The Dawk Pieper Was 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.

Ian Dunt reports the latest in “Dawkins: Faith schools are child abuse,” Politics.CO.UK, 22, Sep 2009.

I could not help but note 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?

How is that even a question?

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: I commented on The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution here.

I have dissected, discredited and corrected various such notions as those expressed by Richard Dawkins in the article various times and in various ways; please see the section, Atheist Child Rearing

richarddawkinsandatheismandatheistandnewatheist-6188008

But did I miss something?

The article does not refer to Richard Dawkins as “infamous” but as “famous.”

Do not get me wrong, having some form of (self-diagnosed) dyslexia I can understand one person reading “infamous” for “famous.” I can even understand two people doing it.

But what I cannot understand—and I quoted the entirety of 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 I have demonstrated time and time again that:
1) Richard Dawkins does not seem to consider that referring to children by their parent’s religion is a cultural phenomena 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.

Interesting Facts the American Humanist Association (AHA) Might Not Know, part 2 of 4

The American Humanists Association is one of the groups that collected donated money to fund self-serving ad campaigns instead of helping people in need during a time of worldwide recession. The 2008 AD ads read “Why believe in God? Be good for goodness’ sake” the 2009 AD ads read the same with the addition of “No God? No Problem!” (see the bus ad/billboard archive).

In this segment I will consider part of the AHA’s 2008 AD explanation for the ads which is entitled “Interesting Facts You Might Not Know.” I will consider one of their facts: “Why not believe in a god?” and consider another in part 3, namely: “Without a god, why be good at all?”

This fact is elucidated thusly:

“Why not believe in a god?
There’s no universally agreed-upon definition of God, description of what God does, or list of things God wants humans to do. Different cultures, faiths, religious denominations, theologians, and ordinary people have held wildly varied beliefs for centuries. In fact, people aren’t always talking about the same thing. So it’s difficult to know where to start any rational or useful exploration of the subject.

Most definitions of God aren’t scientifically testable. They are philosophical abstractions, logical contradictions, imprecise spiritual notions, or subjective feelings. So there appears no way to show that this or that particular god idea is true or false, or even makes much sense. Moreover, most people don’t even want their god idea to be scientifically testable, since that might result in it being falsified.

Those definitions of God that are scientifically testable, such as the very humanlike and limited god ideas of children and ancient peoples, have always lacked evidence. The Santa Claus idea also falls into this category [emphasis in original].

Let us parse this elucidation before considering the next. It appears that the lesson learned is “There’s no universally agreed-upon definition of God…So it’s difficult to know where to start.” Therefore, since it is difficult why bother; just do not believe in a god.

Would this argument be accepted with regards to any other issue with which humans deal? “What son? Your schooling is difficult? Well, just quit.” Or why not, since it is difficult, just go ahead and choose one, or more, god(s) out of a hat?

Furthermore, “Most definitions of God aren’t scientifically testable.” But why is scientific testability the criteria? Is it scientific testable that scientific testability is the ultimate, if not only, cogent epistemology? If not, then the criterion fails its own criteria and eternally loops in a cycle of circular illogic (for how atheists restrict their thinking by appealing to “science” see Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation? part 1, part 2, part 3).

They have not established why we must adhere to their search for God parameters. If we do not know whether there is a God we do not know for what sort of evidence to look. If, for example, God is non-physical should we expect a non-physical being to give off, or leave behind, physical evidence? Do we look for wet evidence of a dry object? Science deals with the natural so why is it being called upon to investigate the supernatural? In fact, when science begins to uncover evidence of God it must change in order to accommodate the new evidence.

Try this, “There’s no universally agreed-upon definition of _________ (fill in the blank)…So it’s difficult to know where to start.” It just so happens that we do have a place to start: natural theology, or general revelation—inferring the existence of a creator and even particular characteristic of this creator from nature. This is one way to show that this or that particular God idea is true or false, or even makes much sense. So, to be fair, they are stating that “it’s difficult to know where to start” well, you can start at the parsed post On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.

Origin of Watchers – Mesopotamia & Jewish Traditions

We will consider a paper written by Estonia’s University of Tartu’s Amar Annus, “On the Origin of Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions,” Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha, Vol 19.4 (2010 AD): 277-320 (find my series here).

The abstract and conclusion denotes Annus’ scholarly and also personal conclusions:

In the article, it is argued that the origin of Watchers derives from the Mesopotamian mythology of the antediluvian sages (apkallus). More precisely, it is proposed that the mythology of Watchers and their sons the giants derived from inverted versions of various Mesopotamian myths and beliefs about apkallus.

On Annus’ view, the “Jewish authors” of Genesis 6 and the apocryphal Book of Enoch (aka 1 Enoch or Ethiopic Enoch) were writing a “parody” which played upon “trends in Mesopotamian demonology.”
He notes that the apkallu were “very probable predecessors and a source of origin for the Jewish Watchers.” The term Watcher is employed by the Book of Enoch to describe the sons of God fallen Angels within Genesis 6. Annus considers Genesis 6 and the Enoch text as “folklore” and holds that, as already touched upon, “the Jewish authors were borrowing from Mesopotamia…in a creative and polemical spirit.”

This is because “ancient Mesopotamian intellectual tradition gives a divine origin in the antediluvian age to all priestly sciences” and envisages that the pre-flood period was one of revelation as “the basis of all later knowledge was laid down” and subsequently, “sages were culture-heroes, who brought the arts of civilization to the land.” Thus, the claim is that the Jewish authors turned this on its head.

apkallus-3345824

He concludes that “The Book of Watchers apparently belongs to the same layer of Jewish polemical literature, which also depicted Daniel as a scholar in the court of the Babylonian king…the Book of Watchers may belong to the same period as that of the book of Daniel.” Note that he is dating these texts based on that which he determines apparently belongs together; we will come to how Daniel plays into this, in Annus’ view.
Lastly on this point, he notes:

The birth of the oral lore about Watchers must belong to a period in history, when the Jewish culture was extensively exposed to Babylonian influences. An obvious candidate for such a period is the Babylonian exile.

