Atheism Sucks!

See, I was right about John W. Loftus! Hooray Me!

2011-08-23T03:10:00.001-07:00

I predicted that John W. Loftus would separate with his wife right here and he did:

"My wife and I separated. This isn't good but it is what it is."
- John W. Loftus, August 18, 2011, Facebook Status

Man, I'm good! You're still a loser Loftus. Now, are you going to blame your wife for this separation like how you blamed your ex-wife for your infidelity?

Infidel Delusion: A Response to John W. Loftus' The Christian Delusion

2010-07-23T12:28:00.000-07:00

Lying, adulterer John W. Loftus done got his little baby spanked in this awesome refutation from the men at Triablogue.

Someone arrest Richard Dawkins!

2010-04-12T12:45:00.000-07:00

Richard "the insane" Dawkins thinks that the Pope should be arrested for the alleged cover-up of child sex scandals. I really don't know if the Pope did the cover up. Dawkins and his ilk, of course, thinks he did. However, Dawkins likes to play the "child abuse" card. He thinks that merely labeling a child with a religious name is genuine abuse! And of course this idiot wouldn't think that calling a child an atheist or agnostic is abuse. Oh, no, that can never be abuse now can it, Dick. No special pleading there.

Since his brainless comment about labeling a child is a form of abuse, he has since suggested that doesn't mean he wants the state to come in and take the child away from the baby:

Now, if brainless Dawkins actually thought for a change he'd know that if a child is being abused by their parents, you take the child away from the parents. That's just common sense. But what Dawkins is now suggesting in the video above is that the child should stay with abusive parents! LOL! It looks like brainless Dawkins bit off more than he can chew. He knew how much of a boneheaded comment he made and in an effort to do damage control he just made things worse. If he thinks that labeling a child without the child's consent is a form of abuse then if I labeled my child with the name of "John" that's abuse according to Dawkins because the child had no say in it.

Link

Dinesh D'Souza pummels John W. Loftus

2010-02-19T01:28:00.000-08:00

Yup, without question, Dinesh D'Souza whipped John W. Loftus. Loftus did so bad in this debate it makes one wonder why he actually thinks he stands a chance against William Lane Craig. And Loftus is one to talk about brainwashed people?! I can only hope to hear more debates by Loftus because it's fun seeing him get embarrassed this way. I never heard him win a debate. Cjheck it out:

John W. Loser

2010-02-12T01:20:00.000-08:00

We've always knew that William-Lane-Craig-namedropping Loftus isn't exactly a good debater. But worse, he's a terrible thinker. He just had a debate with Dinesh D'Souza and word around the fire camp is that Loftus did so bad that even atheists thought he sucked. This has caused Loftus so much anguish he is now blaming atheists for being too stupid to realize how good he was at the debate. These links are interesting:

Links from atheists who thought Loftus did terrible:

Skeptic Money
Le Cafe
UCIC

John W. Loser's damage control:

Link
Link
Link
Link

Atheist responds to Loser's damage control:

Link

John W. Loftus admits atheism is absurd!

2009-11-23T20:11:00.000-08:00

Not only did he say that atheism was absurd in his book but in a phone interview he confirmed it; and he went even further and was dumb enough to say that something (energy) can be nothing! (Even a 2-year-old knows that energy isn't nothing! But not for atheists like John W. Loftus.) Here he says it in this interview:

When Paul Manata debated Loftus, AGAIN, admitted that atheism was absurd:

On Carrie Prejean

2009-11-19T18:04:00.000-08:00

Carrie Prejean hits home because the church she's affiliated with (The Rock in San Diego) did some inner city ministries I attended. There they got kids off of gangs and drugs. So, I was surprised Prejean was involved with this church.

Given the circumstances, I must be blunt (like I always am), I believe Prejean is a hypocrite. However, despite her flaws I think what she's doing is noble. Just because she believes in traditional marriage doesn't mean her hypocritical lifestyle makes it false. That's like saying since a child-molester teaches that 1+1=2, it would be false since he's a pedophile.

What's at issue here is whether Carrie Prejean has been discriminated against because of her stance on traditional marriage. Liberals are trying to make it look like she wasn't discriminated against and that it had everything to do with her lying about her topless pictures, or for not attending some events. I don't buy that for a second. You'd have to be a lame-brain to think that's the case. So, let's get to that. But first, let's introduce the people involved in this fiasco:

Victim:
Carrie Prejean

Enemies:
Keith Lewis (director of Miss California)
Shanna Moakler (co-director of Miss California; also Miss USA 1995)

Low-life loser:
Carrie Prejean's ex-boyfriend

A few things you should know about Keith Lewis:

Keith Lewis is known for intimidating and taking back crowns from winners. No really, that's what this fool does. And he did it to Christina Silva who won Miss California 2008... well, she actually didn't win, you see, it was an "accounting error" (Yup, it's really tough counting points by 5 judges). Christina Silva actually went on national television to speak of her dilemma and she did not have kind words with Keith Lewis, check it out (also here). What's interesting then is that Carrie Prejean was not meant to be Miss California 2008. Either way, Lewis is known for screwing people over. And I don't believe for a second that he's a professional. Of course he gives out partial-transcripts of his involvement with Prejean to see how unprofessional she is.

Keith Lewis also hooked Carrie Prejean up with a modeling agent. And it's this same agency that had Carrie Prejean do pictures where it was revealed later that some of her pictures were topless! It's simple, no Keith Lewis, no Carrie Prejean topless pictures. When models do pictures they may actually expose their bare chests even though the advertisements may have the nudity covered up (for instance, a piece of furniture or the model's hands may cover their exposed chest - in fact, Prejean had a picture like that). Mr. Lewis had to know this. So when he had a picture of a topless Prejean he knew he could use that to take her crown away if she gives him trouble. And that's exactly what happened. He tried to get Prejean fired after she made her controversial statement on gay marriage and he used the picture as leverage. And you can imagine how angry he was when Donald Trump reinstated her crown. But that didn't stop Keith Lewis from finding a way to get Prejean fired again - like telling her to go to events - gee, one of those events required was doing a Playboy one! - for which Prejean refused. I think the fact that Keith Lewis wanted Prejean to go to a Playboy event proves that he's a hypocrite. Why wouldn't he have a problem with Prejan doing Playboy but have a problem with Prejean doing topless pictures? It just doesn't add up.

Keith Lewis is an out-of-the-closet gay man and produced a documentary on gay relationships. To me, this is motive. He suspected Prejean of being a homophobe and he tried to hurt her. Of course, after he had her fired he got a pro-traditional marriage Miss California to taker her place, lest people suspect that his motive in firing Prejean was about gay marriage. The new Miss California is a guinea pig.

A few things about Shanna Moakler:

This is hilarious, after winning Miss USA, Moakler became a Playboy playmate. So, this idea that the staff and Keith Lewis (and yes Shanna Moakler) were outraged that Prejean did topless pictures is a complete joke. What's with their fascination with Playboy?

Shanna Moakler is not only pro-gay marriage (there's motive, again) but her rambunctious life-style isn't hard to see since she was among the few to do a reality TV show.

Carrie Prejean's loser ex-boyfriend:

Knowing how he hurt her like this just shows how badly he got hurt when she dumped him - although I have no proof that she dumped him, but c'mon, it's obvious, look how bitter this idiot is. I don't know why they aren't together but if Prejean's ex was a real man he wouldn't make an effort to destroy someone's life like this - giving out pornographic material on her?! I mean, wow! He should have given back those tapes to her. He says in an interview that Prejean likes to present herself in a way that would win approval with people. Maybe so, but I find that hard to believe. Do you think she won approval by saying gay marriage should be between a man and a woman on public television?

Further proof that Prejean's ex-boyfriend isn't a man is the fact he won't reveal himself in public. Not a picture or a name. He's "courageous" enough to show a hidden side of Prejean, but he's not courageous enough to show his hidden identity. I think the fact that he's proud and happy that he destroyed someone's life says a lot about him. He's a loser and a low-life. No wonder Prejean broke up with him. For good reason to.

Now, Carrie Prejean:

I feel sorry for her on one hand but on the other I don't.

I feel sorry for her because she obviously got hurt for taking a stand on her faith and her view on gay marriage.

I don't feel sorry for her because she was dumb enough to make a video tape of herself masturbating. Carrie has to understand something: God will not be mocked. I find it hard to believe she made this tape when she was 17. I believe she was a Christian when she made it. I only suspect this. I hope I'm proven wrong though.

I thought it was a big mistake that she settled. This video tape proves that there was a smear campaign to destroy her, why settle after that? Was it because she feared more material of herself will get out? Knowing the internet world, it's going to get out anyway. So why stop there? She should have toughen it through. But she didn't.

Conclusion:

It's obvious, a bunch of bigoted, sick-minded, low-life, cowardly, and lying individuals (ie Keith Lewis, Shannan Moakler, Prejean's ex, and then some) set out to destroy Carrie Prejean because of this:

I mean, is it any wonder that they are currently producing a segment that ridicules Prejean? Wow, when people hold a grudge. And Keith Lewis said that Prejean had mental problems? And again, the idea that Prejean was fired for not sticking to her contract for going to events (one of them involving Playboy, which Prejean told Keith Lewis she cannot go to) is bunk, and a way to corner Prejean. How would Keith Lewis (or Shanna Moakler) like it if he was required to go to a conservative and pro-traditional marriage rally?

However, I'm afraid Christians must distance themselves from Prejean until she gets things straight between herself and God. And after learning this big lesson, something tells me she will.

Better thinking Atheist admits "New Atheists" are a complete disaster

2009-08-20T12:37:00.000-07:00

Atheist Michael Ruse tells us what we needed to hear: the new atheists are a complete "bloody disaster."

Richard Dawkins is in love with chunks of matter

2009-08-17T01:40:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I wonder if Dawkins is serious about some of the stuff he says. Check it out:

"On one planet, and possibly only one planet in the entire universe, molecules that would normally make nothing more complicated than a chunk of rock, gather themselves together into chunks of rock-sized matter of such staggering complexity that they are capable of running, jumping, swimming, flying, seeing, hearing, capturing and eating other such animated chunks of complexity; capable in some cases of thinking and feeling, and falling in love with yet other chunks of complex matter. We now understand essentially how the trick is done, but only since 1859."

- Richard Dawkins, God Delusion, p. 366-367

Many atheists who have read my blog were not happy with the fact that I've told them they're nothing but matter and motion, or just bits of pieces of protoplasm, etc. But I was never wrong about it. Dawkins vindicates me!

Richard Dawkins finally admits the truth!

2009-08-03T01:34:00.000-07:00

And that truth would be the fact that he cannot prove Darwinian evolution:

"Richard Dawkins has publicly admitted: 'I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.'" [1]

Source:

1. “Dawkins made this remark in response to a question posed by the New York Times to a number of prominent scientists: ‘What do you believe what you cannot prove?’ The published responses on January 4, 2005.” Quoted in Robert Royal, (February 17, 1984), 12. The God that Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West (New York: Encounter Books, 2006), xii, 277.

Richard Carrier corrupts the atheist youths. And we love it!

2009-07-21T01:05:00.000-07:00

The good thing about Richard Carrier is that he has no idea how stupid he's making his fans look (yes, indeed, Carrier calls his followers his "fans"). There's at least two atheist morons (one of them goes by the name of Tom Verenna) who have written self-published books that haven't sold. No surprise, but most of Carrier's books are self-published too. Atheist groupie and shallow-thinker Christopher Hallquist from "Uncredible Hallq" also had a self-published book done. He's yet another gullible student who's fond of Carrier's works (he's actually crazy enough to think he's a good enough debater to take on William Lane Craig, too - after listening to this, trust me, you'd disagree with Unreasonable Hallq). What is this trend with unworthy and un-sophisticated and young-as-hell-and-in-desperate-need-of-more-education atheists who think they have the smarts and sophistication to write books? I think it has a lot to do with Carrier's own arrogant and smugness. After all, this idiot wrote:

"I am no less a philosopher than Aristotle or Hume. My knowledge, education, and qualifications certainly match theirs in every relevant respect."

Of course, you won't find this quote from Carrier anymore since he deleted it from his website (it ends up that smarter atheists told him to - obviously, they know that this isn't true). But Carrier's fans think of him as another Aristotle and Hume. And as such, he's blessed them with his knowledge. These fans of his felt so overwhelmed they've decided to write crappy books. Little do they know that the joke is on them. And as long as more people follow Carrier, they'll look like jokes. I can only hope he has more fans then. If not, maybe Carrier can get more literally out of his butt.

William Lane Craig on Richard Carrier here.

Liberal L. A. Times knows how idiotic the New Atheists are!

2009-05-20T15:02:00.000-07:00

I love this article:

Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining

Superstar atheists are motivated by anger -- and boohoo victimhood.

By Charlotte Allen
May 17, 2009
I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

Other people, most recently the British cultural critic Terry Eagleton in his new book, "Faith, Reason, and Revolution," take to task such superstar nonbelievers as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") and political journalist Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great") for indulging in a philosophically primitive opposition of faith and reason that assumes that if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist.

My problem with atheists is their tiresome -- and way old -- insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What -- did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?

Read Dawkins, or Hitchens, or the works of fellow atheists Sam Harris ("The End of Faith") and Daniel Dennett ("Breaking the Spell"), or visit an atheist website or blog (there are zillions of them, bearing such titles as "God Is for Suckers," "God Is Imaginary" and "God Is Pretend"), and your eyes will glaze over as you peruse -- again and again -- the obsessively tiny range of topics around which atheists circle like water in a drain.

First off, there's atheist victimology: Boohoo, everybody hates us 'cuz we don't believe in God. Although a recent Pew Forum survey on religion found that 16% of Americans describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, only 1.6% call themselves atheists, with another 2.4% weighing in as agnostics (a group despised as wishy-washy by atheists). You or I might attribute the low numbers to atheists' failure to win converts to their unbelief, but atheists say the problem is persecution so relentless that it drives tens of millions of God-deniers into a closet of feigned faith, like gays before Stonewall.

In his online "Atheist Manifesto," Harris writes that "no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that ... God exists." The evidence? Antique clauses in the constitutions of six -- count 'em -- states barring atheists from office.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled such provisions unenforceable nearly 50 years ago, but that doesn't stop atheists from bewailing that they have to hide their Godlessness from friends, relatives, employers and potential dates. One representative of the pity-poor-me school of atheism, Kathleen Goodman, writing in January for the Chronicle of Higher Education, went so far as to promote affirmative action for atheists on college campuses: specially designated, college-subsidized "safe spaces" for them to express their views.

Maybe atheists wouldn't be so unpopular if they stopped beating the drum until the hide splits on their second-favorite topic: How stupid people are who believe in God. This is a favorite Dawkins theme. In a recent interview with Trina Hoaks, the atheist blogger for the Examiner.com website, Dawkins described religious believers as follows: "They feel uneducated, which they are; often rather stupid, which they are; inferior, which they are; and paranoid about pointy-headed intellectuals from the East Coast looking down on them, which, with some justification, they do." Thanks, Richard!

Dennett likes to call atheists "the Brights," in contrast to everybody else, who obviously aren't so bright. In a 2006 essay describing his brush with death after a heart operation, Dennett wrote these thoughts about his religious friends who told him they were praying for his recovery: "Thanks, I appreciate it, but did you also sacrifice a goat?" With friends like Daniel Dennett, you don't need enemies.

Then there's P.Z. Myers, biology professor at the University of Minnesota's Morris campus, whose blog, Pharyngula, is supposedly about Myers' field, evolutionary biology, but is actually about his fanatical propensity to label religious believers as "idiots," "morons," "loony" or "imbecilic" in nearly every post. The university deactivated its link to Myers' blog in July after he posted a photo of a consecrated host from a Mass that he had pierced with a rusty nail and thrown into the garbage ("I hope Jesus' tetanus shots are up to date") in an effort to prove that Catholicism is bunk -- or something.

Myers' blog exemplifies atheists' frenzied fascination with Christianity and the Bible. Atheist website after atheist website insists that Jesus either didn't exist or "was a jerk" (in the words of one blogger) because he didn't eliminate smallpox or world poverty. At the American Atheists website, a writer complains that God "set up" Adam and Eve, knowing in advance that they would eat the forbidden fruit. A blogger on A Is for Atheist has been going through the Bible chapter by chapter and verse by verse in order to prove its "insanity" (he or she had gotten up to the Book of Joshua when I last looked).

Another topic that atheists beat like the hammer on the anvil in the old Anacin commercials is Darwinism versus creationism. Maybe Darwin-o-mania stems from the fact that this year marks the bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth in 1809, but haven't atheists heard that many religious people (including the late Pope John Paul II) don't have a problem with evolution but, rather, regard it as God's way of letting his living creation unfold? Furthermore, even if human nature as we know it is a matter of lucky adaptations, how exactly does that disprove the existence of God?

And then there's the question of why atheists are so intent on trying to prove that God not only doesn't exist but is evil to boot. Dawkins, writing in "The God Delusion," accuses the deity of being a "petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak" as well as a "misogynistic, homophobic, racist ... bully." If there is no God -- and you'd be way beyond stupid to think differently -- why does it matter whether he's good or evil?

The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering. Atheists seem to assume that the whole idea of God is a ridiculous absurdity, the "flying spaghetti monster" of atheists' typically lame jokes. They think that lobbing a few Gaza-style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking ("If there's a God, why aren't I rich?" "If there's a God, why didn't he give me two heads so I could sleep with one head while I get some work done with the other?") will suffice to knock down the entire edifice of belief.

What primarily seems to motivate atheists isn't rationalism but anger -- anger that the world isn't perfect, that someone forced them to go to church as children, that the Bible contains apparent contradictions, that human beings can be hypocrites and commit crimes in the name of faith. The vitriol is extraordinary. Hitchens thinks that "religion spoils everything." Dawkins contends that raising one's offspring in one's religion constitutes child abuse. Harris argues that it "may be ethical to kill people" on the basis of their beliefs. The perennial atheist litigant Michael Newdow sued (unsuccessfully) to bar President Obama from uttering the words "so help me God" when he took his oath of office.

What atheists don't seem to realize is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses. So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?

Charlotte Allen is the author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus" and a contributing editor to the Minding the Campus website of the Manhattan Institute.

A. N. Wilson becomes a born-again Christian!

2009-05-09T01:49:00.000-07:00

He once criticized Christianity, and wrote many books against it, but he has come to embrace it (see also here). As I understand it, the UK can be quite anti-religious. Yet in the midst of this, AN Wilson became a Christian!

Richard Dawkins the Christian?

2009-04-08T02:08:00.000-07:00

We're reported about this before, but we found the video:

Personally, I find it strange that Dawkins would call himself a Christian after calling us delusional. But, hey, that's the "rationality" of Dawkins for you. But since Dawkins loves singing Christmas carols, we hope that he will also join Christians in celebrating Easter as well :)

As for all you atheists, I would urge you to follow Dawkins' example. The blind and mindless flying spaghetti monster demands that you do!

Fighting Against The Lies of Tom Verenna

2009-04-07T21:59:00.000-07:00

In response to "Fighting Against the Slander" (by Thomas Verenna aka Rook Hawkins):

Verenna says, "Frank Walton is a pseudonymous name and he often attacks the person rather than the argument."

I'll let the people judge whether they think I'm just attacking the person and not the argument. But my real name is Frank Walton. I've told people over and over again there is an atheist pretending to be me around the net while posting immature remarks. I wrote about that here. Yet Verenna never acknowledges this. But I think it's quite hypocritical of Verenna for accusing JP Holding for using a "pseudonymous name" - I mean, Verenna called himself "Rook Hawkins" at one point!

