matter whether people are raised Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucianists, humanists, anything else, or nothing in particular, they all have the same sorts of ethical notions and feelings. Thus, except in extreme circumstances, they all can compare notes with each other and appeal to one another’s moral sensibilities. No specific belief is necessary for goodness. Human beings are social primates. So they have basic feelings of empathy and sociality built in, just as do other social primates like chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, baboons, and the like. These animals don’t get their social behavior from Scripture and neither do you. Morality finds its roots in human nature. Human beings are also conceptual thinkers who have a sense of cause and effect. This allows for refinements of nature’s promptings through a better understanding of short and long-term consequences. And it allows humans to learn from experience so their natural inclinations can be made to work better for them.

Humans are also communicators. They share their thoughts and experiences with each other and across generations. This builds up a lore of ethics that further refines human notions of morality. And it allows people to apply their discoveries in evolving systems of law, religion, community standards, social organization, business ethics, etiquette, and the like.”

This argument may function in their well-within-the-box-atheistic-presupposition-goupthink yet, it fails for various reasons including:

1) It is a non sequitur. 2) It is presuppositional. 3) It is an argument to ridicule.

4) It has a defeater in the form of Judeo-Christian theology.

Let us consider each in turn:
1) It is a non sequitur:
Note that the premise was “Without a god, why be good at all?” but it is never explained why we should be good at all without a god. The only why is “Because you know you want to, anyway.”

Atheism, or atheists, offer no why but only musts, oughts and shoulds—no ontology but only epistemology—no ethos but only mores–no absolute finite regress but only an infinite regress of assertions piled one atop another like to many tels. When it comes to moral issues atheist can, and do, make various epistemic statements. They may even claim that there are absolute morals. Yet, they cannot make ontological statements as they have no foundation for morality beyond “Because I say so,” or if enough people agree, “Because the government, state, police, etc. say so.”

In other words, atheists make dogmatic authoritarian assertions about morality but can never provide a why. As an example, consider Richard Dawkins’ words:

If somebody used my views to justify a completely self – centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose roughly what, I suppose, at a sociological level social Darwinists did – I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds…I couldn’t, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious.

Thus, he concludes,

I think it would be more…I’m going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this…in this society you can’t get away with it’ and call the police. 1

Note that he presupposes that the police, the authority, agree with him. What if he was in Nazi Germany and called the police to complain about the mistreatment of Jews (and others)?
Note that while the question is “Without a god, why be good at all?” the one and only answer offered is, “Because you know you want to.” This raises two questions: 1) how do you know that I want to and 2) what if I do not want to?
The answers are 1) they do not know and 2) then you will either get caught and be incarcerated by other, fitter, social primates or you will not get caught, enjoy doing non-good and simply get away with it—non-good will be for your benefit as you will enjoy doing it.

Let us consider the answer to 1) again as gleaned from the American Humanist Association’s perspective. It is actually a very common atheist tactic—replace cogent and reasoned discourse with arguments to ridicule (and arguments to embarrassment, arguments from outrage, arguments from personal preferences, etc.): “how do you know that I want to?” because if not you are a sociopath (“or had your natural sensibilities destroyed in childhood”). In other words, if you simply do not want to, then you were either born wrong or someone messed you up to the point that you are wrong (wrong according to the AHA).

Overall, I would not say that they make no sense but that there is at least one other way to understand their take of the issue.

Note that the reason that the American Humanist Association do not really answer the question, sans ridicule, is that the answer they offer after the word “childhood” deals with their interpretation of how the general sense got there and not why we should follow it; never why we should be good.
The AHA’s (non)answer is basically the same answer that atheist’s ultimately offer to any of life’s deepest questions: it just is. After all, they state that “you have the same general sense…all have the same sorts…have basic feelings…roots in human nature.”

Interestingly, at this point that atheists and theist could agree to a certain extent and only depart ways when it comes to how naturally occurring morality got there; got here, within us. According to Judeo-Christianity God has written His laws within us and they are mediated via our conscience. Sam Harris argues, actually asserts, that they are “hard-wired” into us which caused me to ask “What if I short circuit?” Likewise, while God’s law is in our hearts the Bible states that our consciences can become “seared.”

…I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts… (Jeremiah 31:33). …the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness… (Romans 2:15).

…speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron… (1st Timothy 4:2).

Thus, “whether people are raised Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucianists, humanists, anything else, or nothing in particular” God has not left them unguided and has written His law in their hearts and minds.
Thus, the only reason as to why is “Because you know you want to, anyway,” but what if I do not want to? We will get to this in just a moment. Note that there may be a defeater to this claim in the form of references to us being social primates, conceptual thinkers and communicators.