Thus far, I simply wanted to note the manner whereby he attempts to assign dates to these texts. His point, as well will see further, is that the Jews who had been banished to Babylon concocted tales that were meant to counteract the Mesopotamian culture in which they found themselves captives.

The seventh antediluvian king is said to have been Enmeduranki aka Enmeduranna, the king of Sippar, who was the “founder of the guild of barus, or Babylonian diviners.” The timeline is thought to coincide with the lifespan of the Biblical Enoch, seventh from Adam (Genesis 5:23-24).

A sixth century AD Nestorian monk named Cosmas Indicopleustes’ work Topographia
Christiana 12.3 states:

The writers of Chaldaean history, more ancient and living farther east, have mentioned in their works both the deluge and the building of the Tower, since they saw that Tower with their own eyes under the process of construction, being no doubt well aware that the men of that time, in fear of another flood, erected it for themselves as a place of refuge and safety.
But the men of later times, when they read Moses also, and found that Noah, in whose time the deluge occurred, was the tenth from Adam, they feigned that they also had ten kings…

For some reason, Indicopleustes reckons Enoch to be the tenth from Adam yet in any case: he get to the point as to why all ancient cultures have within their most ancient and formative myth and legend similar stories about creation, a garden, a flood, etc. which is because it happened, it was known and when humanity became divided after the Tower of Babel event they took this common knowledge which eventually came to vary on this or that point, “they saw…with their own eyes…”

Anar Annus’ notes:

Cosmas’ account shows that already the ancient scholars were conscious of the congruence between Jewish and Mesopotamian antediluvian histories…stating that the Chaldaeans learned from Moses. It goes without saying that from our contemporary perspective, Mesopotamia clearly provided the model, which the biblical writers quite creatively followed and modified.

This is another tool in Annus’ bag for determining dates of authorship, borrowing and parody, “our contemporary perspective.”

Annus notes that king of Babylon Nebuchadnezzar is viewed as a “distant scion of kingship, seed preserved from before the flood, offspring of Enmeduranki, king of Sippar” and that “By identifying certain traditional archenemies as descendants of Watchers, the Jewish authors once again gave a polemical thrust to the Mesopotamian concept of the ruler as ‘seed preserved from before the flood” which in the Jewish rewrite becomes corrupt, fallen, evil seed.

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

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

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

Twitter: #AmarAnnus, #Watchers, #Nephilim
Facebook: #AmarAnnus, #Watchers, #Nephilim

Transhumanist Zoltan Istvan on morphological freedom, death, ethics, etc.

Ever since being utterly irrelevant to the 2016 AD US presidential elections, Transhumanist, Atheist, socio-politically libertarian and instigator Zoltan Istvan can now, forever more, have “Presidential Candidate” next to his name—along with every other utterly irrelevant person who ever wrote themselves in. Now, what attention will the Transhumanist Party attract in coming elections is anyone’s guess.
I note that he is an instigator since he tends to make emotive and bombastic statements which get him much attention. He admits, for example, that he “put forth policies that were just sensational enough to get picked up by the media.”

He is also known for having written an anti-Christian novel, “The Transhumanist Wager”:

Zoltan Istvan made this bizarre statement during a recent debate with James Hughes who once headed the World Transhumanist Association aka Humanity+:

We live in a culture that for thousands of years has embraced a Judeo-Christian framework that really teaches us that the best way to live to live a good life and then to die and meet a maker in heaven. And it doesn’t matter if it’s the president swearing on the Bible, or the Pledge of Allegiance having the word “God” in it, it’s all around us. And even if we don’t believe in it, it’s still our framework and it leads to this culture of “deathism.”

Wait, what? A Judeo-Christian framework leads to a culture of “deathism”? It is not a Judeo-Christian framework that literally views death as the answer to many of our socio-political problems. It is libertarians, leftists and non-Judeo-Christians who, for example, prescribe abortion and euthanasia. Moreover, it was Istvan Atheist comrades who as recently as the last century mass murdered circa 200 million people in a mere few decades. Meanwhile, Christians have been busy engaging in charitable works around the world sometimes at the cost of their health, freedom and lives.

zoltan2bistvan2b2-8682159

Zoltan Istvan also notes that he “advocate morphological freedom, the freedom to do what you want with your own body, as long as it’s not hurting somebody else” with “hurting” being defined according to his subjective standard de jour. In fact, he followed his statements up with “We need to create a scenario where people can do whatever they want.”
This denotes the utter deconstruction of God’s created order and is the very heart of Transhumanism. As he elucidates it, “With some of the CRISPR gene technology coming out, and people trying to grow tails and whatever they’re trying to do, there’s going to be new ways of looking at ourselves as a species and I very much think we need to embrace that.”

Istvan states, “this idea that many people don’t mind dying is what needs to be changed. It’s why I drove a coffin across the county. We can change this. It’s not a matter of religion or right or wrong” which is interesting as he had just finished stating that morphological freedom’s premise is based on “as long as it’s not hurting somebody else” which is what, class? A matter of (his subjective de jour concept of) right and (his subjective de jour concept of) wrong.

zoltan2bistvan2b1-4742008

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

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.

Twitter: #transhumanism, #zoltanistvan, #transhumanistparty
Facebook: #transhumanism, #zoltanistvan, #transhumanistparty