Verenna says, "Frank also runs several hate-blogs dedicated to nothing but slander and libel. One such blog, http://thomasverenna.blogspot.com, is directed towards me."

That site is not run by me. The person doing that blogsite has linked to many of my blog articles though. Personally, I love the blogsite. It really does show Verenna for who he really is: a phony. Also, there's another blog on Verenna here. Great stuff!

Verenna says, "Frank claims I lied about being named Assistant Director of the Jesus Project."

I never claimed that. (But, yes, I do think that Verenna is a liar). Everything he says in that section has no bearing on me. But it does look like Verenna is no longer a part of the "Jesus Project" fellowship.

Verenna says, "Do Scholars 'Distance' Themselves From Thomas? There is a claim made that I often talk of scholars who I know, but when questioned these individuals 'distance' themselves from me. Thomas Thompson is listed as an example. But this is not the case. Frank is being dishonest."

No, I'm not. I've responded to the "Thomas L. Thompson" fiasco here (look particularly under "Frank Walton has been caught lying?! Say it ain't so!"). Thompson was lied to by Verenna when he suggested I was "Tim O'Neill". Later on, I've emailed Thompson myself. But he hasn't responded.

If Bob Price thinks that Verenna is a "resourceful scholar" then he can sing that to the hills if he wants. But Price is wrong because even Verenna himself said that he's not a scholar:

"I would not call myself a scholar."

[rationalresponders.com/forum/14034]

Anyway, Verenna doesn't mention the fact (nor does he even bother replying to) that Price did say this,

"...I fear Rook gave the wrong impression..."

He said this NOT too long ago. Verenna won't even bother giving his readers the full story.

Also, realize Verenna does not mention Eric Schumacher who has decided to distance himself from Verenna (read all about this here). So, I'm still vindicated. Many scholars want nothing to do with Verenna.

Verenna says, "Did Thomas Have Anything to do with the Dawkins Claims? Frank and others have insisted that I am partially responsible for the incident where Richard Dawkins had been accused of certain unethical allegations. "

I didn't say Verenna had been partially responsible. So, I don't see how that section has anything to do with me. I specifically pointed fingers at Brian and Kelly - I wrote about that here. However, Verenna was still with the Rational Response Squad during the time, yes, even when they made the allegation that Dawkins had an affair with another woman. I don't recall if he castigated Brian or Kelly for that remark.

Verenna says, "I never said I served in Iraq."

Well now he tells us! Verenna knows full well that he's been keeping his military duty and the Iraq War very ambiguous. Look what he says here,

"I may not have served in the Iraq War, but I'm ready for a war know. [sic]"

- 4 Mar 09, 04:10:18 AM

You "may not" have served in the Iraq War? If you didn't serve there, you'd say, "I did not fight in Iraq." This is the type of ambiguous and dishonest statements Verenna makes.

Verenna says, "Frank claims that I have plagiarized."

Yup, you sure did. And I prove it here. Also, notice that Verenna won't bother showing you the article that he plagiarized. He won't show you the article he wrote nor the quotes from Dennis McKinsey. Figures. Also, I emailed Dennis McKinsey (after he wrote to Tom Verenna), and by then he even acknowledged that Verenna may have indeed plagiarized him! He wrote to us (in 2007) saying,

"If Rook did that then he should not only apologize but refrain from such activity in the future."

Verenna will not tell anybody about this letter we received from McKinsey. Verenna has accused people (who actually do their homework) of plagiarism (like JP Holding), yet the irony of it all is that Verenna is in fact the plagiarist.

Here's Verenna's writing: "It proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus, but only affirms the existence of Christians."

And now here's McKinsey's writing: "...the passage proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus. It only affirms the existence of Christians."

Notice the similarities? The, uh, plagiarism done by Verenna? Why won't Verenna show his readers these quotes? You can't hide from the evidence, Verenna.

Verenna says, "A choice slander that Frank uses is that I’m a pervert."

Yes, you're bad writing about making out with a girl is perversion. (And this video you made with your ho is perverted too). Notice, that Verenna won't bother to show you guys his fictional writings. Seriously, guys, it sucks. Hmm, maybe that's why he wont' show it to you. Verenna also won't tell you how he asked someone to provide him with "cum". Read about that here. Not only that but when he was asked if he f*cked Kelly (of the Rational Response Squad) he wrote this:

"My blogs are of unheard of levels and comprise of my research on ancient texts. And some porn, Halii" (July 4, 2008).

But, again, Verenna doesn't show the evidence I've presented.

Verenna says, "On his site, he lists several quotes which he claims mean that I am a fascist."

Notice again, that Verenna won't even show you guys the quote. This is typical "Verenna" stuff. He's afraid the other side will read the whole story. Anyway, Verenna wrote,

...let this be a reminder that this is what the [Rational Response Squad] is fighting for - to free minds and rid the world or [sic] irrational people like Frank Walton...

If he didn't mean violence, fine then. However, I find it hard that Verenna is a pacifist when earlier in the "Fighting Against the Slander" article he mentioned how he enlisted in the army and was at one time "gung ho" to go to war. But whatever. If he had a change of mind, great. However, if Verenna wants to rid the world of people like me, one things for sure then, he would rather that I not exist at all. To me, that's just as bad as fascism. I, on the other hand, am glad that people like Verenna exist. People have to know how incredibly irrational people like Verenna are, especially when you deny God.

That's all that needs to be said I suppose. All the stuff Verenna says about me (being a stalker, being psychologically damaged, etc.) doesn't hurt me in the least. C'mon, can a shallow mind like Verenna's get the best of me? Of course not. After all, he was voted the most stupidest atheist in his former club. People can go to the biased and dishonest "Rational Response Squad" run blogsite "'Atheism Sucks' Sucks" to see if any of that stuff is true (that dipstick site claims "I'm my own stalker" while saying they have proof that I have been using false names with the same IP addresses - yet they don't even provide the proof or evidence or the IP numbers). But for what it's worth, I still am vindicated about Verenna. Verenna as oyou can see from his "Fighting Against the Slander" article is filled with damage control, while not showing his readers the full truth. Because he knows he has everything to hide. Oh, and, Verenna, give Richard Carrier my blessing. I hope he does get the FBI involved. By then, they'll find out I'm not responsible for any sock-puppery at all. And you've been telling everybody that you intend on suing me, but, so far, I've received no lawsuit (what, it's been like 3 years now!). You got nothing on me, goatee boy. Don't insult your readers, Tommy, by thinking they don't know you're a fraud. Perhaps the best thing to do is to actually study the stuff you criticize. Maybe then you'll be taken more seriously. Thanks and God bless.

Verenna says, "*Edit (2/21/2010): Frank is at it again and quoting text from a message board (Rants ‘n’ Raves) by a member using my name and pseudonym. I do not have an account on RnR; the account is clearly from an impersonator (maybe even one of Frank’s own sock-puppets), like the faux accounts of Sapient and Kelly. There are (or were) several other faux accounts on their website. That Frank knows this and still quotes from the source as if it were really me is another example of his many dishonest character flaws."

(#1) Notice that Verenna (in the very first sentence) admitted that he used a pseudonym. So, for him to complain about JP Holding using pseudonyms is hypocritical. (#2) I did not "sock-puppet" him. But for a person who uses pseudonyms, who is he to complain about sock-puppets? Furthermore, he linked to a website (ie "Atheism Sucks" sucks) that made claims I never said. And I proved it here. (#3) I truly doubt that the person who calls himself by Verenna's pseudonym "Rook Hawkins" is actually another person. I think this is actually Verenna himself. Why is he saying it's another person pretending to be him then? Obviously because (as I said before) he's trying to distance himself from his hypocritical past. Notice that I caught him writing this, "My blogs are of unheard of levels and comprise of my research on ancient texts. And some porn, Halii." Guess what? His website at the Rational Response Squad site is chock full of pornographic images. Also, checkout what we wrote about his obvious perversion above. How doesn't that make Verenna a pervert? Verenna has been trying to delete past articles he's written. But fortunately he's unable to delete some posts at RnR. When he posted articles at atheistnetwork.com, and we found that he plagiarized writings from Dennis McKinsey in one of those articles, Verenna promptly had it deleted. We write about that here. And Verenna says I'm dishonest?

Richard Carrier is THE most stupidest atheist (with a PhD.) EVER!

2009-03-07T22:55:00.000-08:00

Now, I know that sounds harsh. But, trust me, dear readers, it's the truth. You won't find a more stupid atheist (with a Ph. D.) than Dr. Richard Carrier. And we have smoking gun proof to show you that he fits the title.

Now, you guys know that Rook Hawkins has come out with his real name: Tom Verenna. He's probably using his real name now that he distanced himself from the Rational Response Squad (probably, because Brian J. Cutler is a loser, or that Kelly O'Connor is now a prostitute in Nevada: this is not made up - this mother of 3 boys is now a whore at the infamous "Bunny Ranch", using the pseudonym "Kasey Grant"*). To this, I say, good for you, Tommy. However, that still doesn't excuse the fact that your intelligence is as dead as road kill. I can't even begin to show you, dear readers, the super super super idiocy with people like Tom Verenna. I mean, you google "Rook Hawkins" and you'll see how stupid the guy is. Incidentally, someone made a blogsite on Verenna's dishonesty here. Both Christians and atheists know how full of crap Verenna is. I mean, it's just common sense.

Anyway, how does Richard Carrier fit into all of this? Well, would you believe that Carrier actually defended Verenna. Now, I already knew of this because of said reasons, but Carrier has really put his neck out on this one. He has now legitimized Tom Verenna!

A reader of my blog emailed Dr. Carrier after hearing news that he was working with Verenna on the Jesus Project. The reader wrote the following:

Dear Dr. Carrier,

While going through the "Jesus Project" website, I was taken aback that a one Thomas Verenna was listed as one of the contributors. If you didn't know, Verenna was once known as "Rook Hawkins." He was a part of a group called "The Rational Response Squad" that accused Richard Dawkins of having an affair with another woman! Verenna has a history of plagiarism and lies! You can read about him here:

www.myspace.com/thomasverenna

Apart from that, he has no College degree. He only has a high school diploma.

How did this teenager become a part of your group there at "Jesus Project"? Do you support Verenna? Surely, you realize this man is an embarrassment.

BTW, the myspace site that you see there has been taken down because of Verenna. Obviously, the guy is into censorship. But the same info at the myspace site (as I understand it) can be found here.

But this is Richard Carrier's whole and unedited response:

You've been lied to. Unless you are a sock puppet for the liar (he's done that before, so I can't be sure you're not another instance of him doing that), Tom is a staff member and editor for the project, his scholarship will be peer reviewed, he has not committed plagiarism, and had nothing to do with any claims about Dawkins.

Now, the blogsite relied heavily on my articles. I can only guess that Dr. Carrier is talking about me when he speaks of "he"? But, if I lied, Dick, can you tell me where I lied? I never pretended to be someone else, an atheist did that to me (and, incidentally, many of your friends support him). So, there's no sock puppet. But Verenna did commit plagiarism, since he obviously copied off of Dennis McKinsey, and you know what? Dennis McKinsey had his suspicion of Tom Verenna! And, although Tom Verenna may not have had anything to do with the Rational Response Squad's spreading the rumor of Richard Dawkins having an affair with another woman, I haven't read anything by Tom Verenna condemning them (I hope he does). But where's the lie?

But seeing how Dick made an unsupoorted claim against me without showing any proof of the contrary, proves that Dick will lose all sense of reality to defend and legitimize a known con-artist like Tom Verenna.

But this is what I find funny, Dick Carrier just said that Tom Verenna has "scholarship." That's odd, not even Tom Verenna would call himself a scholar. He said so himself:

I would not call myself a scholar.

[rationalresponders.com/forum/14034]

But, if Dick gets his kicks calling the works of Tom Verenna "scholarship" then go nutts! It appears that Verenna would disagree with him. Some of you atheists are probably aghast that Dick would use the word "scholarship" to describe Tom Verenna's work, but, hey, that's how some atheists are, you know. I wish I can say I can feel your pain, but I'm not an atheist. Honestly, I'm a Christian, and I just about laughed out loud when Dick called Verenna's research "scholarship."

Now, this does make Richard Carrier an idiot... and a stupid ass. Think about it. If someone as stupid as high-schooler Tom Verenna, like, say, oh, I don't know, Benny Hinn (yeah, I know, Hinn is probably, just probably, smarter than Verenna but let's just use him) wrote an article on the historical Jesus, would that really impress an academically trained scholar? Of course not. *SHRUGS* But Verenna impressed Carrier.

Now, say that as-stupid-as-Verenna Benny Hinn gave Dr. Gary Habermas his article. Do you think Habermas would be stupid enough to actually take it seriously? Of course not. Habermas knows better. *SAD SIGH* But Carrier doesn't.

And, do you think that Dr. Habermas would be even more stupid to have Benny Hinn edit a book with him, let alone call his works "scholarship"? Of course, Dr. Habermas wouldn't do that. *SHAKES HEAD* But Carrier would.

And, do you think that Dr. Habermas would put an anti-intellectual like Benny Hinn to his scholarly status? Of course not. *SCOFFING* But Carrier thinks that Tom Verenna's only-high-school educated brain peeks most people's research.

Boy, Dr. Carrier, are you stupid!

But, Christians, be of good cheer. It's official! Main-stream atheists and scholars will legitimize people of low moral character, and people of little to no intelligence. According to atheist Richard Carrier, PhD., Tom "the plagiarist" Verenna will be getting peer reviewed! Obviously, the people who are dignifying Verenna by peer reviewing him are just as stupid as he is... so maybe it's not a real "peer review"... but whatever.

To me, knowing that Carrier would defend an obvious joke like Tom Verenna speaks wonders about him. Namely, that Carrier isn't all that smart, and would stop at nothing to show how wrong someone is no matter how strong the evidence is against him. I mean, Carrier truly is an imbecile!

But why is the fact that Tom Verenna being peer reviewed such good news for Christians? Well, this goes to show how desperate and incredibly shallow some atheists are. Peer reviewing Verenna is like peer reviewing Kermit the frog (or the aforementioned Benny Hinn) for historical assessment. Verenna's historical knowledge is as in depth as a pimply faced teenager's (which is ironic since Verenna only holds a high school degree). Indeed, thanks to people like Carrier, this is smoking gun proof that atheists like him are just plain bad when it comes to scholarship. Mark my words, this move by Carrier will make skeptics and atheists move towards Christianity. I praise God this happened! As long as atheists and skeptics and "scholars" attach their names to Tom Verenna, Christians can sit back in ease knowing that the material these idiots produce is bound to be pure trash.

But, in a way, I guess this is good news for shallow-thinking atheists. That's right, maybe, you should be of good cheer too! In the atheist academic world, if a dimwit like Tom Verenna can get peer reviewed (let alone have their works called "scholarly"), then anybody can! Just find a gullible, desperate, pea-brained atheist like Richard Carrier and you'll do just fine. You don't even need a college degree. Heck, who needs high school?!

UPDATE

Oh, shucks! It looks like a non-Christian isn't a part of the "Jesus Project" because of Tom Verenna. Can't you atheist just praise Tom Verenna? Do what Dick does, call Verenna's unsophisticated homework "scholarship". I encourage you guys to do that. It's making Christianity look better and better!

UPDATE

Darn, you stupid atheists! The last thing Christians need you to be is smart. But hey, you're a dime a dozen. Mother nature farted and out you came, and so what do we have? Well, it looks like you guys decided to let Tom Verenna go. He's no longer a fellow with "The Jesus Project." Verenna got canned. The fellowship of "The Jesus Project" saw Verenna go like golum. See Verenna's link is dead now. Verenna's name was taken off from the website (his name is not present on the list). But drats! This leaves me no more excuses to show how stupid skeptics are by defending people like Verenna. Well, Dick is still with Tom. And that doesn't seem to be doing Dick any good. Anyway, Tom Verenna is like a cancer. Any time he latches on to someone (or uses someone's name) for his prestige he hurts not only that person but himself. Let this be a lesson to you, Tommy. Your only friends are literally whores and money-grubbing con-artists like Kelly and Brian Cutler. Although you distanced yourself from them, you're just as bad and stupid as they are.

==============

* - in all seriousness, please, pray for Kelly. This self-destructive act will make her worse.

Kelly,

I know you don't want to hear this, but God loves you. Deep down in your heart you know atheism did you no good. Look what it turned you into! And look at the Rational Response Squad: they're pretty much done and over with. Hardly anybody contributed to you guys at all.

And let's be brutally honest, upon intellectual grounds you could not defend yourself philosophically against competent Christians (you have got to be kidding me if you think Kirk Cameron counts as an apologist!). And look at what you're doing to yourself. Have you no self-respect? You aren't thinking straight. God forgives you for all the radical claims (like "Christians have a mental disorder", etc.) you've made against Him and His church. It isn't too late. And it isn't hard. You can get help. Please, don't think this is condescending. But you can get help, and it's easy. Just go to a Christ-loving Church and I'm sure they won't hesitate to help you. Remember, you have three sons! Do this for them. Your no good lazy boyfriend (Brian J. Cutler) did you more harm than good. I don't know if you guys are still together but if he truly cared for you, he shouldn't have allowed you to prostitute yourself like this. Believe in Jesus, Kelly. He'll do you good. Be a mother to your children. Be a rational lady. You'll have peace of mind. Your sinful past will be blotted out by the blood of Jesus.

And, Kelly, Jesus actually did/does exist. You know you've been covering up Tom Verenna's lies and falsehoods at the Rational Response Squad website. And so you know that his homework only adds up to zero. And, consequently, you know a historical Jesus did exist. Jesus loves you, Kelly. Be more open to the evidence.

If you don't care for this plea, just remember, practically, every single atheist that visited your website their at The Rational Response Squad website and forums, preferred you as a whore than a real woman. They will hurt you, Kelly. And they don't really care for you. You are made in the image of God, and that won't be tainted with the blood of Jesus.

Dan Barker, AGAIN, says rape could be moral!

2009-02-21T13:23:00.000-08:00

I can't recommend the debate between Kyle Butt and Dan Barker enough. What I like about Kyle is the fact that he actually did his homework on Barker's past debates and books - and it shows! The result? Kyle read Barker like a book. As much as Barker tried to refute Kyle with an onslaught of alleged Bible contradictions, moral atrocities done in the name of God, etc., he couldn't break Kyle. Barker was forceful in his presentation (so forceful as a matter of fact that it made him look desperate), but Kyle exhibited grace, patience, and coolness. Consequently, this made Barker look insecure. Kyle lived up to a Christian example, and his generosity made you proud to be a Christian. This was an easy victory for Kyle.

By far, my favorite part in the debate was when Kyle cross-examined Barker and questioned him about morality and rape. Barker has mentioned on occasions that rape could be a moral act (we mentioned that here; heck, Richard Dawkins says rape is morally arbitrary). Kyle exposed this and showed that his moral justification is similar to the Nazis. Check it out:

Jeffery Jay Lowder did not tell the truth about naturalists

2009-01-26T20:07:00.000-08:00

In his debate with Dr. Phil Fernandes, atheist and infidels.org co-founder Jeffery Jay Lowder said the following:

Guess what? Lowder is not telling the truth! Some naturalists do indeed accept that the universe popped into existence out of nothing. Lowder should have known better. He is after all familiar with naturalist Dr. Michael Martin's works. Dr. Martin said the following (in his own debate with Dr. Fernandes):

According to Dr. Fernandes the Kalam cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of God. This is the argument that (1) the universe began in time, that (2) this beginning was caused, and that (3) this cause was God. I am willing to grant (1) although I believe that this premise is much more controversial than Dr. Fernandes supposes. The other two premises I do not grant. First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible.