2) It is presuppositional.
There are quite a few presupposed assertions that make up this fact.
“you have the same general sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair, just and unjust, kind and mean that people have all over the world.”
If so, why argue against theism? Perhaps because it is wrong, unfair, unjust and mean. I actually believe that there is much truth in this presupposition which I will discuss below.

“No specific belief is necessary for goodness.” This claim is interesting and faulty for the following reason: let us state that no specific belief is necessary for goodness. Thus, when you do good you do not need a specific belief for doing so. Fine. What if you do have a specific belief for doing good? Again, fine. Good is done by both specific and non-specific. Now, what happens when non-specific belief personage does not do good, or does the opposite of good? Well, they violate nothing at all. What happens when specific belief personage does not do good, or does the opposite of good? Then they are violating the very specific belief upon which their good was based in the first place. Non-specific belief personage is not accountable to anything, does good for no reason and violates nothing when they do not do good, or does the opposite of good. Specific belief personage is accountable, does good for good reason and violates the very tenets to which they are supposed to be adhering when they do not do good, or does the opposite of good. Moreover, when non-specific belief personage does not do good they have no good reason (pun intended), no good premise upon which to condemn their non-good.

When specific belief personage does not do good they have good reason, good premise upon which to condemn their non-good.

“Morality finds its roots in human nature…natural inclinations.”
Again, I actually find much truth here which I will discuss below. Yet, morality is taught. Children are born with a natural propensity towards selfishness that manifests itself in various forms. G.K. Chesterton wondered why the doctrine of original sin was so disputed consider that overabundance of evidence supporting it.

“evolving systems…”
In a manner of speaking, considering morality to be evolveing (present tense) is problematic for atheists in that it logically disallows them from condemning any past action: that was the morality back then. Of course they, particularly the aggressing sects of atheism, disregard this logical conclusion. It also makes it difficult to ascertain today’s morality: might I be condemning something as immoral that is, even as I speak, evolving towards being moral or did it already do so yesterday? To, again, reference Richard Dawkins; he considers that we may know the evolving moral zeitgeist because “It’s in the air.”2

I recently watched a pretty wild sci-fi/horror movie titled “Pandorum.”

The premise is basically that we have blown up the Earth and all that is left of humanity is aboard a space ship on a long journey to an Earth-like/habitable planet—the basic atheist vision of the future, I suppose (whether we blow up the Earth of the Sun explodes).

In any regard, Pandorum is, at least, psychologically interesting in that the various characters exhibit various characteristics from the altruistic to the utterly selfish.

I have not been able to find a transcript of too many quotes but one of the interesting dialogues comes about via Leland, who is trapped on the apparently doomed spaceship which has become inhabited by creepy-crawlers who basically want to devour everyone in sight.

Upon encountering other humans—as they were all in cryogenic sleep due to long distance space travel and were due to wake up in shifts—Leland first offers hospitality but then gasses them. When they wake up they are hanging upside down and Leland is preparing to cannibalize them:

Bower: What are you doing? Leland: Nothing personal, guys. It’s just “survival of the fittest”… Or maybe it’s the brightest [mumbles] if you know what I’m saying. Bower: You gassed us! Leland: Oh yes! And I’m sorry, but I’m a little too old and too tired for the honorable way of hunting game. Nadia: You better make sure I’m dead… [speaks in German] Leland: [stabs her] Manh: [yelling in Vietnamese] Bower: You don’t have to do this. We’re on our way to save the ship.

Leland: Don’t sweat it. I wouldn’t have survived this long if I had a heart.

Thus, the Darwinian survival of the fittest/brightest busts open Pandora’s Box out of which comes betrayal and self-survival at all costs.

In fact, one of the main characters, the villain really, states, “God? You think God survived? He’s dead just like the rest of humanity.” Yet, the context is clearly that since the Earth is gone, humanity is gone and so there is no one left to dictate morality, no society to conjure an arbitrary social contract. Thus, he is free to express his every desire.

Some atheist attempt to argue from the cosmic insignificance of humanity to moral behavior but this is a non sequitur as one could just as easily, if not even easier still, argue from the cosmic insignificance of humanity to immoral behavior—as some reason, “eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1st Corinthians 15:32). Carpe despero.

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

Of further, atheism at the movies, interest may be: The Collateral Worldview

We now conclude considering the legend of Bart the gnostic hero Ehrman as he attempts to discredit the Bible and Christianity.