There you have it. Naturalists do believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing. Personally, I don't have that kind of faith.

Atheist admits Country needs God!

2008-12-31T17:31:00.000-08:00

***UPDATE***

"Continent" and "Country" mix up.

Well, jiminy jillickers, I got Africa mixed up as a country, when really it's a continent! Gee, it only consists of over 53 countries, but calling Africa a country is tootttaalllyyy out of line! *SHRUGS* I'll restate it then: "Atheist admits 53 countries need God!" Whew! "Friendly" atheists have taught me a lesson, didn't they? Thank you, atheists, for making things easier for me :) Anyway...

===========================

From a Times Online Article:

As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem - the crushing passivity of the people's mindset

Matthew Parris (December 27, 2008)

Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it's Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.

It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

At 24, travelling by land across the continent reinforced this impression. From Algiers to Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, then right through the Congo to Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, four student friends and I drove our old Land Rover to Nairobi.

We slept under the stars, so it was important as we reached the more populated and lawless parts of the sub-Sahara that every day we find somewhere safe by nightfall. Often near a mission.

Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers - in some ways less so - but more open.

This time in Malawi it was the same. I met no missionaries. You do not encounter missionaries in the lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents, as you do with the big NGOs. But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. “Privately” because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.

It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.

There's long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: “theirs” and therefore best for “them”; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.

I don't follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the “big man” and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.

Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.

How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds - at the very moment of passing into the new - that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? “Because it's there,” he said.

To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It's... well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary's further explanation - that nobody else had climbed it - would stand as a second reason for passivity.

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.

Happy New Year, guys and gals!

Richard Dawkins admits rape is morally arbitrary!!!

2008-11-11T12:00:00.000-08:00

First Dan Barker says rape could be moral, but now we have Richard Dawkins who says rape is morally arbitrary! Check it out:

Justin Brierley: When you make a value judgement don't you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it's good. And you don't have any way to stand on that statement.

Richard Dawkins: My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.

Justin Brierley: So therefore it's just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, it doesn't in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

Justin Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.

[source]

Is Richard Dawkins evolving towards God?

2008-10-25T23:52:00.001-07:00

In his 2nd debate with John Lennox (on 10-21-2008)*, Richard Dawkins has reportedly said a serious case could be made for a deistic God! It seems that Dawkins is getting a little more smarter (I thought that might have been impossible after reading his book). He ought to be after he admitted that ID can be a legitimate science:

Although he remains an atheist, Dawkins has gone from aliens and UFOs to a deistic god. Let's hope and pray he reaches the Christian God.

*- see the first debate here.

"Rook Hawkins" (aka Tom Verenna) just got caught in another BIG LIE!

2008-10-12T19:18:00.000-07:00

[A video made on this blog article.]

One of the reasons why I like atheist Rook Hawkins (FYI, Rook Hawkins' real first name is Tom Verenna!) so much is that he makes it easy for us Christians to expose him for the fraud that he is. In yet another desperate effort to make his dumb ass look smart he suggested that a number of reputable authors (like Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Eric Schumacher, and Thomas L. Thompson) wanted to read and peer review his book, since Hawkins is so well, uh, researched (despite not having a college education - which is no excuse, seeing how his so-called military service in the first Gulf War should have paid for his tuition). In fact, Hawkins thinks they actually find his intellect so impressive they just had to meet with him and work with him on his not-published-yet book.

Observe this video by Rook Hawkins:

Notice Hawkins claimed that these scholars were first interested in his work. They heard that he was writing a book and so they contacted him to help out. And I quote him in this video:

... Jake answered my prayers! He actually got people interested in my book, like, not just interested but... and not just people, important people, like scholarly people! All of a sudden started emailing me out of nowhere saying, "Hey, I heard you're writing a book, can we help you out?" You know, "Hey, I heard you're writing a book. Mind if we peer review it? Can I look at your manuscript?" Wow, I can't tell you how thankful I am to Jake! I mean, I prayed to Jake that he'll get some support for my book and I've got all the support now. I don't know where they came from. I got Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Eric Schumacher... What's his face? Thomas L. Thompson.

Guess what? Jake didn't answer his prayers (which vindicates Christianity, I guess), because this is all bull! Rook Hawkins has just lied to you and we prove it.

Here are the scholars Hawkins mentioned: Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Eric Schumacher, Thomas L. Thompson. Remember, Hawkins claimed they all of a sudden started emailing him "out of nowhere", saying something to the effect of "Hey, I heard you're writing a book, can we help you out?"

Well, a reader (Jack Cummings) of our blog did some detective work and contacted Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Eric Schumacher, and Thomas L. Thompson to see if this was true. It wasn't! Imagine the surprise.

First, Thomas L. Thompson...

According to Jack, Dr. Thompson's email wasn't working. But that doesn't matter anyway. Thomas L. Thompson never first got interested in Rook Hawkins' book anyway. Instead, Rook had to first contact Thompson and asked him to read his manuscript. As a result, Thompson asked Rook to stop using his name! We wrote about that here.

Second, Robert Price...

Jack forwarded me his email exchange with Robert Price. It speaks for itself:

Jack Cummings:

9/5/2008

Hi Dr. Price,

I've been concerned about a chap by the name of Rook Hawkins (I'm sure you realize that that is not his real name) from the so-called Rational Response Squad. Hawkins has been known to lie about his past. For instance, he actually claimed he served in the first Iraq War, and he had said that Thomas L. Thompson was going to peer review his book. Hawkins is also known for writing sexually stupid material and fancies himself as a ladies man.

Why in the world are you helping Rook Hawkins' research his new book on the gnostics?

Yours,

Jack C.

Robert Price:

Jack,

All this is news to me. Can you direct me to any of this weird stuff?

World War One? I had the impression he projected himself as a new, young turk of sorts, not an elder scholar.

And do you mean that Thompson is not actually reviewing his material? I know he is in friendly contact with Thompson, as he has put me in touch with him.

I'd appreciate any further clarification you can provide.. Thanks for your concern.

Bob Price

Jack Cummings:

Hi Dr. Price,

This is all news to you? Please forgive me then if my tone seemed harsh. By the way, Rook Hawkins claimed to have served in the first Iraq War not War World 1.

But Rook Hawkins claimed that you were interested in his book. He said that after you heard he was writing a book, you actually contacted him and asked to read his manuscript and to peer review it. At least that's the impression I got after watching this video of his:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HqsM4G2s3w

You have to be careful with Rook. He's lied about Thomas L. Thompson before here (<-- this is from a Christian blogsite, but the information is warranted). As a result Thompson asked Rook to stop using his name. Also, Rook has been caught plagiarizing before too (read about it here).

So was Rook Hawkins wrong about giving the impression that *you* contacted *him* and asked to read his work and offered to help him with his book?

Yours,

Jack C.

Robert Price:

Jack,

Thanks! I will follow this stuff up. And yes, I fear Rook gave the wrong impression: he asked me if I'd read the book. But in all fairness, it may simply be that once he asked, I may have said, "Sure. Send it to me." And this he could describe as a request. No more than that is true, though.

Bob

Thirdly, Richard Carrier...

Here's just one more reason why I love Richard Carrier so much. Jack Cummings emailed Dick Carrier, and guess what? Dick defended Hawkins! By defending a no-talent and non-intellectual and a known plagiarist and liar like Hawkins, this speaks a hell of a whole lot about Dick. Meaning, Dick is legitimizing the works of Rook Hawkins! Christians, be of good cheer. Dick has just made himself look stupid by supporting Hawkins. Here's Jack Cummings email exchange with Dick:

Jack Cummings:

9-5-2008

Hi Dr. Carrier,

I've been concerned about a chap by the name of Rook Hawkins (I'm sure you realize that that is not his real name). Hawkins has been known to lie about his past. For instance, he actually claimed he served in the first Iraq War, and he had said that Thomas L. Thompson was going to peer review his book. Hawkins is also known for writing sexually stupid material and fancies himself as a ladies man.Why in the world are you helping Rook Hawkins' research his new book on the gnostics?

Yours,

Jack C.

P. S. Sorry, I should explain. I don't know if you know it but Rook Hawkins actually mentioned you in his video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HqsM4G2s3w

In it, he claimed that you heard that he was writing a book. And so you contacted him about it and offered your help. Is that true?

I contacted Robert Price (whom Rook mentioned in the video) and he told me that Rook was giving people the wrong impression.

Dick:

Sorry, I don't recall. It's possible I heard from someone about his book and asked about it, and it's possible he told me about it first, and its possible both happened at the same time. That was quite some time ago. In any case, I and several other professionals are contributing chapters to one of his edited projects (which may or may not be realized). He is also writing another book on his own, and I have given him advice on how to meet the high standards such a book must meet to be worth writing in the first place. If he is alleging anything more than that let me know.

--
Richard C. Carrier, Ph.D.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com

I'm only advising him on how to do it professionally, same as I would do for any student. Otherwise, I really don't care what he proclaims of his love life or his philosophy thereof.

As for Dr. Thompson, that much is true as far as I know (although the project isn't yet on contract and could still fall through), if you mean the book Rook wants to edit with multiple contributors. If you mean Rook's other book (on the gnostics), I have no idea whether Dr. Thompson is reviewing it in any way.

As for serving in "the first Iraq War" where does he claim that? I served then (though only stateside as a base guard--but as we all did, I received the national service medal for it), but I can't imagine he's even old enough.

--
Richard C. Carrier, Ph.D.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com

Jack Cummings:

Rook Hawkins said, "You know how many friends I've lost in Iraq? You know why the fuck they're over there? Keeping the rest of my fucking friends alive, not because they want to masacre fucking children you dumb shit."

He also said, "This may have been true prior to combat. In fact I was gung-ho. But when you have people trying to KILL you on the other side of the fense, or the hill, or the desert plain, or the sand dune, your politics change pretty damn fast."

These quotes come from this forum.

Also, did you know the Rational Response Squad (a group Rook Hawkins belongs to) had claimed Richard Dawkins had an affair with another woman! Furthermore, Hawkins has been caught plagiarizing other people's work (he was ripping off of Dennis McKinsey)!

Honestly, why do you want to work with a phony like Hawkins?!

Jack C.

Dick:

> Rook Hawkins said, "You know how many friends I've lost in Iraq?
> You know why the fuck they're over there? Keeping the rest of my
> fucking friends alive, not because they want to masacre fucking
> children you dumb shit."

Are you inept at reading? All I see here is a reference to the current (not first) war, and to the fact that he has friends in it (not that he is in it). I can literally say the same. So I don't get where you got the idea that he claimed he served in the first war.

> He also said, "This may have been true prior to combat. In fact I
> was gung-ho. But when you have people trying to KILL you on the
> other side of the fense, or the hill, or the desert plain, or the
> sand dune, your politics change pretty damn fast."

Where does he say anyone was trying to kill "him" in Iraq? The fact that he was gung-ho for the war is true of many who aren't serving.

So, does he elaborate and claim he was talking about himself here, rather than people he knows? Does he discuss being in the military himself? And does he mention this being about the first war?

I'm still at a loss here. How did you extract from these words what you claimed?

> These quotes come from this forum.

I don't have time to read forum threads.

> Also, did you know the Rational Response Squad (a group Rook
> Hawkins belongs to) had claimed Richard Dawkins had an affair with
> another woman!

Why should I care? And which wife? He's had three. And what has this to do with Rook?

> Furthermore, Hawkins has been caught plagiarizing other people's
> work (he was ripping off of Dennis McKinsey)!

Where? And what do you mean by plagiarizing? Copying exact text and claiming it as one's own (what most people mean), or paraphrasing without attribution (which everyone does all the time in informal settings)?

> Honestly, why do you want to work with a phony like Hawkins?!

What you think of him has no bearing on my professional relationships. I'm sure people think Dawkins is a phony, too. So what?

Jack Cummings:

Oh, I'm sorry, when Rook says "In fact I was gung-ho. But when you have people trying to KILL you on the other side of the fense, or the hill, or the desert plain, or the sand dune, your politics change pretty damn fast."

Uhm, yeah, he was not alluding to being in combat. Nice assessment there. But hey, if you think he wasn't talking about being in combat, suit yourself.

RRS said that Richard Dawkins was cheating on his current wife. I can't believe you didn't even know this. Atheists and Christians alike know all about it. If you think that Rook Hawkins doesn't have bad judgment for involving himself in a group that puts out deliberate lies about people, again, suit yourself.

Rook Hawkins plagiarized McKinsey by putting in his own words with his. Atheism Sucks writes about it here.

In all seriousness, if you want to associate yourself with a shallow intellectual, plagiarist, who tries to make himself look like a "critical historian" - have fun, pal.

At least as a Christian, I wouldn't dare help Fred Phelps, let alone contribute an article in an anthology he plans to put out. If I did, I think that speaks a lot about who I am.

But if you get your kicks being around people like Rook Hawkins, well, that says a lot about you.

Jack C.

Fourthly, Eric Schumacher...

Again, this email exchange speaks for itself:

Jack Cummings:

9/6/08

Hi Dr. Schumacher,

I've been concerned about a chap by the name of Rook Hawkins (I'm sure you realize that that is not his real name). Hawkins has been known to lie about his past. For instance, he actually claimed he served in the first Iraq War, and he had said that Thomas L. Thompson was going to peer review his book. Hawkins is also known for writing sexually stupid material and fancies himself as a ladies man.

Why in the world are you helping Rook Hawkins' research his new book on the gnostics?

Yours,

Jack C.

PS

Sorry, I should explain. I don't know if you know it but Rook Hawkins actually mentioned you in his video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HqsM4G2s3w

In it, he claimed that you heard that he was writing a book. And so you contacted him about it and offered your help. Is that true?

I contacted Robert Price (whom Rook mentioned in the video) and he told me that Rook was giving people the wrong impression.

Eric Schumacher:

Jack Cummings,

I am not helping Tom (rook hawkins) and, as Robert Price told you, it sounds like he is giving off the wrong impression.

Be well,
Eric

My (Frank Walton's) letter to Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Eric Schumacher, and Thomas L. Thompson:

10/13/2008

Hi guys,

Look, I think the best thing to do is to help Rook Hawkins with his book. Yup, you heard me. I want you to peer review Rook Hawkins' book. Please, endorse and leave blurbs on his book cover. Best of all, get Prometheus to publish Hawkins' book!

What we Christians need right now is rest. You may not know it, but you guys are helping us take a vacation on stupid atheists when you guys actually encourage and legitimize phonies and liars and plagiarists like Rook Hawkins.

If anybody tells you that the joke is on you by helping Rook Hawkins, tell them to shut up and evolve. The joke is NOT on you guys. And don't worry, you won't be laughed at or mocked or ridiculed or ruined by putting your name with Rook Hawkins' name. No matter what you do or where you go, continue to spread the good news of Rook Hawkins. He's a ladies man.

Forever yours,

Frank Walton

A short letter to Rook Hawkins:

10/13/2008

Hey Rookie,

Thank you so much for making that video. I'm reminded when you made the "JBL Card" video, and how you made it look like that put you in league with real scholars. Since then (and thanks to us) you've deleted that video! Oh, well. But hey, Rookie... or Tom... or whatever you call yourself... you can delete the above video if you want. It's not going to matter because I just downloaded it. Anyway, continue to act and say stupid things. I prefer you that way.

Frank Walton

Frank Turek roasts Christopher Hitchens

2008-10-10T02:09:00.000-07:00

Does God Exist?: Turek vs Hitchens

See how Hitchens does everything he can to avoid answering easy and straightforward questions. Furthermore, realize how he hardly touches on evidences Turek gave for the existence of God:

An atheist describes his experience in the debate and says Hitchens was "disappointing":

The real disappointment, however, came from the content of Hitchens’ answers. Hitchens avoided answering a large number of the questions posed to him. In fact, I cannot think of a single non-trivial question which he answered directly and to the point.

David Wood did not take Richard Carrier out of context, stupid

2008-09-16T19:41:00.001-07:00

After all, that there are no blue monkeys flying out of my butt is sufficient reason to believe there are no such creatures, and so it is with anything else.

- Richard Carrier

First of all, I would like to introduce you guys to a blue monkey we found (click on the image, you can play with him!):

adopt your own virtual pet!

Dickypoo (we named him after Richard Carrier) claimed he came out of Richard Carrier's ass. No kidding! He came straight out of Carrier's poop-shoot! Also, realize, Dickypoo evolved to the point where he not only changed to the color blue but now he can speak! Get a load of that, huh? Evolution at its best! Dickypoo said his kind are only born out of atheists' and sketics' buttholes. They refuse to come out of Christians' butts because we're too narrow minded. But it may not be long before they come out of John W. Loftus' ass, Ed Babinski's ass, Brian Sapient Cutler's ass, Richard Dawkins' ass, or Dan Barker's ass, too. Dickypoo told me a pink monkey is going to come out of Rook "Tom" Hawkins' ass very soon.

Anyway...

There was an atheist who requested I take off David Wood's critique of atheist Richard Carrier's book Sense & Gooodness Without God from my blogsite. Why? Because he felt that Wood deliberately took Carrier out of context. He told me since I haven't read Carrier's book, I shouldn't allow Wood's critique because I wouldn't know it was fair. Fair enough. But guess what? I just received my copy of Carrier's book, and David Wood did not take Carrier out of context. For instance, one of the most controversial and laughable quotes by Carrier is about a blue monkey coming out of the crack of his stanky ass! In so many words, Carrier suggested since he didn't fart out a blue monkey "there is no observable divine hand in nature as a causal process." (What's with these atheists using body parts? Even Brian Cutler suggested his nipples disproved God! Funny thing is, he may have gotten this argument from Carrier!)

This ain't a joke. Here's the full context and paragraph from whence that quote came from:

"[N]ow for the third [reason to be an atheist]. The nature of the world is manifestly dispassionate and blind, exhibiting no value-laden behavior or message of any kind. It is like an autistic idiot savant, a marvelous machine wholly incomprehending of itself or others. This is exactly what we should expect if it was not created and governed by a benevolent deity, while it is hardly explicable on the theory that there is such a being. Since there is no observable divine hand in nature as a causal process, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no divine hand. After all, that there are no blue monkeys flying out of my butt is sufficient reason to believe there are no such creatures, and so it is with anything else."

Sorry atheists, but David Wood was right when he wrote:

This may be the worst argument ever offered by anyone, and it gives us some insight into Richard’s position. Let us ponder his logic here. Richard draws an analogy between the absence of an observable divine hand and the absence of blue monkeys flying out of his butt. Just as we reject the idea of blue monkeys, so also we should reject the idea of God. Since this is an analogy, his conclusion about God can only be as strong as his conclusion about blue monkeys. But how strong is that conclusion? Richard says the fact that blue monkeys aren’t flying out of his butt is “sufficient reason” to conclude that blue monkeys don’t exist. The tremendous weakness of this argument should be obvious. Presumably, there are no monkeys of any color flying out of Richard’s butt. Are we to conclude that monkeys don’t exist? Neither are there fire trucks, books, planets, horses, or bees emerging from his butt. But all these things exist.

Reading this argument made me wonder how Richard has managed to survive as an atheist apologist. In the end I concluded that he uses the arguments of other atheists very well, and that this ability has helped him become an apologist. However, when he tries to come up with his own arguments, the result is disastrous. Anyone who would claim that something relating to animals in his butt is evidence that God doesn’t exist is not ready for serious academic discussion (or doesn’t think that his readers are).

Dick Carrier was outraged by David Wood's assessment and wrote:

Wood then engages in logical legerdemain against an unrelated joke I put in the book, "that there are no blue monkeys flying out my butt is sufficient reason to believe that there are no such creatures" (p. 273), which he takes (without any sensible reason) as arguing that there are no blue moneys, or even that monkeys don't exist!

Well, yes, since you claimed it didn't come out of your poop-hole, then according to you, any kind of monkey can't exist, because you're the one who said, "Since there is no observable divine hand in nature as a causal process, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no divine hand. After all, that there are no blue monkeys flying out of my butt is sufficient reason to believe there are no such creatures, and so it is with anything else." What is the "after all" there for, tight ass?! And you said, "and so it is with anything else." You made your butt the condition to the premise of your argument which you mentioned in the previous sentence. The "causal process" is you taking a dump. The blue monkey coming out of your crack is a sign of an "observable divine hand".

Dick continues and writes:

Such an absurd conclusion should have clued him off right away that I meant by "such creatures" not just blue monkeys but "blue monkeys flying out my butt," a conclusion that is not only sensible and correct, but obviously the conclusion intended by the context.

... okay. David Wood didn't miss that. He knew your were talking about a particular blue monkey coming out of your butt. He wasn't talking about your face, butt-head. But you said it goes for "anything else." If it's anything else, it could be, well, anything else, genius. Which includes regular monkeys of any color. But your argument goes like this:

If a blue monkey comes out of my ass, there are divine acts in nature.
There is no monkey spewing from my rear hatch.
Therefore, there are no divine acts in nature.

You're begging the question and making a hasty generalization. Can't a divine act happen outside of your ass? Or is only divine acts contingent upon your ass? Sorry, but not everything (ie "anything else") can fit in your ass. Now, that's something Sir-Mix-A-Lot would be impressed with!

But hey two can play at this game, pal:

If I crack my knuckles, then God exists.
I cracked my knuckles.
Therefore, God exists.

See, Dick. That argument is just as stupid as yours.

Tight-wad continues:

This is yet another example of an egregious failure to employ the tools of interpretive charity that I requested of him. And like most hard core Christians I have met in my life, Wood evidently has no sense of humor and is incapable of getting or enjoying a joke, but instead thinks "anyone who would claim that something relating to animals in his butt is evidence that God doesn't exist is not ready for serious academic discussion." What a boring world Wood wants to live in.

Uhm, the joke is on you, dude. This argument you made is so stupid, it speaks for itself. Besides, if David Wood is boring, might I retort by saying you have absolutely no original bone in your body. We heard it in Wayne's World where Wayne spoke of monkeys coming out of his butt. But think about it, Dick. You're a tight ass. Your ass is so tight, if you farted, only dogs can hear it. The fact that you can even have solid waste coming out of your crack is miraculous given your uptight nature. Why not try shoving a blue monkey up your butt to give yourself some leeway?

And another thing, Dick. We know you've accused us of lying. Well, we'll let the readers decide that. But one thing is for sure, we never lied about you. We knew your unpopular ass couldn't get yourself anywhere, so what you did was use names of more popular known Christians to get yourself a wider audience. Yes, Dick, don't deny it, but you're like those unpopular, lonely, pimple-faced, nerds that people love to pick on. And although you have an uncanny resemblance to Bill Gates, you'll never be as well known as him. You're a loser.

But I'll be open-minded, Dick. Perhaps, you're right. A monkey coming out of someone's crack can lead him to being a born-again Christian. (Who would have known?!) Or, at least, God-belief. Just ask this cholo who tried to take Jim Carrey out:

Yes, Dick! May you continue to pull more wonderful and devastating arguments out of your ass!

Former atheist Antony Flew reviews atheist bigot Richard Dawkins' God Delusion

2008-08-29T20:37:00.000-07:00

Antony Flew is a philosopher by training and profession. Richard Dawkins is not. In fact, Dawkins sucks as a philosopher. Atheists touting The God Delusion just goes to show how incredibly shallow-minded they are. Anyway, Flew who was once the most famous atheist in the world turned into a Deist after following the evidence and concluding that a God exists. On the other hand, Dawkins (who is without a doubt now the most famous atheist in the modern world) always had his mind up about atheism. Anyway, Flew just reviewed Dawkins' book. Here it is:

The God Delusion by the atheist writer Richard Dawkins, is remarkable in the first place for having achieved some sort of record by selling over a million copies. But what is much more remarkable than that economic achievement is that the contents – or rather lack of contents – of this book show Dawkins himself to have become what he and his fellow secularists typically believe to be an impossibility: namely, a secularist bigot. (Helpfully, my copy of The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as ‘an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view’).

The fault of Dawkins as an academic (which he still was during the period in which he composed this book although he has since announced his intention to retire) was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form. Thus we find in his index five references to Einstein. They are to the mask of Einstein and Einstein on morality; on a personal God; on the purpose of life (the human situation and on how man is here for the sake of other men and above all for those on whose well-being our own happiness depends); and finally on Einstein’s religious views. But (I find it hard to write with restraint about this obscurantist refusal on the part of Dawkins) he makes no mention of Einstein’s most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it. (I myself think it obvious that if this argument is applicable to the world of physics then it must be hugely more powerful if it is applied to the immeasurably more complicated world of biology.)

Of course many physicists with the highest of reputations do not agree with Einstein in this matter. But an academic attacking some ideological position which s/he believes to be mistaken must of course attack that position in its strongest form. This Dawkins does not do in the case of Einstein and his failure is the crucial index of his insincerity of academic purpose and therefore warrants me in charging him with having become, what he has probably believed to be an impossibility, a secularist bigot.

On page 82 of The God Delusion is a remarkable note. It reads ‘We might be seeing something similar today in the over-publicised tergiversation of the philosopher Antony Flew, who announced in his old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity (triggering a frenzy of eager repetition all around the Internet).’

What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew but what he is showing here about Dawkins. For if he had had any interest in the truth of the matter of which he was making so much he would surely have brought himself to write me a letter of enquiry. (When I received a torrent of enquiries after an account of my conversion to Deism had been published in the quarterly of the Royal Institute of Philosophy I managed – I believe – eventually to reply to every letter.)

This whole business makes all too clear that Dawkins is not interested in the truth as such but is primarily concerned to discredit an ideological opponent by any available means. That would itself constitute sufficient reason for suspecting that the whole enterprise of The God Delusion was not, as it at least pretended to be, an attempt to discover and spread knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God but rather an attempt – an extremely successful one – to spread the author’s own convictions in this area.

A less important point which needs to be made in this piece is that although the index of The God Delusion notes six references to Deism it provides no definition of the word ‘deism’. This enables Dawkins in his references to Deism to suggest that Deists are a miscellany of believers in this and that. The truth, which Dawkins ought to have learned before this book went to the printers, is that Deists believe in the existence of a God but not the God of any revelation. In fact the first notable public appearance of the notion of Deism was in the American Revolution. The young man who drafted the Declaration of Independence and who later became President Jefferson was a Deist, as were several of the other founding fathers of that abidingly important institution, the United States.

In that monster footnote to what I am inclined to describe as a monster book – The God Delusion – Dawkins reproaches me for what he calls my ignominious decision to accept, in 2006, the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth. The awarding Institution is Biola, The Bible Institute of Los Angeles. Dawkins does not say outright that his objection to my decision is that Biola is a specifically Christian institution. He obviously assumes (but refrains from actually saying) that this is incompatible with producing first class academic work in every department – not a thesis which would be acceptable in either my own university or Oxford or in Harvard.

In my time at Oxford, in the years immediately succeeding the second world war, Gilbert Ryle (then Waynflete Professor of Metaphysical Philosophy in the University of Oxford) published a hugely influential book The Concept of Mind. This book revealed by implication, but only by implication, that minds are not entities of a sort which could coherently be said to survive the death of those whose minds they were.

Ryle felt responsible for the smooth pursuit of philosophical teaching and the publication of the findings of philosophical research in the university and knew that, at that time, there would have been uproar if he had published his own conclusion that the very idea of a second life after death was self-contradictory and incoherent. He was content for me to do this at a later time and in another place. I told him that if I were ever invited to give one of the Gifford Lecture series my subject would be The Logic of Mortality. When I was, I did and these Lectures were first published by Blackwell (Oxford) in 1987. They are still in print from Prometheus Books (Amherst, NY).

Finally, as to the suggestion that I have been used by Biola University. If the way I was welcomed by the students and the members of faculty whom I met on my short stay in Biola amounted to being used then I can only express my regret that at the age of 85 I cannot reasonably hope for another visit to this institution.

Awesome link: conservapedia.com/Atheism

2008-05-04T15:30:00.000-07:00

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_Quotes

http://www.conservapedia.com/Weak_Atheism

http://www.conservapedia.com/Strong_atheism

http://www.conservapedia.com/New_Atheism

http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution

Christians and atheists knew he had it coming

2008-05-04T14:53:00.000-07:00

In response to Greydon, I wrote this:

================================

Hey Greydon,

Thanks. I hope all goes well. As I told you before, due to the fact that you have separated yourself from Brian Cutler (or Brian Sapient), you have received more respect from not only Christians but atheists as well! So, don't sweat it. They don't hate you. Only the (ir)Rational Response Squad does. A scrawny two-pound weakling named Kevin R. Brown said this about you (Posted on: June 11, 2008 - 4:24am),

"If it were my world, he'd be fertilizer by now, and there'd be no need to worry about it."

Unfortunately, Brian Cutler bred this type of hateful mentality into a bunch of gullible idiots who wish death upon you. This is not a "Brian Sapient (and the Rational Response Squad) and Atheists VS Christians" thing; it's a "Christians and Atheists together VS Brian Sapient and the Rational Response Squad" thing. Funny how you actually put Christians and atheists together for this one cause at least. That's a point you deserve, my friend. Indeed this incident, while wrong, was a triumph for both Christians and atheists.

You and I both know that atheists dreamed of kicking Brian Cutler's ass. You did what a lot of them wished they could do: punch him in the face. Almost everybody in Richard Dawkins' forum and everybody at Rant N Rave are (more or less) giggling their heads off about this beating. Although Christians (and most atheists) condemned this ass-whipping, they find it very hard to feel sorry for Brian Cutler anyway. I certainly don't feel sorry for him. I don't approve of this beating, but it sure as hell was hilarious! To me, it was a spanking that went a little too far. I share the laughter with atheists from both RDF and Rant N Rave, though.

As for you, Brian... Well, you're deliberately ignoring the obvious. The fact it was an atheist (and not a Christian) that kicked your ass totally aggravates you, doesn't it? This is quite significant. It means that through all your pathetic life, where you've been dissing Christians, it all came to nothing. All that hard work went down the toilet bowl, dude. You've done all this, and the only person who literally got hurt was you! You're on a path of self-destruction and Christians had nothing to do with it. And by taking this path you not only pissed off atheists (like Richard Dawkins and his fans), but they've distanced themselves from you. Because they know you're not much of a good example of rationality. I know you didn't mean to piss off atheists, but you did. This goes to show how much of a loser you and the (ir)Rational Response Squad are.

Funny how you always think those who beat you in a mental or physical fight just happen to suffer from some type of psychological problem. Who can forget your "theism is a mental disorder" fiasco (where you included Martin Luther King, Jr. and your mother as people with mental disorders just for believing in God)? But now, it's "anybody who disses Brian has a mental disorder." That's as crazy as Kelly claiming that her ex-husband physically beat her (yet the courts would grant him full custody of their three children, anyway?). To me, the real abuse she got was when she was stripping at the "Bada-Bing!" Horny customers abused her by throwing money at her body.

In all seriousness though, I wish you a fast recovery. Greydon and I are sorry this happened to you, but let's face it, you had it coming. I would urge you to stop pissing Christians and atheists off. Start by trying your best from ripping people off (after all, the issue between you and Greydon was over money). Money is important, but it must be earned, OK? I know you're asking Christians and atheists for money to help with your "hospital bills"; and you'll be probably suing Greydon for, well, more money, anyway; and you're still profiting from an organization you claim should be non-profit; but, don't you think a better thing to do right now is to change your tactics? Perhaps, having a more respectful and mature and rational tone would help? Quite frankly, you're as shallow as Rook Hawkins' homework on history and religion. Well, most of his work came from somebody else, but you know what I mean.

You seem to be buddying up to Greydon now. At least apologize to him, OK? But I hope Greydon still keeps his distance. Let's face it, you like to use your friends. When Richard Dawkins found out that you were using him to further your own names, he distanced himself from you; then you and Kelly wanted revenge on him by claiming he had an affair with another woman. That still didn't stop you from using him though! I still see you using his picture in your myspace accounts. Of course you need this for money, and we know how you guys use it. Even with this beating you got, you're still trying to milk people for money! Personally, I think you're buddying up to Greydon because you know that people see him as a "hero" after he pounded you to smithereens. Perhaps by being close to him it wouldn't make you look like a bigger jack ass? But whatever.

When I asked him what exactly happened, Greydon told me through email correspondence to trust my instincts of this beating. Well, my instincts tell me this:

1. In the past, Greydon has been unhappy with how you've been handling his album sales. <- atheists friends of mine have confirmed this with me.
2. Greydon approached you about this.
3. You brushed him off.
4. Greydon still tried to talk about this with you on several occasions.
5. But you still ignored him. Obviously, there was something you didn't want to tell him about the money and album sales.
6. At the AHA conference, Greydon wanted to settle this problem for good.
7. Yet you were still being dismissive and rude to him as always.
8. Greydon had it, and he done kicked your ass!

Now, you're making this excuse that your "assistant" didn't mail out the CDs because of a "misunderstanding." If that's the case why is it all of a sudden you're sending out CDs of Greydon Square's albums in time now but not then? It just seems so convenient. And why didn't you use the "assistant" problem as a legitimate excuse to Greydon instead of ignoring him? You're not making any sense. Just admit it. You ripped him and his customers off. Period. And now you're trying to make up for it, lest Greydon Square has legal grounds for suing you. I say atheists should help Greydon Square with any legal bills he has.

As for you, Greydon: You're a man for apologizing. Although we obviously disagree on a lot of things, thanks for keeping it cool. I know Brian is blaming your supposed bi-polar condition on your beating him up. But let's be honest, it felt good when you kicked his ass, didn't it? Did I hear that you were still smiling after the incident? Much respect, homie!

Always,

Frank Walton

The dirt on RRS

"Jesus Existed, Stupid" addendum

2008-04-26T23:06:00.000-07:00

Basically, this is what shallow-minded Christ Mythicists believe (list by Zach Moore):

- Paul does not corroborate any of the narrative details about Jesus' life as described in any of the Gospels.
- Paul does not cite Jesus' teachings when it would be beneficial for his arguments if he had done so.
- The Testimonium Flavianum is a suspect interpolation, with the implication that the Jewish historian Josephus was unaware of Jesus' ministry, as well as several historical details mentioned in the Gospels.
- Contemporary pagan historians are unaware of any individual Jesus, and any reports (Tacitus, Pliny, etc.) are distinctly second-hand (i.e., refer to circulating stories and rumors).
- The character of Jesus shares many archetypical characteristics with previous and contemporary mythical figures (Osiris-Dionysus, Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, etc.)
- The essential Gospel narrative shares many narrative elements with previous and contemporary mythical and fictional stories (The Odyssey, The Illiad, Chaereas and Callirhoe, etc.)
- The deeds of the character Jesus are very similar to previous and contemporary legends about great men (Apollonius of Tyana, Pythagoras, Asclepius, etc.)
- Many aspects of the character of Jesus are very similar to those of previous Jewish literary characters (Moses, Joshua, Elijah, etc.)
- Matthew and Luke base their accounts on Mark, and add extravagant details in a manner that suggests legendary development.
- Key details in the Gospels do not conform to established historical facts germane to their setting.
- There is evidence of later orthodox revision and redaction in the Gospels, Pauline Epistles, and Pastoral Epistles.
- Paul's conception of Jesus was that of a spirit-being, rather than as a historical person, who became a savior through deeds performed in pre-historical celestial time.

Quick Word

2008-04-25T14:59:00.000-07:00

Hey!

Expand/Collapse

I'm just dropping a quick note off to let everyone know that I'm still alive and well.

I just graduated from Basic Military Training today, and monday I ship out for Technical Training. I'm proud to say that I received 'Honor Graduate' which means I was in the top 10% of my graduating class - I also get an extra ribbon for my uniform that let's everyone know that I'm an honor grad and a medallion besides my "Airman's Coin" as a reward.

Basic Training was tough, but I'm glad I went through it. I'll start posting within the coming weeks, and I'll be glad to see you all again.

Objective Morality vs. Subjective Morality? Why?

2008-04-06T23:45:00.000-07:00

While working on a previous article and trying to write up the second portion, I decided I might chime in with my views regarding morality. I intend for this post to be brief as they are just my general thoughts on the subject and I understand that this topic has been done to death.

Objectivists, on the whole, believe there to be a morality that is not only the "standard" to follow, but that is independant of any subjective (preference-based) expression or experience. That is basically how I view both sides. Theists, for the most part, are Objectivists. Atheists, it seems, for the most part, are not. Atheists seem to view morality as a sort of practical approach to survival where ethical standards are shaped by a number of factors relating to the passing on of genes or the relative pleasure of the majority. The interesting thing that needs to be noted here is that as an Objectivists, one can equally see the practical approaches of a moral system. For instance, I would agree with an Atheist that morals are, to some degree, just a practical way for us to survive and lessen the suffering of this world. This is a natural inclination we humans have.

Expand/Collapse

Now, where I may differ with many Theists is that I do not consider the Genetic Fallacy to actually be a fallacy when applied to necessary conditions. Now, the Genetic Fallacy is basically a fallacy that is committed when someone states that something is right or wrong based on the origins of their behavior or beliefs. To some degree, this fallacy can be committed, but can it be committed when going all the way back to the Ultimate Reality? You see, the problem I have when the Genetic Fallacy is used from some Theists is that it can be equally applied to our own Source (God). We are the way we are, we believe the way we believe, and we follow a moral code not simply because we appeal to something higher than us, but because that something cannot appeal to anything higher than itself. What I mean by this is, at the very end of the day, the Atheists and the Theists are stuck in the same boat: What we do is based on what we are and what we are is based on what the Ultimate Reality is.

So, in believing this, I see that when an Atheist appeals to the "survival" card, that they are being an objectivists in relation to their worldview (metaphysical naturalism).

Now, the problems I have with the Atheists views of morality is, while, at the end of the day we Theists are up the same stream (note the boating references here; I miss being by the water), the way human beings act does not seem at all appropriate to a Godless worldview. Yes, we all act differently to some degree and consider certain things moral and other things not moral. We all differ. And yes, we all choose by this preference how we run governments and how we deal with other individuals that do not follow our same moral codes. And even, if I may say, we do not even differ on how we are justified.

For instance. Say that a group of human beings are Atheist and are running a government. These group of individuals, on the basis of their conception of survival, decide to weed out others that do not follow this vision. In the same way, Theists act no differently, because all we are simply doing is appealing to a different conception of what constitutes as "reality". At the end of the day, we punish others based on a subjective choice of what that objective standard is (note this is not the same as being a subjectivists). So, even if we may say that an Atheist has no justification for doing X because it is just based on preference, that is no different than what Theists does with X because it is based on a preference to follow a certain standard. So, at the end of the day, we are all in the same boat.

But Atheists disagree about what it is to be best at survival and whatnot because they have no standard by which to figure this out.

Okay. True. Let us grant that. Now let us also say this. The "mob-rule" mentality is exactly the same for every person and every culture, whether they appeal to God or not. Sure, Hitler may disagree with Stalin. At the end of the day, the person with the most might is the person who wins and who's morality gets established. Two Theists sides start to duke it out...at the end of the day...the same thing.

Now, I am not saying this makes something "right" or "wrong", but what I am saying is that at the end of the day, whether it is wrong or right means nothing to either side. The Atheist may not see it "wrong" to have this sort of mentality and see who wins at the end of the day and a Theists may, but the decision is not made out by this belief, but by who wins. So, for all practical purposes, there is no difference between the Atheist and the Theist. The practicality of the moral order is still situated in the same manner for both sides.