Now, what about the academic/scholarly critiques of Bart Ehrman’s academic/scholarly books? Well, being a man of contradictions, one thing is for certain; he either ignored them or considered them:

There were actually three books written against Misquoting Jesus. That was one of them. And there are a lot of Web sites and blogs and things that attack me. The way I deal with that is by not reading them. [Laughs.]…

I don’t feel a need to respond to my critics or anything like that…

in Jesus, Interrupted, I do talk a little bit about the response to Misquoting Jesus…

I point out in this chapter [How We Got the Bible] is that nobody has disagreed with any of these eight or nine major theses, because they’re true. I think people have objected to the tone of the book maybe, or they don’t like the fact that I talk about how I changed my view of the Bible because of these differences in the manuscripts, but nobody disagrees with any of the scholarship in the book. I think that’s significant…

I answer just about every e-mail except for e-mails that are antagonistic…1

Thus; yes, no, maybe so. He does not bother reading criticisms and does not respond to them except when he reads them and responds to them—sort of, since he has not corrected his demonstrable errors.

It seems that overall no, he does not take criticism into consideration if he thinks that people are only expressing opinions about his tone and if he really thinks that “nobody disagrees with any of the scholarship in the book” against whom has he been debating? I would strain my cognitive functions and conclude that it is against people who disagree with his scholarship. I have yet to hear any of his debate opponents premise their case on his tone.

I wish to take an apologetics aside and focus momentarily upon this related statement:

I get a lot of e-mails from people who agree with me, with what I say about the New Testament, but if I would just join their religion I wouldn’t have these problems. Those people tend to be either Muslim or Mormon. [Laughs.] A couple days ago I got something from somebody who was Baha’i who thought I should join the Baha’i faith…I think it’s a free world. They’re welcome to convert me. I’m welcome to convert them.2

This is fascinating because:
1) It is reported that Muslim have done a good job of transmitting the contents of the Qur’an. Yet, the reason that there are no original manuscripts (autographa) of the Qur’an is not that they were lost to the ravages of time but that they were lost to the purposeful fires of Caliph ‘Uthman.
Variants became such as concern that ‘Uthman had all manuscripts collected, he concocted an authorized version and destroyed the various variant manuscripts (find information on the issue of how the Qur’an came to be in the first place and more at this link).

2) Mormonism’s eighth Article of Faith states, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” The question is: how do they know when it is translated correctly? It is not due to a consideration of the original languages, a comparison of the translations and a retranslation by Mormons to a correct version? The answer is all too simple: when they can use it to affirm Mormon doctrines, it is declared translated correctly but when they cannot, or when it contradicts them, it is not. This is not about translation but about utilitarianism.

Consider, for example, that the Bible and for that matter the Book of Mormon are monotheistic and let us ask: why are Mormons henotheistic? Because their “prophets” have told them that there are very many gods and so the Bible and Book of Mormon are discarded at this point (find information on Mormonism at this link).

3) In this regard, the Baha’i Faith is very much like Mormonism as, on the surface, they affirm that the Bible is divinely inspired but they discard it, via claiming symbolism, etc., whenever it conflicts with Baha’i doctrine. For example, they flatly reject the doctrine of physical resurrection; an absolutely essential Christian doctrine (find information on the Baha’i Faith at this link).

Thus, we continue to find that Bart Ehrman, the man, the myth, the legend, the emotive, makes impressive claims but with a little consideration they are exposed for what they are: excuses for rejecting God.

FYI: this was originally posted on March 15, 2010 AD on Atheism is Dead (one of True Freethinker’s predecessors) but did not get carried over when we did the original merge.

God forbid that a Christian or a “Christian” commits an immoral act; atheists are all over it and come down on them harder than an elephant in musth. Set aside for a moment how they define “immoral” or that this may be fair enough.

The immorality of a Christian or a “Christian” is made to speak volumes about the utter bankruptcy of Judeo-Christian morality in general.

Enter Tiger Woods, the guy who became a gazillionaire by hitting a ball with a stick (I do not care if he is the very best in the history of the world at hitting a ball with a stick; he hits a ball with a stick).

Tiger Woods is a Buddhist and has recently affirmed his Buddhism (see The Brit Hume, Tiger Woods Affair).

I am still waiting for atheists internet-wide, TV-wide, radio-wide, lectern-wide, book-wide, etc.-wide using Tiger Woods and his womanizing, adulterous ways to besmirch Buddhism.

Many atheists fancy themselves equal opportunity faith-bashers but the scales are quite obviously tipped to the point of being broken on the side of besmirchments of Christianity first, Judaism second and miscellaneous a very, very, very, very distant third.

So, will any atheist play fair and besmirch Buddhism due to the doings of Tiger Woods?
Will any atheist start forum discussions on the issue, or start a blog titled “Deconstructing Buddhism” or any such thing?

Anyone?

Anyone?