The wars against the Atheistic states by Theistic nations were not won because of an appeal to objective morality based on God, but because we simply won the wars. That's it. So when we speak about the practical nature of Atheistic moral principles verses Theistic ones, we cannot say that Atheism is wrong because it offers no standard...because it does; only one that is different from our own.

And the only way we can say that Atheism is "wrong", is by appealing to the fact that Atheists do have a standard of morality.

What I think really needs to be done is to figure out whether a God based morality is actually more in-line with reality than an Atheistic-based one. To I, I think that the Atheistic view of morality as merely "survival" is wrong and does not fit the human condition. And for that, I leave you to ponder what I have said. I haven't formulated any arguments yet to show why I think this to be the case, but I thought I'd get this off my chest first. I do hope it isn't too shocking as I understand some may disagree with me on these points, but I do believe that the arguments put forth regarding "Objective vs. Subjective" morality are false in that they don't consider that when an Atheist appeals to a Godless universe they are in fact appealing to something which grants them the justification to be subjective.

Behind the Scenes (sort of) With Ben Stein

2008-03-28T03:56:00.000-07:00

Ben Stein and theologian/apologist R.C. Sproul discuss atheistic evolution and Stein's movie: Expelled!

This is a 3 part discussion

Part 1

Expand/Collapse

Part 2

Part 3

Bill Maher’s Sad Anniversary

2008-03-23T13:33:00.000-07:00

Today marks the sad anniversary of Bill Maher reaching a new low.

Mr. Maher is well known for his political views, which will not be discussed here. He is also known for his condemnation of Christianity and the Bible, which will also not be discussed here. What I do wish to discuss is Episode #506 of “Real Time With Bill Maher” which aired on March 23, 2007.

Expand/Collapse

When the show originally aired I gave it two hearings in order to ensure that I was really viewings what I was hearing. Furthermore, I read the transcript in order to be triply certain and in order to treat the topic fairly and accurately. Below I provide the transcript of the portion of the show that I wish to address here. I copied the transcript directly form Mr. Maher’s website (trans. found here). The transcript even includes “[laughter]” and “[applause]” notations which are interesting as they assist us in gauging audience reaction. The “[expletive removed]” notations are my own.

I could think of many emotionally charge terms to describe Mr. Maher’s new low yet, the best course of action is to present the transcript, let Mr. Maher speak for himself, let you come to your own conclusion and then make my comments.

To set the stage: he is making a male chauvinistic remark that pictures the American troops in Iraq as being male and states that “There’s 150,000 horny GI’s in a country with no…” here he refers to women by a one word vulgar term that reduces them to a certain part of the anatomy, this is followed by “[laughter].”

MAHER: …I was reading in the news this week, this story about Christians in this country, Baptist people, who are sponsoring something called "purity balls." Now, when I hear about religion - religious people holding balls, I usually think of Catholics. [laughter] [applause] But - but this is the creepiest thing I've ever heard. And I've heard some creepy things from the Christian right.
A "purity ball" is like a prom for a dad and his daughter, where dad gets in a tuxedo and the daughter gets in a gown, and they go to this ball, and he puts a ring on her finger and feeds her wedding cake, and she pledges to stay a virgin until she gets married. And then dad has sex with her in the car. [laughter] [applause] No, no, it doesn't - it's not that bad.

[Mayor Shirley] FRANKLIN: It's not that bad.

MAHER: But, what century are we living in-

[John] LEGEND: That's just weird. That's just completely weird. [laughter]

FRANKLIN: It's all over, though.

MAHER: It's - it's in 48 states they are doing this.

LEGEND: Why-

FRANKLIN: It's all over.

MAHER: And - and, I mean, what era are we living in where the man passes the daughter from dad to the husband? You know, that's what they used to - that's what the Taliban does.

LEGEND: Where dad plays husband to the daughter at the prom.

MAHER: Well, you know, they - we went online for their website-[laughter] [he produces a pile of t-shirts] I'm not kidding, these are t-shirts that are available on these "purity ball" websites. Look at this. This is not a joke. [he reads the slogan on each shirt] "Abstinence Avenue - Exit When Married." [laughter] Look at this one: "Notice: No Trespassing on This Property - My Father is Watching." [laughter mixed with "ewws"] Look, here's one on panties! Now, if you're close enough to read this.[laughter] I'm guessing the game is up. [laughter] So, we found some others.[laughter] I'm not going to lie; these are the bull[expletive removed] ones we made up that are even funnier. [laughter] "World's Greatest [expletive removed] tease!" [laughter] [applause]

LEGEND: Oh, no.

MAHER: "I'm With Horny!" [laughter] Oh, I love this one. [laughter] "What Happens in Vegas, Happens to Someone Else." [laughter] "My Father Went to Third Base and All I Got was this Lousy T-Shirt." [laughter] [applause] And my favorite.[laughter] [he holds up t-shirt which reads, "My (picture of 'pussy'cat) Belongs to Daddy." [laughter] [groans] [applause]

MAHER: All right. So, anyone want to weigh in on this before I talk about the U.S.-

LEGEND: Well, it's nice that, you know, that dads, you know, want to keep their daughters pure. That's nice. But this is just weird. [laughter] And, and, and why don't you want your sons to be virgins, too?

MAHER: If you're slipping a ring on your daughter's finger and eating wedding cake, trust me, you're plotting to [expletive removed] the babysitter. [laughter]

David Frum finally breaks in with a voice of reason:

[DAVID] FRUM: But, here’s something that does need to be said. There is a lot of social science research - and the mayor will know it well - that shows that the relationship that - the close relationship between fathers and children, sons and daughters, has an enormously powerful impact on how those kids turn out in life. In fact, you can cut - if the father is present - you cut the kids’ rate of succumbing to all kinds of problems, from dropping out of school and getting into trouble with the law, from getting pregnant when she’s a teenager, by - by two-thirds. And it is a dramatic thing. So this - this sounds kind of gross. But there is - but, there is a good thought here that people need to hear, which is, fathers - fathers really matter.

LEGEND: I think fathers need to be realistic with their kids, too. [applause] And I think part of the problem with this same movement of people is they won’t teach about safe sex; they won’t prevent pregnancy that way, by teaching about safe sex. And I think it’s the same kind of movement that is unrealistic about sex and teenagers that creates more problems than it fixes sometimes.

FRANKLIN: And responsibility of young men.

LEGEND: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Apparently unable to stand a few mere seconds of adult conversation Mr. Maher once again opens up the sewers of his mind:

MAHER: And the statistics show that the kids who do this kind of stuff and take abstinence pledges wind up having a lot more sex than the other kids do. It’s in the mouth and in the nasty place-[laughter]-but, you know, they keep the-

FRANKLIN: Well, that’s the evidence, yeah. That is - that is the evidence.

MAHER: That’s the evidence. Right.

LEGEND: It doesn’t work. It’s not-

MAHER: That’s right. Look - I mean, look, I’m not the one to talk. A lot of women in the United States have called me “Daddy,” but.[laughter].I’m not really their “Daddy” is all I’m saying. [laughter]

I understand that the show is a platform for Mr. Maher to express himself. I also understand that he is Pavlov and that the audience is there to behave as his trained canines. As you can see above, they laugh and applaud at the drop of a hat, which is the very point of having a live studio audience. Yet, is anyone actually listening to what he is saying? Was anyone in the audience able to wipe the stars off of their eyes and notice what it was that they thought was so hilarious? I certainly do not know. What I do know is that Mr. Maher reached a new low on that day, as did his audience.

Sure, he celebrated when Jerry Falwell passed away, as did Christopher Hitchens. But making fun, laughing, and applauding at children that are raped by their own parents is a level of malicious hatred that I simply cannot fathom. I actually do not comprehend how any reasonably moral, rational and sane person could reach such depths of darkness. How could anyone derive joy from one of the most predatorily malicious acts that only the most twisted pervert could conceive.

That one would be twisted enough by hatred to even conceive such thoughts is one thing.
That someone would dare to repeat such perversion to anyone else is quite another.
That his producers would agree to air it is another thing still.
And that his audience would reward him with encouragement and approval is simply beyond my comprehension.

As it was pointed out to Mr. Maher there is a direct one to one correspondence between adult women who are moral and mentally and emotionally healthy and girls who had healthy and strong relationships with their fathers. To what lengths some fathers are forced to go today may be “weird” but it is clearly a sign of desperation when living in what Laura Ingraham has well termed the “pornification of America.” The new scarlet letter is “A” for “abstinence.” Large segments of our population believe that the best thing for children is that all that the world contains should be shoved down their throats as early as humanly possible. Yet, as a parent my job is not only to protect my children but to protect my children’s childhood. There will be plenty of time for them to be chewed up and spit out by the world.

It is interesting that they note that the statistics show that “It doesn’t work.” It is interesting and quite sad. Interesting because it is at this particular place and time that “It doesn’t work.” Imagine a young girl with parents who are concerned for her emotional and physical well being—particularly regarding sexual purity, or let us say: sexual control. On the one hand she has her parent’s advice but on the other she has hordes of people from young to old that believe that she should be corrupted, used, abused, misused, chewed up and spit out as early in life as humanly possible.

This is often spurred on by the “They’re gonna do it anyway” crowd. Perhaps this crowd could make a list of the things which our kids are going to do anyway so that we can introduce our kids to whatever it is and provide a safe atmosphere right here at home: condoms, sterile needles, pornography, rolling papers, ecstasy, whatever they want. Her parents tell her to have fun and be safe and she sets off into a world saturated with people functioning within pop-culture, Hollywood, the internet, magazines, television, etc., etc., etc. all clamoring for her attention and all urging her to “Just do it.”

What? She got pregnant at 13 years of age? No problem: murder the baby, or raise it without a stable family, have the grandparents raise it, see the child between school and work, shuffle the child between feuding parents, so what?
What? She contracted a sexually transmitted disease? No problem: curse God and die.

Have you ever tried telling someone that you will not allow your child to watch this or that? Take a lozenge because the very same people who one second are telling you that if you do not like it just turn it off will be jumping down your throat accusing you of brainwashing-child abuse. “You can’t protect your children forever” they say. No, but can I please have a few years at least before you place the weight of the ills, worries and filth of the world right on their little tiny fragile shoulders? What we have today is precisely what we have when we let the “It doesn’t work,” “They’re gonna do it anyway” and “You can’t protect your children forever” crowd rule the day.

No, I do not believe in keeping kids locked in the house with a naivety about life “out there.” But the fact is that when the majority of people believe in letting children be children, that once they grow up they can get married and engage in sexual relations, then they can have children, then stay married until death do them part guess what? It did work. It worked for generation, it worked for millennia and it can work again.

The bottom line is that if Christian principles were followed we would not have the amount of sexuality related problems we have today: adultery, abortion, abandonment of children, children being forced to live out of a suitcase, shuffled between un-cohabitating parents, sexually transmitted diseases, single parents, teen pregnancy, to name a few. A teenager with an STD would be an oddity. As it stands today, an abstinent teenager is an oddity and something to be mocked. I certainly understand that not everyone will follow Christian (or good old fashioned common sense) principles related to sexuality. Of course, neither will everyone follow the do what thou wilt principles that have brought us where we are today. The real and logical question is towards what shall we strive? Because it is that towards which we strive that will determine our general direction.

Ultimately, the issue that we took on here is Mr. Maher’s subjective worldview which has brought him to the most troublesome point of laughing at children that are raped by their own fathers is what it says about Mr. Maher (and his producers, audience, supporters, defenders, etc.). You see, quite often when someone expresses such opinions they are not really expressing their opinions on the subject at hand but expressing what is deep within the recesses of their hearts, souls and minds. Unless Mr. Maher is prepared to offer the name of even one single father who took his daughter to such an event and raped her we have to assume that their motivation is pure. It is Mr. Maher who filters a beautiful, innocent and pure act through the sewer of his heart and mind and demonstrates what is to be found therein. He is quite obviously a very, very troubled person and is in desperate need of love and prayer. Think back, or read back, through what he said and you will find just how twisted his thoughts are. He sees a father’s love for his little girl and imagines him raping her. What about the t-shirts that were “even funnier”? He not only had to conceive of such twisted perversion but share it with others to the point of having someone actually manufacture the t-shirts.

Please pardon my tone, I do not mean to simply shoot off emotionally charged statements as much as this is a very emotional issue for me. The fact is that parents have tremendous influence over their children. Particularly, fathers have tremendous influence over their daughters. They should not be ashamed of this, embarrassed by this, nor dissuaded from being the most loving, caring and faithful male role models in their daughter’s lives. It is out of sheer desperation that father’s feel forced to go to such lengths as purity balls.

Another interesting correlation between fathers and children was studied and reported on by Professor Paul C. Vitz. He surveyed the home lives of the world’s most influential secularists/atheists. Playing off of Sigmund Freud’s speculation about belief in God being derived from a desire to have a father figure Prof. Vitz demonstrates that many of these people rejected God due to having poor relationships with their fathers, or due to their father’s absence, or due to their rebellion against their fathers. They rejected God (the father figure) because they rejected their own fathers. Prof. Vitz wrote a book on this subject entitled, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism. A lecture on the subject is available online here. But this is probably just opening up another can of worms…

To the Readers

2008-03-18T18:18:00.000-07:00

Taking a break from school work and constructing long arguments brings me to the leisure of writing a personal note to our readers. I often find that while it is exciting and worthwhile to defend the Faith, while attempting to present coherent and rational arguments in defense of the Faith as well as opposed to other worldviews, it is equally as important to be personally acquainted with our readers to some extent. We are all humans here (at least I hope so) and we are all brothers and sisters on some level of our existence, whether one considers that we merely have a biological connection or one of spirit or both, we are to some degree connected and are obligated to one another on many different levels.

Expand/Collapse

I just wish to take the time to remind our readers of the purpose of this blog and its contributors. While this blog has certainly gathered some negative attention in the past under old management (whether deserved or not is another issue entirely), the new contributors here are of the intention of reconstructing the general approach as well as offering a heightened presentation of intellectual integrity. Now, understandably we are not perfect in knowledge or behavior. There are times when we have faltered in our own beliefs and may have insulted some of the readers on this blog; this goes for contributors and general readers alike. For this, we apologize if we have ever appeared rude or offensive in our tones and words. To be honest, we don’t wish for this or intend for this to happen. In events like these we only wish to remind the readers that we are always open to rebuke regarding our beliefs and that we should always be reminded of our Greatest Example, the Lord Jesus Christ. For the readers to do this is a great compliment to what we wish to accomplish, not only on this blog, but in our daily lives, and it is a wonderful reminder to us that even the most die-hard non-believer sees and understands Who and What this Example Is. We are but fallen human beings and we must be reminded of this on a daily basis so that we can not only better our own lives, but become clearer and more beautiful icons of the Living God for the benefit of all those that come here.

On the same note, I wish to explain my views on certain things that are said on this blog between fellow readers and even, sometimes, contributors. We must always be reminded our purpose and love for our fellow man, and in doing so we must remember that each person is unique, special, and a wonderful image of Christ. It is difficult, I know. Most of us live in a culture that considers disagreements with one’s position a matter of a personal insult, so we often resort to attacking the person, by calling them things like “idiot” or “stupid”. We need to understand that these are dehumanizing labels; for human beings are never to be viewed in this light. People can be wrong, but to associate their wrong thoughts with their ability to think? We do them an injustice and we counter the very thing we wish to accomplish: bringing them closer to what we consider to be true. How can we convince others if we label them in such a way as not even capable of being convinced? We must watch our words and remind ourselves constantly that the tongue is the sharpest weapon the world has ever known. The human tongue is capable of praising to the highest of heavens, but it is equally as capable of festering in the voids of the greatest darkness.

We here at Atheism Sucks are preparing a great project: to reform this blog and ourselves. Soon, you will see many changes not only externally, but internally. We will continue to strive and bring you our thoughts. In the meantime, we only wish you remember what we are trying to do and that you recognize our faults and failures, so that we can better ourselves for you.

With much love,

-M-

Sam Harris—Nietzsche’s Madman

2008-03-16T19:19:00.000-07:00

Friedrich Nietzsche’s Gay Science brought us the Parable of the Madman which is virtually prophetic of Sam Harris. To be fair, Mr. Harris is not the only one, although he hopes someday you’ll join him and the world will be as one. In case you have never indulged, I have included the full text of Nietzche’s parable below.

Expand/Collapse

I have, to some extent, chronicled the claims of various atheists to the effect of: atheism is not only more logical than theism but also more moral, more humble and holier (see here). Mr. Harris hails from a particular sect of atheism that seeks to establish a styled atheist religion complete with rituals and mystical practices. It may be noted that originally this is exactly what Buddhism was. I have written about how some of the first Buddhist missionaries to the USA preached both an atheistic as well as a holier than Christianity message (see here). It may also be noted that atheists have attempted this beginning in the 1700s and 1800s.

Nietzsche’s parable tells of a madman who sought God and was mocked by atheists. The madman then cries “Whither is God? I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers.”

One of Nietzsche’s famous, or infamous, statements occurs here, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” The interesting thing is that upon recognizing that we have murdered God there is some desperation which in part states, “What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent?...Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

He further states, “…whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.” It is interesting, and horrifying, to note that Nietzsche wrote this in the late 1800s and actually wrote that this event was yet to come. Prophetically, those who were born afterwards, the descendents of the God murderers who themselves considered their ancestors heroes for committing or conceiving such an act, did in fact belong to a higher history. In a matter of speaking that is, they wrought upon the world the bloodiest century in human history.

No I am not reading Mr. Harris through cryptographic lenses nor seeing a conspiracy between the lines. Although, it is interesting to note that Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) sought to establish a civil religion according to which,

“If anyone, after publicly recognizing these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death: He has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law.”

In a sense, Mr. Harris mirrors this sentiment in stating,

“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”[1]

I find it fascinating that Mr. Harris complains that religion is manmade and thus seeks to replace it with a manmade religion. More accurately, Mr. Harris complains that theistic religions are manmade and make assertions about supernatural transcendence which can only be known through personal subjective experience. In its place he seeks establish a manmade religion that makes assertions about materialistic transcendence which can only be known through personal subjective experience.

In 2005 Edge The World Question Center asked a very interesting question, “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?” Mr. Harris was one of the responders:

“What I believe, though cannot yet prove, is that belief is a content-independent process. Which is to say that beliefs about God—to the degree that they are really believed—are the same as beliefs about numbers, penguins, tofu, or anything else…
What I do believe, however, is that the neural processes that govern the final acceptance of a statement as ‘true’ rely on more fundamental, reward-related circuitry in our frontal lobes—probably the same regions that judge the pleasantness of tastes and odors…
Once the neurology of belief becomes clear, and it stands revealed as an all-purpose emotion arising in a wide variety of contexts (often without warrant), religious faith will be exposed for what it is: a humble species of terrestrial credulity. We will then have additional, scientific reasons to declare that mere feelings of conviction are not enough when it comes time to talk about the way the world is. The only thing that guarantees that (sufficiently complex) beliefs actually represent the world, are chains of evidence and argument linking them to the world…
Understanding belief at the level of the brain may hold the key to new insights into the nature of our minds, to new rules of discourse, and to new frontiers of human cooperation…”

Note the future-hopes qualifiers, “…yet…Once…will be…We will then…”
Mr. Harris is currently studying neuroscience and it seems as if his purpose, as a scientist, will be to work on proving absolute materialism and to do so in a field of science which is not exactly a hard science but a soft one—maybe malleable enough to find a God gene-meme.

Notice his staked deck: religious faith is a humble species of terrestrial credulity and once the neurology of belief becomes clear religious faith will be exposed for what it is: a humble species of terrestrial credulity. This is circular illogic. In other words, he is setting out to prove what he already believes to be true—no doubt, he will prove his beliefs even by gyrations that will strain the very neurons upon which he will be experimenting. It appears that Mr. Harris’ goal is not to become an unbiased scientist who merely reports conclusions and is prepared to throw away a lifetime of research if it happens to be disproved. Rather, he is attempting to gain a façade of science in order to push his absolutely materialistic worldview.

What does appear certain at this point in time is that Mr. Harris’ sect of atheist is setting out to build a neo-religion in order to replace the churches which they see as the tombs and sepulchers of God.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Parable of the Madman—The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-182 [the following italics were in original]

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"

As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?—Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers.

But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

[1] Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (W. W. Norton & Company, 2005), pp. 52–53

The Horror of Mob-Rule Morality

2008-03-13T06:30:00.000-07:00

Paleocrat put up a great sample of his discussion with an atheist...I understand many atheists would argue for relativistic morality differently than this fellow, but this guy is a lot more up front about relativism and ends up completely contradicting himself toward the end. I promise I'm not just shamelessly promoting Paleocrat...I couldn't pass this vid up.

Demonstrating the folly of morality determined by 50% + 1

John Horgan, “In the Beginning…”

2008-03-10T18:44:00.000-07:00

“…rampant speculation….I’m sure I’m right…”

Professor Richard Dawkins,

“we are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.”

Author Tom Robbins,

“Humans were invented by water as a means of transporting itself from place to place.”

Genesis 1:27,

“God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female.”

I began my essay Introducing the Dawkinsian Weltanschauung with the above quotations from Prof. Dawkins, Mr. Robbins and the Bible and it seemed rather applicable to include it here as well.
This post is intended for your information purposes only and will present a succinct version of John Horgan’s article “In the Beginning…” which appeared in Scientific American (Vol. 264, February 1991, pp. 116-125) the science journal for which he was a senior writer from 1986 to 1997.

Expand/Collapse

He begins the article thusly, “Scientists are having a hard time agreeing on when, where and—most important—how life first emerged on the earth.”

He proceeds his review of various theories for life’s origins and categorizes them under the following titles:

Making a 747
Chicken or Egg?
Scum of the Earth
Sulfur Stories
Feet of Clay
Space Invaders
Are We Alone?
Genesis in Silicon

The rest of this post consists of portions of Mr. Horgan’s categorized as indicate above:

The intro states, in part:

Some investigators concluded that the first organisms consisted of RNA and that an early ‘RNA world’ had provided a bridge from simple chemistry to prototypes of the complex DNA-based cells found in modern organisms. According to the fossil record, such cells emerged within the first billion years after the earth had formed 4.5 billion years ago. Although this scenario is already ensconced in textbooks, it has been seriously challenged of late. Tests of the RNA-world hypothesis have shown that RNA is difficult to synthesize in the conditions that probably prevailed when life originated and that the molecule cannot easily generate copies of itself.

“Making a 747”
Some scientists have argued that, given enough time, even apparently miraculous events become possible-such as the spontaneous emergence of a single-cell organism from the random couplings of chemicals. Yet Fred Hoyle, the iconoclastic British astronomer, has said such an occurrence is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard…

“Chicken or Egg?”

Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating molecules...there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?...

RNA might be the first self-replicating molecule…But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones. For example, the process by which one creates the sugar ribose, a key ingredient of RNA, also yields a host of other sugars that would inhibit RNA synthesis. Moreover, no one has yet come up with a satisfactory explanation of how phosphorus, which is a relatively rare substance in nature, became such a crucial
ingredient in RNA (and DNA). Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great
deal of help from the scientist, says Joyce of the Scripps Clinic, an RNA specialist. ‘It is an inept molecule’…

Experiments simulating the early stages of the RNA world are too complicated to represent plausible scenarios for the origin of life, Orgel says. ‘You have to get an awful lot of things right and nothing wrong,’ he adds...

Nucleic acid chemistry, Orgel points out, rests on a broad foundation of knowledge, and once researchers venture away from this realm, they will be starting virtually from scratch. ‘That would be a major business,’ he says…

Julius Rebek, Jr., a chemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology…created a synthetic organic molecule that could replicate itself [amino adenosine triacid ester (AATE)]…Rebek's experiments have two drawbacks, according to Joyce [Gerald F. joyce of the Research Institute of Scripps Clinic]: they only replicate in highly artificial, unnatural conditions, and, even more important, they reproduce too accurately. Without mutation, the molecules cannot evolve in the Darwinian sense. Orgel agrees. ‘What Rebek has done is very clever,’ he says, ‘but I don't see its relevance to the origin of life’…

‘The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened,’ says Harold P. Klein of Santa Clara University, chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee…

Even if scientists do create something with lifelike properties in the laboratory, they must still wonder: Is that how it happened in the first place?...

“Scum of the Earth”

Of course, establishing the conditions under which life emerged requires knowing when it emerged…

J. William Schopf of the University of California at Los Angeles…and others have accumulated what they believe is unequivocal evidence that life existed at least 3.5 billion years ago…lumpy, greenish-brown rocks that were once stromatolites…The other fossils show the microscopic imprints of strings of cells resembling modern cyanobacteria, also called blue-green algae…Manfred Schidlowski of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, thinks he has found evidence that photosynthetic organisms existed even earlier. The evidence comes from 3.8-billion-yearold, partially melted sedimentary rocks from Isua, Greenland…

This attempt to extend the fossil record further back into time has met with some skepticism. David J. Des Marais of NASA Ames says the carbon signature in the Isua rocks is simply too faint to interpret. Roger Buick, an Australian paleontologist now at Harvard…The stromatolites could be sediments distorted by geologic processes, Buick asserts, and the microfossils look to him like ‘little streaks of [excrement].’ He calls them ‘dubio-fossils.’…Other experts on so-called Archaean fossils, including Donald R. Lowe of Stanford University, think Buick, and perhaps even Des Marais, is being too skeptical…

The traditional view was elucidated in the early 1950s by Harold C. Urey, a Nobel laureate in chemistry at the University of Chicago. He proposed that the atmosphere was reducing: rich in hydrogen based gases such as methane and ammonia, which are abundant on Saturn, Jupiter and Uranus. It was Urey's work that inspired Miller, a student of Urey's, to conduct his 1953 experiment. Yet over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller's assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere by James c. G. Walker of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and others suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecule’s in the atmosphere. Free hydrogen would have escaped into space…

Miller, for one, points out that smoke and clouds could have shielded the delicate hydrogen-based gases from ultraviolet radiation. ‘You have a chorus of people with mathematical models saying there is no methane,’ he says, ‘but they have absolutely no real evidence’…

In the late 1970s scientists discovered several hydrothermal vents on the sea floor…The vents support thriving communities of life…whose primary source of energy is not light but sulfur compounds emitted by the vents…

“Sulfur Stories”

[Stanley Miller] calls the…the vent hypothesis ‘garbage’….Miller does not like vents—at least, not as the original seats of life. He notes that modem vents seem to be short-lived, lasting only for a few decades before they are plugged up. Moreover, he and Jeffrey L. Bada…at the University of California at San Diego, have done experiments that suggest the superheated water inside the vents-which sometimes exceeds 300 degrees Celsius (572 degrees Fahrenhei)—would destroy rather than create complex organic compounds. If the surface of the earth is a frying pan, Miller says, a hydrothermal vent is the fire…

The latest and most unusual theory of this type comes from Gunter Wachtershauser, who is himself an unusual theorist. A practicing attorney…however, he gained a doctorate in organic chemistry and an abiding interest in the origin of life…Whereas most investigators have assumed that life began when some relatively simple compound began to make copies of itself in a solution, he speculated that life started as a metabolic process—a cyclic chemical reaction that is driven by some source of energy—taking place on the surface of a solid. These ideas have precedents, but Wachtershauser's proposal is unique in its details. It calls for a very specific solid surface: one made of pyrite, or fool's gold, a metallic mineral consisting of
one iron and two sulfur molecules…The first cell, he conjectures, might have been a grain of pyrite enclosed in a membrane of organic compounds. The cell could have reproduced if the pyrite grain grew a new crystalline ‘bud’ that became encapsulated in Its own membrane and broke free…But Wachtershauser himself admits that his theory is for the most part still ‘pure speculation’…

Joyce suspects that Wachtershauser's legal skills may have helped him win more acceptance for his theory than it deserves…

Christian R. de Duve, a professor emeritus at the Rockefeller University, who won a Nobel Prize in 1974 for his work on cellular structure [his theory] revolves around sulfur-based compounds…[he] proposes that thioesters in the primordial ooze could have triggered a cascade of chemical reactions…The reactions would have been catalyzed by ‘protoenzymes,’ also formed from thioesters. The reactions would eventually result in the synthesis of ribonucleic acids, thereby ushering in the RNA world…

‘I'd love to see the experimental evidence,’ Miller says. Yet he acknowledges that experimentalists like himself may have neglected sulfur-based chemistry for a reason that is not purely scientific: ‘Sulfur smells. It would smell up your whole lab’…

“Feet of Clay”

A. G. Cairns-Smith, a chemist at the University of Glasgow, says he has a good reason to doubt de Duve's theory: it depends on a proposal, advanced by himself and David C. Mauzerall of Rockefeller, which suggests how a reaction involving iron and water might have enriched the primordial atmosphere with hydrogen. ‘What de Duve neglected to say,’ Cairns-Smith notes, ‘is that this process makes the oceans less suited for the synthesis of organic molecules’… he proposes that life arose on a solid substrate that occurs in vents and almost everywhere else, but he prefers crystalline clays to pyrite…

Unlike some origin-of-life theorists, Cairns-Smith cheerfully admits the failings of his pet hypothesis: no one has been able to coax clay into something resembling evolution in a laboratory; nor has anyone found anything resembling a clay-based organism in nature. Yet he argues that no theory requiring organic compounds to organize and replicate without assistance is likely to fare any better. ‘Organic molecules are too wiggly to work,’ he says…

[Stanley Miller] calls the…pyrite theory ‘paper chemistry’…

“Space Invaders”

If neither the atmosphere nor vents provide a likely locale for the synthesis of complex organic compounds, maybe they were imported from somewhere else: outer space. Juan Oro of the University of Houston raised this possibility as early as the 1960s…

in 1989…the discovery of amino adds just above and below a layer of day deposited at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Bada and Meixun Zhao, also at San Diego, determined that the amino acids were nonbiological types found previously only in meteorites….

But questions remained: Why were the amino acids found above and below the Cretaceous-Tertiary layer and not within it? And how did the amino adds survive the enormous heat created by the impact? Calculations by Christopher F. Chyba, a planetary scientist at Cornell University, and others suggested that any extraterrestrial object large enough to supply significant amounts of organic material to the earth would generate so much heat during its impact that most of the material would be incinerated…

‘It's too much like manna from heaven,’ says Sherwood Chang of NASA Ames, an authority on extraterrestrial organic compounds…

Theories giving impacts a role in genesis ‘are very trendy right now,’ he adds, ‘but they are also very speculative’…

This theory [panspermia] was proposed at the end of the last century by the Swedish chemist Svante A. Arrhenius, who asserted that microbes floating throughout the universe served as the ‘seeds of life’ on earth. In modern times Hoyle and…Sri Lankan astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe…continue to promulgate this notion, even arguing that extraterrestrial microbes are the cause of influenza, AIDS and other diseases. Most scientists utterly reject these assertions, declaring that microbes have never been found in space and are unlikely to be, since space is so inimical to life. Yet experiments done by J. Mayo Greenberg, an astrophysicist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands…concluded that a naked cell could survive for hundreds of years in space-and for as many as 10 million years if it is protected from radiation by a thin shell of ice. Greenberg notes that it is still difficult to imagine how organisms could escape other planets or descend to this one intact. Like most other scientists, he believes life was created on the earth. Nevertheless, he says the panspermia hypothesis, while perhaps improbable and certainly distasteful to many scientists, cannot be ruled out on the basis of his experiments. About a decade ago Orgel and Crick managed to provoke the public and their colleagues by speculating that the seeds of life were sent to the earth in a spaceship by intelligent beings living on another planet. Orgel says the proposal, which is known as directed panspermia, was ‘sort of a joke.’ But he notes that it had a serious intent: to point out the inadequacy of all explanations of terrestrial genesis. As Crick once wrote: ‘The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.’

[Stanley Miller] calls the organic-matter-from-space concept ‘a loser’

Mariano’s aside: I thought to break in here for a note regarding Crick’s views on directed panspermia. Precisely one year after the publication of Mr. Horgan’s “In the Beginning…” Scientific American (February 1992, pp. 16-17) published “The Mephistopheles of Neurobiology” which featured Crick in the “Profile” section. In part the feature reads thusly:

“he [Crick] adds, people must purge themselves of archaic thinking patters—especially those related to religion. ‘One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false,’ he says. ‘If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.’ Some scientists said the same of Crick in 1981 after the appearance of Life Itself, a book on the origin of life that he co-authored with Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute. The book proposed that the seeds of life were sent to the earth in a spaceship launched by beings on another planet. Called directed panspermia, the theory met with derision from other scientists, and Orgel himself described it recently as ‘sort of a joke.’ But Crick insists that given the weaknesses of all theories of terrestrial genesis, directed panspermia should still be considered ‘a sersious possibility.’”

And now, back to your regularly scheduled program.

“Are We Alone?”

Miller, who after almost four decades is still in hard pursuit of life's biggest secret, agrees that the field needs a dramatic finding to constrain the rampant speculation…

Does he ever entertain the possibility that genesis was a miracle not reproducible by mere humans? Not at all, Miller replies. ‘I think we just haven't learned the right tricks yet,’ he says…

“Genesis in Silicon”

Stuart A. Kauffman, a biologist who shuttles between the University of Pennsylvania and the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico…the simulations demonstrate that a system supplied with a sufficient number of such [“generic”] polymers will undergo a ‘phase transition’ that causes it to become ‘auto-catalytic.’ That is, the system will spontaneously begin generating polymers of ever greater complexity and catalytic capability. Kauffman says he is absolutely convinced…Asked if he has any test-tube results to back up his computer simulations, Kauffman replies: ‘No one has done this in post, but I’m sure I’m right.’…Running equations through a computer does not constitute an experiment,’ sniffs Stanley L. Miller…Gerald Joyce…another test-tube type, is also skeptical…

Richard Dawkins is a “Child Abuser”

2008-03-10T18:30:00.000-07:00

Please note that my emotionally charged title is meant to mirror the charges of “child abuse” that Prof. Dawkins has made against literally billions of people worldwide. In this case “child abuse” does not refer to pedophilia nor to physical beatings (although Prof. Dawkins does refer to certain twisted perverts as “gentle pedophile”). My charge of “child abuse” against Prof. Dawkins are made utilizing his own criteria.

Expand/Collapse

One of the admitted goals of the neo-atheists is to dictated child rearing. They are taking it upon themselves to determine and dictate how the entire planet’s parents will raise their children. But what if you do not agree with them? They have already taken the first step in retaliating against anyone who dares to act against this command of theirs: they have taken it upon themselves to refer to anyone who steps out of line as committing “child abuse.” Daniel Dennett refers to children who are raised in religious households as, “indoctrinated,” “brainwashed” and “psychologically abused.”[1] Prof. Dawkins thinks that everyone should agree with him, “Everybody’s consciousness should be raised to this level.”[1] He also wonders if there may be place for “society stepping in.”[2] He therefore calls for activism, “Please go out and work at raising people’s consciousness over the words they use to describe children.”[3] Ultimately, he would like to see children grow up to be atheists, “I could well imagine that this linguistically coded freedom to choose might lead children to choose no religion at all.”[4]

Furthermore, Daniel Dennett has played a particular part in this by recommending a one way street of censorship. You should not be allowed to teach your children your religion without presenting various other options. But when it comes to “science,” Darwinian orthodoxy shall not be questioned nor challenged in the public classroom and no other options are to be tolerated.

Prof. Dawkins stated:

“you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society’s impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit those of your parents. We’d be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn’t it a kind of child-abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child?...Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Muslim child? Shudder.”[5]

But what about an atheist child or a Darwinist child?
Considering that Prof. Dawkins particularly referred to children choosing their own cosmology and that his main point is that parents abuse their children by teaching them a particular religion before the child has developed the cognitive abilities to weight evidence, make comparisons, and finally make an unbiased choice I will now prove that Prof. Dawkins qualifies as a “child abuser” by his very own definition. I do not take this task on lightly and so in order to demonstrate that I am not merely making an assertion I will present evidence particularly from Prof. Dawkins’ Royal Institute of Christmas Lectures 1991 (or as they are known on Prof. Dawkins’ website “Growing Up in the Universe”). These lectures where made to an audience of children and make for a good example of Prof. Dawkins abusing, indoctrinating and brainwashing children by pushing his own unproven beliefs, fallacious logic, faulty information and one sided biased information.

I plan on writing some reviews of these lectures sometime in the near future. For now you may watch them for yourselves and you will see that Prof. Dawkins is behaving as a proselytizer.

It may be of interest to note that in 1991, while Prof. Dawkins was presenting lectures to children and assuring them that life began in a primordial soup, John Horgan was enumerating some theories as to how life came to be to the readers of Scientific American (see the post above for a succinct version of Mr. Horgan’s article). You may be thinking that, after all, Prof. Dawkins was lecturing to mere children while Scientific American is a well respected journal. Yes indeed, this is just the point. Prof. Dawkins was, to whatever extent and with whatever, if any, amount of forethought, presenting one of many theories as if it alone were fact (he did present the concept of panspermia as a “fantasy”). He introduced the concept of the biotic soup by stating “Some people think…” fair enough, but then he offers no other options and so the children are not only being “brainwashed” but specifically “indoctrinated” by being offered limited information but they are just asked to believe. Prof. Dawkins stated, “Nobody knows how it happened but somehow…And after that Darwinian evolution and life took off.”

For further examples, in the very first lecture he tells the children that science has a great deal to say about questions such as “where does life come from? What is it? Why are we here? What are we for? What is the meaning of life?” And what is the scientific pronouncement regarding life’s meaning? In lecture 4 he tells the children, “we are machines, built by DNA, whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA.” Elsewhere, he has added that this is “every living object's sole reason for living.” Alright now children, now you know that you are machines whose purpose in life is to copulate. But remember, whatever you do: do not ever, never ever, behave as if you are machines whose sole purpose is to copulate.

He refers to the science field as “about the most worthwhile way in which you could possibly spend your short time in the spotlight.”

He shows them paintings of various ape to man progressions walking through pretty flowers and also paintings of an insectivore, “an early mammalian like reptile, an amphibian and “a fish, just coming out of the water; just leaving the water, and coming to the land” and tells the children “Those are all your ancestors.” Fanciful artwork plays a very important role in Darwinianism, when you do not have evidence you can hire an artist to invent some.

He also claims that if aliens were to ever come to earth, “They’ll probably find us pretty childish, but they will be quite kind about our science. They’ll pat us on the head and say, ‘Well, what you know about Universe is pretty much correct. You got at lot to learn yet, but you are doing fine. Keep it up.’ That's what they would say if they were talking to our scientists. What if they were talking to our best lawyers or literary critics or theologians? I doubt if they’d be so impressed.”

He misleads the children by making false claims about creation myths as well as caricatures of what science is, “Put your trust in the scientific method, put your faith in scientific method,” he declares.

He finally implies that his worldview is smart and will lead them to give up on their ignorance:

“Growing up in the Universe partly means evolving from simple to complicated, inefficient to efficient, brainless to brainy. But it also means growing out from parochial and superstitious views of the Universe. Going up to a proper scientific understanding of the Universe, based upon evidence, public argument, rather than authority or tradition or private revelation.”

This seems quite enough to demonstrate that he is, by his very own definition, a “child abuser.” Yet, in the near future, I will endeavor to strengthen this point by demonstrating that his lectures for children are meant to convert children into the worldview of absolute materialism. And that he makes this apparent by appealing to authority, by presenting very narrow and convenient arguments and evidence, by caricaturizations, passing off mere speculation as fact, etc., etc., etc.

So there you have it children: science determines the meaning of life, is worthy of your trust and faith, and will make you smart enough to do away with your childish religious superstitions. All this at a Christmas lecture mind you, which I am sure is purely coincidental.

[1] Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell – Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin Group, 2006), p. 326
[1] Richard Dawkins, Now Here’s a Bright Idea
[2] Wired Magazine online: Gary Wolf, The Church of the Non-Believers (found here and here)
[3] Richard Dawkins, Now Here’s a Bright Idea
[4] Richard Dawkins, Now Here’s a Bright Idea
[5] Richard Dawkins, Now Here’s a Bright Idea

Atheists: Tag, You're Out!

2008-03-10T16:42:00.000-07:00

The Paleocrat made this video some months back, and I'm convinced it is one of the best primers on the Transcendental Argument for God.

The Wizard of ID

2008-03-07T15:54:00.000-08:00

While we are on the subject:

I suppose that I should direct the interested readership to consider an essay that I posted in November entitled The Wizard of Biomorph Land.

As it turns out, Prof. Dawkins not only considers non-theistic ID an option (or as I previously stated it, “comes out as an intelligent design proponent”) but he, himself, is an intelligent designer (although, he does not recognize this).

Dawkins Comes Out As An Intelligent Design Proponent!!!

2008-03-06T21:02:00.000-08:00

Scott C. Todd
Department of Biology - Kansas State University
From the Journal Nature - Vol. 401, Sep. 30, 1999, p. 423
A View from Kansas on that Evolution Debate

“Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

Earlier today I attended a preview screening of “Expelled,” a movie hosted by Ben Stein. The movie is due to be released in April and it is well worth watching if for no other reason that witnessing Prof. Richard Dawkins come out as a proponent of intelligent design (ID). I will get to this after some preliminary comments.

Expand/Collapse

I am a bit hesitant to play movie reviewer since it was a preview and is subject to change. However, the overall message is sure to stay put. I will say this much, it is thought provoking. It may provoke your thought towards contemplating how ignorant ID theorists are, it may provoke your thoughts towards the academic bullying being perpetrated by Darwinists, it may provoke your thought in various directions but it surely is provocative.

As we were purchasing popcorn the clerk asked what movie we were going to watch. My friend said “Expelled” but the clerk was not aware of it and so my friend stated, “It’s a Christian movie.” But I stated, “No it’s not, it’s about academia.” It is not about Christianity, it is not about the Bible, it is not about God, except in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists that trace all hints of public acknowledgement of the divine back to a vast rightwing evangelical Christian conspiracy. Strictly speaking, it is not even about science. Science is the backdrop of the movie’s premise but the movie is about the difficulty and academic danger of questioning Darwinism (not “evolution”) and particularly outing yourself as an ID theorist, proponent or even declaring any sort of interest in the topic.

The movie was as entertaining as it was informative and thought provoking. Between various clips of various interviews are some pretty amusing segments of old black and white after-school-special style film footage. Also included are some very somber and sobering moments when social Darwinism is discussed. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is how the staunch Darwinists claim that they have the answers and that the case is closed until such time as they are asked questions and can no longer make mere authoritative assertions. Mr. Stein’s interview with Prof. Dawkins is particularly telling in this regard. One more comment and I will get to Prof. Dawkins ID promotion.

I had occasion to speak to one of the movie’s producers and came to realize that this movie must be backed and popularized so that it becomes very successful. He agreed to cut me a check! Just kidding. I am not saying this for the reasons that you may think. I mentioned to him that I would love to see the complete interviews. It peaks my curiosity to know that, as movie making goes especially when various interviews are pieced together, that out of a half hour or hour long interview mere minutes of each make it onto the silver screen. His comments were twofold: one is that there are discussions about making box sets available—one DVD would focus on the actual science behind the controversy, another on the sociological aspects, etc. The other issue is that it has been alleged that they took comments out of context and may sell footage of the complete interviews. Personally, I would much rather watch hours of complete, unedited, interviews than watching those interviews pieced together into movie form. However, this business is run on money and if the movie does not do financially well then it is very unlikely that anyone will pour more money into either box sets of DVDs dealing with the minutia of specific topics or complete interview footage. The DVD plans hold more promise of substance than a movie made for mass consumption. Here is what I recommend: no matter what side of the issue you are on you have one month to save up. Put a few cents away each day until you have some $65.00 ($8.00 for the movie ticket and $57.00 for popcorn and a soda!). After watching it you can agree, disagree or remain in betwixt while being better informed.

Now on to Prof. Dawkin’s ID promotion. Mr. Stein’s interview with Prof. Dawkins is something to behold—a feast of sights and sounds, I assure you. For instance, Prof. Dawkins asserts that people feel liberated and relieved when they realize that God does not exist. Mr. Stein asks him how he knows that, he is after all speaking with an empirical scientist. Prof. Dawkins responds that he receives letters from people to that effect. To which Mr. Stein states that there are some 8 billion people in the world and asks, “How many letters do you get?” This is funny and even embarrassing but think about it: the sorts of letters that Prof. Dawkins receives to that effect are of a very particular sort having been written by people who were motivated to contact him in order to either thank him, or buddy up to him, or congratulate him, etc. This certainly constitutes a biased sample. This sadly short segment is peppered with Prof. Dawkins making authoritative pronouncements only to be asked how he knows that and being forced to admit that he does not.

Finally, he is asked how life could have originated presuming that God does not exist. He begins to explain Darwinian Natural Selection but is asked to back up to how life began in the first place. Taking a page straight out of Francis Crick’s atheist escapism playbook—he proposes Directed Panspermia. He lucidly explains, beyond any obscurity, that alien civilizations could have developed to the point of gaining the ability to seed life on earth. This is a theory for the intelligent design of life on earth. What then is the next logical question? How did life originate on that alien world? Prof. Dawkins explains that he believes that it was through Darwinian mechanisms.

I knew precisely to what he was referring because I am aware that when “Edge The World Question Centre” posed the question “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?” Prof. Dawkins responded thusly:

“I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.”

Fine, but this is something that he beliefs without proof.

Prof. Dawkins’ problem is multifaceted. To start with he appeals to Darwinian mechanisms to explain life. However, Darwinian mechanisms do not explain how life originated but only have some explanatory scope once life already exists. Thus, the question remains unanswered, “How did life originate?” The answer is that life originated from life—life on earth originated from life elsewhere. But how did life originate elsewhere? By Darwinian mechanisms. But Darwinian mechanisms do not explain how life originated and so how did life originate elsewhere? Ladies and gentlemen, Prof. Dawkins has just proposed an eternal regress.

What is most fascinating about this is something that appears ubiquitous amongst neo-atheists: they reject arguments in favor of God’s existence but then turn right around and make the very same argument merely replacing “God” with “matter.” In this case Prof. Dawkins offers a materialists version of his very own “unanswerable” argument “the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.”[1] Basically, the universe is complex and so must require a designer. But this designer must be more complex still and must require an even more complex designer. This designer would in turn need an even more complex designer, ad infinitum. Prof. Dawkins does away with such nonsense and instead proposes the very same argument: alien intelligent designers originate life but where themselves originated by alien intelligent designers who were themselves originated by alien intelligent designers, ad infinitum.

Again, since I watched a preview I cannot ensure that the segment I just described will be in the final version. Although this segment alone would make the movie worth watching, I believe that it will be worth watching nonetheless.

[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), p. 114

Shermer’s Chivalry

2008-03-04T20:27:00.000-08:00

Would You Kill Me If God Does Not Exist?
Would You Kill Me If God Does Exist?

In 1998 Michael Shermer debated Doug Geivett on the topic, “Does God Exist? Where Does the Evidence Point?” Mr. Shermer states “I won the debate!” because his mother-in-law told him that the minister of the church in which the debate took place said so. Oddly, he even thinks that the church’s staff was too nice to him and that there must have been a: be nice to Shermer pep-style-rally beforehand. This was reported by the Skeptic Mag Hotline as “SHERMER WINS GOD DEBATE!”

Expand/Collapse

I was interested in some of Mr. Shermer’s comments after the debate took place. He wrote:

“For me the most interesting part of debates is the Q & A because then you get to hear what some of the audience is thinking. Again and again the question of morality came up. I was asked that, since I don't believe in God, if I think it was perfectly acceptable what Hitler did to the Jews. Incredible!”

Assuming that this is an accurate retelling of the question that was posed to him, and I have no reason to doubt it, this is a good point. The question was misstated. The question should not be whether an individual atheist believes Hitler’s actions were perfectly acceptable but on what ground are Hitler’s actions absolutely condemned. Consider that Dan Barker has stated that “Darwin has bequeathed what is good” (John Rankin debate) and also believes that rape is not absolutely wrong (see here). Sam Harris believes that “there’s nothing more natural than rape” and that rape played a beneficial role in our evolution (see essay here). Perhaps what we have chosen to consider immoral is evolutionarily beneficial. Moreover, consider that drawing absolute materialism to a logical conclusion Adolf Hitler lived a wonderful life: he enjoyed his power, had thousands of adoring adherents, did as he pleased, and when he decided it was time to end it all—he did so. He then went on to complete annihilation, a sort of perfect peace by which one simply ceases to be. I say that he lived a wonderful life from his own perspective alone (and sadly, from the perspective of neo-Nazis). But I have no reason whatsoever to claim that atheist or Mr. Shermer would think of Hitler’s life as wonderful or that they do not consider his actions to have been immoral, to say the least. Again, that is not the issue, the issue is, “Why do we consider, and refer to, his actions as ‘immoral’?”

Mr. Shermer continues his comments thusly:

“That really is one of their favorite arguments. But I deflated the morality ‘proof’ once and for all with a no-win question I posed first to the individual, then to Geivett, then to the whole audience: IF THERE IS NO GOD, WHAT WOULD YOU DO MORALLY? WOULD YOU KILL ME?” [all caps in original]

Here I must simply admit that I just do not get it, I just do not follow the line of reasoning. If there is not God why would I want to kill Mr. Shermer (the appropriate term is “murder”)? Rather, if there is no God I would agree with Mr. Shermer.

Michael Shermer

Yet, the point that he is driving at is the “WHAT WOULD YOU DO MORALLY?” Mr. Shermer continues thusly:

“The first guy said that if he found out there is not God, he was not sure whether he would kill me or not. I said, ‘Well, that tells us a lot about the depth of your character. Stay far, far away from me.’ Geivett said that was an unfair question, but that he too was not sure if he could be moral without God.”

Again, I simply do not understand what the issue is or how someone could not be sure what to do. Why is this even an issue? But now we are moving closer to the main point which is doubt about ability to be moral without God.

Let us continue:

“I repeated my admonition that one would be well advised to steer clear of people who have so little character that, without the threat of eternal punishment they have no self control. I then addressed the entire audience, and said: ‘if you cannot be moral without God, doesn't that imply that, in reality, you are not a moral person at all? That you have no courage, no conscious, and no character? And if you would be moral without God, doesn't that refute the argument that you cannot be moral without God? Think about this. Who would you rather marry? A person who says ‘I will not cheat on you because it is a sin and I don't want to go to hell,’ or someone who says ‘I will not cheat on you because I love you, I respect you, I promised that I would not do so, and I have the courage and character to live up to my promises.’’ I think (I hope) the point was made.”

There are a few very important things to deal with here: (1) a logical fallacy (a false dichotomy), (2) another is Mr. Shermer’s oversimplification and lastly, (3) another presumption about what is moral and immoral.

(1): when asked a question think about the question before you think about an answer. Mr. Shermer presents a false dichotomy in asking if we would be moral with or without God. The false dichotomy is attempting to restrict you into giving a “Yes” or “No” answer both of which lead where Mr. Shermer wants to take you. Have you ever heard the rhetorical question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The implication is that if you reply “No” then you are admitting that you are a wife beater and if you reply “Yes” then you admit that you used to do it. But why answer “Yes” or “No”? I would answer, “I never have and never will beat my wife.” There is no logical imperative to answer “Yes” or “No.” The issue is what morality is, whether it is absolute, whether it is meaningful, whether it has any sway over us, etc.

(2): what struck me as an oversimplification is that, in fact, there have been people who were immoral until they “found God” and yes, they were the sorts of people that you would have wanted to remain well away from.
For example, David Berkowitz aka The Son of Sam, the multiple murderer who thought that satan was speaking to him through a dog. He has been in prison for decades and has turned down offers of parole because he believes that he is precisely where he should be, in prison conducting Bible studies. Or consider Raul Reese who was an extremely violent man who one night stood in his home with a riffle waiting for his wife to come home so that he could shoot her to death and then blow his own brains out. That is, until the butt of his riffle “accidentally” hit the power button on his TV set and there was Chuck Smith preaching about God. Reese is now a pastor. A friend of mine told me that he had dealt with a man who came to our church and made a profession of faith (as it is sometimes called). He game my friend vials of hydrochloric acid which he had purchased having planned on murdering his wife and dissolving her body.
So, yes there are secular people who would have committed unspeakable acts had they not come to believe in God ordained morality. Now, let us assume that there are theists who do not commit immoral acts because they fear divine punishment. What of it? Perhaps they are twisted and immoral (at least conceptually) but I suppose that we could say thank God, or time, chance and matter, that something is holding them back. In fact, for these people perhaps the God delusion is an evolutionary necessity in order to keep them from causing harm to others. What would have happened if Raul Reese had turned on his TV set, riffle in hand, and heard Carl Sagan say, “The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be”? What if he had heard Prof. Richard Dawkins state, “In nature, the usual selecting agent is direct, stark and simple. It is the grim reaper”?[1] God only knows. The question is why should a person who has one single life to live which could end at any moment keep from fulfilling their basest urges? Because they would be immoral according to an abstract concept of manmade and or evolved morality?

(3): now to the moral presumption. Mr. Shermer asked “Who would you rather marry?” Note that he did not explain why it is preferable or moral to not cheat on our spouses. Why make such promises to begin with? Like encountering a riddle wrapped in an enigma Mr. Shermer’s statements are a weave of false dichotomy layered upon false dichotomy. Note the options he offers when asking who you would choose to marry. Either “A person who says ‘I will not cheat on you because it is a sin and I don't want to go to hell,’ or someone who says ‘I will not cheat on you because I love you…’” Why are these our only choices? For me, this was reminiscent of a conversation between Dr. Jason Gastrich and James The Amazing Randi (see essay here). Part of the conversation went like this:

Randi: “I want to live this time, now, and do the best I can ah, with, with what I’ve been given.”
Gastrich: “…Christians too–that are trying hard to change the world today. Trying to make advancements in science and, and”
Randi: “And why is that?”
Gastrich: “For the love of people, for the love of God I suppose.”
Randi: “Oh, ‘for the love of God,’ yes. So we got the old fear thing again. If you don’t do this, boy, you’re gonna go to hell. And you know what hell is like? Ooh, that’s very hot, very nasty. It’s almost like Florida in the summer.”

I am not quite certain what occurred but it appears to me that Mr. Randi was setting up Dr. Gastrich but did not receive the response that he expected. Did you notice the oddity? Dr. Gastrich states that Christians do these things “for the love of God,” but Mr. Randi states “the old fear things again.” I find that fascinating.
Now, why were Mr. Shermer’s two options falsely dichotomous? Because they are simply not realistic. If he were to ask perhaps any Christian on the planet, instead of presuming, I am fairly certain that they would respond with words to the effect of I love God and I love my spouse. I am faithful towards God and my spouse.
Note that Prof. Dawkins wrote:

“I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives. There is no logical connection between what is and what ought.”[2]

He further states:

“We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA…It is every living object's sole reason for living.’”[3]

In my essay Introducing the Dawkinsian Weltanschauung I demonstrate that the way that Prof. Dawkins distinguishes between what is and what ought is purely arbitrary and it is not difficult to discern that he is merely borrowing morality from theistic moral systems, namely Christianity.

Dan Barker likewise presents us with a false dichotomy in arguing that lying is not absolutely immoral. For some reason Reginald Finley and Matthew Davis approvingly quote Mr. Barker’s logical fallacy (see essay here). During his debate with Peter Payne, entitled “Does Ethics Require God?”, Mr. Barker asked Mr. Payne,

“If God told you to kill me, would you do it?”

Mr. Barker’s website (here) states,

“Payne replied, uncomfortably, that if he were certain it was really God making the command, he would have to consider it.”

This strikes me as rather odd and I am not entirely certain as to what Mr. Payne’s reasoning was. Speaking for myself, if I was certain that God was commanding me to murder someone I would make every effort to be promptly fitted for a straightjacket and enjoy an extended stay in a room with padded walls. There simply is no indication from the Bible or subsequent theology that God would, at any moment, ask me to murder anybody. For the sake of accuracy, I am here referring to murder and not killing such as would be the case in a self-defense situation.

Note that Mr. Shermer referred to his line of questioning as presenting a “no-win question” and that elsewhere, he referred to it as “a debate stopper.”[4] I believe that our lesson to be learned from Mr. Shermer’s tactic is to always question the question and think about how your answer can break through the restraints of a false dichotomy and pave the path for a middle way.

[1] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker—Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986), p. 62
[2] Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins (interviewed February 28th, 1995 published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition [vol 18 no. 3])
[3] Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins (interviewed February 28th, 1995 published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition [vol 18 no. 3])
[4] Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil, p. 154

Atheists and Christian Morality

2008-03-02T11:11:00.001-08:00

by IrishFarmer

I wanted to make a few points regarding the comments that Antipelagian received in the previous post. In those comments, many atheists were making absurdly false assertions, or they completely misunderstood what AP was saying.

Because that sort of thing annoys me, I'm going to try and take them point-by-point.

Expand/Collapse

1). Christians don't necessarily use tragedy to make the point that atheism is either false, or necessarily immoral. The bigger point being made is that atheists don't have a moral reference aside from their subjective feelings. With that being said, commenting on a post which claims that atheists have no moral reference, and then begging the question by declaring the post immoral, isn't going to accomplish anything.

What's interesting is that what Taxandrian essentially did was appeal to AP's, and really everyone's, moral sense. How can you do that, unless there is some justification for believing your moral sense reflects truth about reality? And how can you believe our moral sense reflects truth about reality if it's merely a byproduct of naturalistic evolution?

2). As humans, we try to make sense of tragedies including what Kevin Underwood did - since nearly every single human is a moral being. The problem for atheists is that they're left with this strong moral sense, which according to their atheistic/naturalist worldview is nothing more than a biological function, which itself is nothing more than a physical phenomenon. On this view, why is your moral revulsion to anything more objective than gas belched out of a star? Oftentimes atheists will say, "Well everyone objectively wants life, and they want happiness," but this fails for several reasons (a) these things can be achieved often at the expense of others and so basing morality on these things isn't good enough (b) sometimes it's necessary to suppress or ignore these basic "desires" in other people for what could be called the greater good and finally (c) it begs the question. On point C, you're going from an "is" to an "ought" which simply doesn't work. You have to justify why what "is" also "ought" to be, which no atheist has done. Some people have an objective desire to kill, or to manipulate, or to control, etc., so should we say these desires are objectively true, and therefore we should base morality on them?

3). Atheists often claim that Christian morality is based on being told what to do. That is completely false, though I'm sure some Christians do think that way.

Despite that naturalist atheists believe that we live in an amoral universe which doesn't actually contain good and evil, some atheists will have character and some won't. Some will continue to act good, some will act bad, irregardless of their worldview. Similarly, Christians believe we live in a universe with good and evil, but still some Christians have more character than other Christians.

I think it's disingenuous to imply that Christians need to be told how to be moral. Some Christians may need their faith in order to keep themselves in line. Some Christians don't.

Here's the difference. In an atheist universe, those without character have no reason to curb certain unsavory behaviors. On the other hand, many people who otherwise would indulge their immoral side, often tend not to do so simply because their faith tells them it's wrong.

Matt Slick, for instance, on his radio show and elsewhere has said that if he knew God didn't exist, he would steal a wallet he found on the ground. I personally wouldn't. But everyone has their limits. If I knew God didn't exist, I'd probably be out fornicating as often as possible.

But what is Christian morality really about? The Bible doesn't address every possible moral concern, nor should it. The Bible is what I would call a "guide". As Christians we have to strive for understanding just as much as anyone else. Our faith simply puts us on the "path", but nothing can force us to walk it, or keep from straying. As I like to say, "God isn't going to do our thinking for us."

However, the difference in this case is that given atheism, this struggle to understand morality is futile. Even if there were objective morality in an atheistic universe, our existence is purposeless anyway and we're doomed to return to the nothing we came from. As I heard once, if atheism is true we're basically, "Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic." Nothing we do, morally or otherwise, really has any purpose. Whether we act morally or not, the outcome is pure annihilation, which will completely erase the slate of any of our actions.

Regardless, the point I'm trying to get at is that Christians have character just like any other person. Some more than others, or perhaps it would be better to say everyone has a different kind of character. So to broad brush Christians, or atheists, as simple-minded people who need to be told what to do is wrong.

So it isn't true that only atheists have subjectively figured out that it's wrong to kill and rape babies, while Christians were sheepishly waiting around to be objectively told it was wrong.

4). One of the stickier points made is that what is right or wrong remains right or wrong whether or not God commands it. In order to give this subject its proper treatment, I would have to write a book, but I'll spare the readers the boredom and try to sum it up here.

Isn't it troublesome to say that morality is what it is apart from God? That sounds noble on the surface, but ultimately it's another way of reverting to moral subjectivism, which makes morality illusory or really nothing more than another instance of a lie-to-children - and that isn't quite so noble.

The statement from one atheist that morals are meaningless if they have to be dictated, while clearly misunderstanding the Christian position, is a rather absurd statement. Clearly, if God decrees that murder is wrong, that doesn't make our moral sense meaningless. We already knew murder was wrong. Either way, there are (at least) two reasons morality would have to be completely dictated to us is, and both of them lead me to believe that dictated morals would be rather useful (a) if we had no moral sense or (b) our moral sense was useless. Neither of those two points is true given Christianity. Point b is often the reasoning employed by actual human dictators.

However, what about the deeper issue here? What about situations where God, or belief in God, leads to internal moral conflicts? Should we go with our moral sense, or should we obey God? This is an emotionally sticky issue. I certainly don't want to rush in and say, "Go with God," though that seems to be the answer a Christian should give.

Emotion aside, however, I think logically I would be forced to say, "Go with God". If God is good by nature, then anything He commands will be morally justifiable, in spite of our shortsighted view of the matter. Consider Abraham, who was ready to kill his son for God. When the book of Romans interprets that act, notice that it doesn't say that Abraham thought that God just wanted the kid dead, it says that Abraham knew that in the end the act would somehow be justified with God raising the kid from the dead if He had to. Now, there is more to it than that, including the physical pain aspect, but I don't want to get too sidetracked into speculation.

The point is, God doesn't command things which are immoral, so to say, "Something is wrong regardless of whether or not God commands it" would be slightly illogical, or at the very least meaningless. God wouldn't command it if it was wrong.

5). My final point wasn't touched on too much by atheists, but claiming that morality is subjective because it is nothing more than a "perception" created by evolution is false. There is nothing logically necessary about that, and the hidden assumption people use when making that claim is metaphysical naturalism, which means they're begging the question.

Evolution has nothing to do with moral realism, since God could have used evolution to develop a proper moral sense in us. The confusion comes in thanks to atheists who have used evolution (amongst other things) to sneak metaphysical naturalism into science "under the radar".

Why Atheism Is Not Very "Appetizing"

2008-03-01T13:33:00.000-08:00

There a number of atheists following in the foot steps of faith of their father, Jeffrey Dahmer...take Kevin Underwood as an example...a fairly innocuous individual...who wrestled with depression and only "believed" in God when he needed to blame God for something...

(Some may find the following graphic...be advised.)

Expand/Collapse

Underwood is a self-indulgent fool who fantasized about cannibalism...specifically, a young child (since children can't put up much of a fight).

Here is Jamie Rose Bolin

Agents asked Underwood what the girl said after he hit her.

"That's something that's haunted me forever since it happened," he said. "She started yelling, I'm sorry,' which I'm like, What is she sorry for? She didn't do anything wrong. It's me. I'm the one that should be sorry.'"...

"I was sick to my stomach that I was doing this," he told agents Craig Overby and Martin Maag. "I was literally, physically sick."
He said he smothered the girl with his hands, sexually assaulted her lifeless body, draped the corpse over the bathtub and began sawing her neck with a decorative dagger, nearly cutting her head off. He said the killing was part of a fantasy fueled by macabre Internet pornography. He said his plan was to kill and eat his victim. "It started off as cannibalism ... I wanted to know what it
tasted like, and just the thought of eating someone was appealing to me...."

Kevin Underwood had a blog. He said on Feb 4, 2006:

Pretty much the only time I believe in God is when I want to blame Him for
something.

No Kevin...I think this particularly gruesome event can blamed on you. But don't worry...maybe your jury will be composed of fellow atheists and show you mercy...after all, an atheist can't condemn cannibalism any more than he can condemn eating pumpkin pie.

Homework for the Naturalist: Near Death Experiences

2008-02-29T15:59:00.000-08:00

Gary Habermas is known well as a resurrection expert and he's also a good buddy of former atheist Anthony Flew. He has done some some interesting research into near death experiences (NDE'S).

I would encourage you to listen to part 1 and part 2 of a talk he gave at the Veritas Forum about NDE's. I would be interested in hearing from the naturalists out there... how does the naturalistic worldview account for the documented events that Habermas has presented?

This is definitely a good listen; fascinating really. I hope you enjoy.

Thanks for reading. - Tron

James White Calls out Dawkins' God-Hating Foolishness

2008-02-29T11:03:00.000-08:00

James White demonstrates just how inane the arguments of the neo-atheist movement are. You may realize, as evidenced by the response of the audience, that the neo-atheist movement is to "adults" what boy bands are to junior-highers.

Another Failed Atheist Assertion

2008-02-27T15:47:00.000-08:00

Yet another atheist assertion has given up the ghost when compared to facts.

Expand/Collapse

Let us first briefly get a taste of the data. “The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life” has published survey results which dealt with “The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey” aka “The Religious Landscape of the United States.” This was reported by TIME Magazine under the title, “America’s Unfaithful Faithful.”

TIME’s David Van Biema reports that Luis Lugo, the Pew Forum director, stated that Americans:

“not only change jobs, change where they live, and change spouses, but they change religions too. We totally knew it was happening, but this survey enabled us to document it clearly.”

The report concludes that “28% of American adults have left the faith of their childhood for another one. And that does not even include those who switched from one Protestant denomination to another; if it did, the number would jump to 44%.”

The survey makes a point about a “churn” by which is meant fluctuation. For example, since 1972 of all those raised Catholic one-third have left the church. But the loss has been made up by adding converts and by the addition of Hispanic immigrants. Also two-thirds of those raised as Jehovah’s Witnesses have left that organization. But they maintain their numbers by adding converts.

The “unaffiliated” category (atheists, agnostics and “nothing in particular”) gained and lost numerically:

“About 16% of those polled defined their religious affiliation that way (including people who regarded themselves as religious, along with atheists and agnostics); only 7% had been brought up that way. That’s an impressive gain, but Lugo points out that churn is everywhere: even the unaffiliated group lost 50% of its original membership to one church or another.” (emphasis mine)

It is perhaps not very surprising that “unaffiliated” lost numbers to the churches considering that The Barna Group (Americans Describe Their Views About Life After Death, October 21, 2003) found:

“Many of those who describe themselves as either atheistic or agnostic also harbor contradictions in their thinking. ‘Half of all atheists and agnostics say that every person has a soul, that Heaven and Hell exist, and that there is life after death. One out of every eight atheists and agnostics even believe that accepting Jesus Christ as savior probably makes life after death possible. These contradictions are further evidence that many Americans adopt simplistic views of life and the afterlife based upon ideas drawn from disparate sources, such as movies, music and novels, without carefully considering those beliefs. Consequently, the labels attached to people - whether it be ‘born again’ or ‘atheist’ may not give us as much insight into the person’s beliefs as we might assume.”

Reviewing this data reminded me that some time ago I had written an essay entitled Natural Born Atheist which responded to the claim that, as the title implies, we are all natural born atheists.

Towards the end of the essay I pointed out assertion which is virtually ubiquitous amongst the neo-atheists to the effect of (employing American as an example): American Christians are Christian because their parents were Christian. They were thus raised Christians and remain uncritically Christians. If American Christians had been born in India they would be Hindus.

Of course, this would mean that American atheists should be Christian but would be Hindu had they been born in India. Certainly, many American atheists were “raised Christian” (whatever that means) but would say that they grew out of that childish and ignorant superstition. Christians may likewise argue that were they to have been born in India and raised as Hindus they would have grown out of that particular theology and accepted Christianity.

Be that as it may, the basic claim is that “religious people” are so because they were raised that way and perhaps have never even questioned it. This new data demonstrates that this is simply not the case at least not for a large segment of the American population.

Debate: Atheism is Irrational

2008-02-26T18:52:00.000-08:00

by IrishFarmer

A short while ago, I received an e-mail from one Joni - an atheist - who was curious about our "mission statement". That is, he thought it was curious that we could claim atheism was irrational, false, and so on. After a few short e-mails, I ascertained that he was a weak scientific naturalist, weak atheist, and we agreed to debate the statement: "Atheism is Irrational" which you can find here.

Check it out, let me know if you have any suggestions, criticisms, or (better yet) praises for me. Go easy on me, this is my first 'debate' in quite a long time. However, its been fun so far. Joni is obviously a great person, and isn't obnoxious or arrogant and so on.

My thanks to William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga (primarily) for allowing me to stand on their shoulders (that is, "bum" their arguments).

Atheism From the Eastern Mind

2008-02-25T11:24:00.000-08:00

As I write this I do so without the aid of any tangible resources at my disposal or the comfort of my desk neatly confined in the corner of my small apartment. The university, which I attend, holds a place for me in times of need for solace, and it is from there I am taking refuge at this moment. As I write this I do so purely from the depths and struggles that rage inside the lonely abyss of imagery known as my thoughts. I am not a special man, nor am I a man with greater talent than what I perceive God has given me. I am merely a man that, by nature alone is drawn to what are considered the ultimate questions and the reality behind that which is considered the truth; the Logos, as we are still prone to call it, if there is ever such a thing or if it is merely an invention of mine and others imaginations. Though I must confess it seems a strange thing that such questions and such a perceived reality could be constructed without the aid of something being exact or similar in quality. I do not wish to offer any sort of formalized ontological argument for the existence of this reality, as it has clearly been offered before, but I do wish to grant some authority to matters of intuition.

By this time the reader is already contemplating what I’m trying to get at or what my underlying point may be. This is a common urge within today’s society; the cry for flowery language and the beauty of the written word are seen now as mere trivialities or that which should only occupy pages if its intent is to make use of emotions. Rather, it is required now to be rather dry in one’s approach: the microwave age is in full swing, to say in the least. Though I do not wish to make this a personal note that should otherwise be intended for a personal blog, I do wish to state my thoughts, and my thoughts dictate me to write as beautifully as I can.
Expand/Collapse

For, while reason seems sufficient alone in determining certain things about reality, the senses are yet other gateways to appreciating and determining how we perceive such a reality. As in Plato’s “The Republic” and other such writings of his, the object of true knowledge is that which is known as “The Good”; an immoral man cannot know that which is true, for knowledge also requires understanding and understanding requires one to be in sync with the reality of the universe.

Needless to say, an argument shall still be presented, though not in the usual systematic form that is often displayed within Western circles. This is not to blast Western thinking, but I must confess that I am more inclined towards Eastern thinking because I am an Eastern thinker. Many who may know me can already tell you my theological positions, in so far as they know much about Eastern Orthodoxy. In knowledge of this, one should not believe Eastern thinking as the same as mysticism. While the two are intimately tied together in some ways the limitations of Eastern thought are that of the tradition of Socrates and many thinkers after: human beings are limited by their rationality in perceiving the world and that which is beyond it, therefore rationality is not the soul arbiter of truth. This, to I, is the most rational thing that can be known about human beings and how we perceive the world. Irony, it seems, tends to show itself most when pride is at risk.

It should therefore be of no surprise that I approach these issues from an Eastern mindset. If there is any sort of bias against Eastern thinking then I can only hope that this article may change the way one views the value of the aesthetic life and the value of faith in not simply spiritual matters, but matters of all sorts. The point of this article then is not simply about Eastern thinking, but about Atheism; about how one perceives the world and how one approaches what constitutes as “rational” or “irrational”.

When we think of something as rational, we think it to contain two general attributes: that which follows a valid logical form and that which is supported by evidence of some sort of the other. This is a fairly general, but accurate interpretation of what constitutes as something being rational or someone following a rational line of thinking. It is a common claim these days among many Atheists that Theism is generally an irrational enterprise because it lacks one of the two attributes listed above. The significance of this accusation is that one should not believe something without some sort of rational justification, so therefore such positions as Atheism are more tenable and must be accepted to live an intellectually thriving and even—to an extent among some of the opposition against Theists—a morally good life. What I wish to challenge is this very notion, in that for one to be rationally justified they do not simply need to require a certain amount of logical validity or evidence, but they also need to require a general process of thought that correlates with the very reality we perceive. What I mean by this, is a line of thinking that does not simply work off method alone and by which functions in some way or another, but is a part of who we are and what we truly strive for. In a sense, it is a practical application of belief; a faith that leads us to understanding and sits as the foundation by which we view rationality. For it cannot be denied in any way that Theists apply logical formulas and evidence to their perceptions of the world; it would be rather ignorant (in the least) to say so, if I may claim. Theists and Atheists alike that think out their beliefs show a very careful understanding of logic and a very need for evidence to support these notions. In this sense, they are rational, but for someone to be rational does not necessitate that what they are rational about is true. While I may agree that rationality necessarily correlates with truth to some degree, it is not incumbent of rationality to dictate what is true. For the flowers do not grow to support the sun, but the sun shines for the flowers to grow, though it cannot be denied that they share a relationship necessary for us to interpret the function or existence of both. With this understanding the issue of one being rational or irrational seems to be a mere trivial pursuit in regards to truth, for even if someone is irrational in their interpretation of something, this does not dictate what is true. Now, understand that I previously admitted that rationality does have to, in some ways, correlate with what is true, for whatever is true comes rational thinking. This is entirely a faith based position with no justification of its own. With such things, there seems to be no necessity for justification, though it is necessary to hold such a position in order to allow thinking whatsoever. In the same way, an Atheist holds to this faith about ultimate realities, though it seems more apparent these days that the slew of New Atheists prefer to find no good reason in such positions or see their faith as no position at all. This of course, is all in spite of the religious mind. As I understand it, then, it is necessary for us to be rational only in searching for truth, but not establishing it. It seems to me that those who cry folly at differing positions and claim that the foundations of such positions are irrational because the objects by which the ultimate reality is being claimed do not appear to correspond to said reality, are but throwing irrelevancies about like candy to the simple minded children of this age. Why should the objects that are subject to the reality be the arbiter of truth regarding that realities existence? Do we fault color because a blind man exists? Do we fault sound because no one is around to hear it? Do we, in fact, fault our very rational thinking and things of mathematical quality, though we are only able to write the illustrations—shadows—of what we perceive to truly be there? If I do not perceive the ultimate reality, why must it be more rational to conclude that it isn’t there? It would seem that the more rational of positions to take would be that which attempts to explain, to at least some degree, what we can and cannot know; what is real and what is not. Even if the explanation may not be real, an explanation to what we think to be real should be preferred over that which says “I don’t know”, for even in admitting no knowledge a man still attempts to know something about the world; for admitting to no knowledge is admitting to the knowledge of not knowing.

So how then do we assess whether or not one attempt at explanation is better than the other? I have already explained that I do not find the attempt to critique the ultimate reality by the basis of its lesser objects is an appropriate way to establish whether something exists or not, rather, such objects should be taken as a whole so as to find some connection to that which is beyond us. So let us say that all that we experience of the world is of a certain quality; we should then not be so quick to judge the reality that is beyond it, but we should examine as to why it is the way it is and why we perceive it as such. In this sense, I separate the intuitions of man from the material realm as we see it, for the object of perception is indeed not the same as perception itself, though we may have faith that what we perceive correlates with reality. In saying this, it must be admitted that an Atheist who sees the world as merely that which is material, does not have this advantage in attempting to view the world on an objective basis, For what value is there in “truth” in telling us how something is and not why? I can imagine all day long how something is, but the “why” is irrelevant. In fact, the “why” does not exist, for “whys” only exist in a mind that is outside of the material; outside of unconscious purpose. It can be admitted that purpose can exists without conscious, insomuch as it is admitted that the only purpose is that something is because it is and that what it does is without purpose of its own. Purpose can exist without purpose, though it cannot be reasoned to have any significant meaning if the object that is being purposeful holds no intent. This of course causes problems for the Atheist in other areas, such as moral values, and while the common refutation is that one can make their own meaning, meaning cannot have any meaning in and of itself if it relies solely on that which is arbitrary and without any meaning external to itself. God aside from this problem, the issue being raised is that objectivity needs to be required for us, for as one great philosopher stated: “You cannot acquire an ought from an is”. The only problem I have with the former statement is that at some point, the “Is” must be consulted, and if the “Is” is without any conscious purpose then the “Is’s” purpose is to not be conscious. It seems then, that this rule only applies to contingent beings, as we are so formerly called under the governance of a Creator. But I digress.

My objection is mostly against the Agnostic here, whose position is that they have none. There is nothing rational about this, nor is there any indication of the search for truth. And a lack of searching is a sign that someone is holding back their humanity. These people do not even deserve to be consulted, much less do they need to be listened to on matters of truth; for what is true to them has yet to be fully established in their minds and has no coherence. The Atheist then, that similarly admits to “not knowing”, yet chooses a position contrary to such, needs to be treated in the same manner. For not only do they commit the error of the Agnostic, but they commit an error against their own rational faculties insomuch as they deny a foundation on the basis of their ignorance. To choose a position over that which one is ignorant of is to claim that their ignorance is enough to justify the contrary, which means that any learning that they gain is of no significance to their position. One should not choose on this basis, but should choose on the basis of what is more tenable. It is with this understanding that we should reject the self-proclaimed Weak or Negative Atheists and be respectful to their intellects, acknowledging that they do not simply choose a more rational position because the lack of knowledge, but that they perceive to know that such a God does not exist. It is here then that they should be grateful, now that they have something from which to argue about. For it seems odd that a person who claims to not know a certain reality argues against it, and it seems outright immoral (in the sense of a lie) that they argue against something by which they claim to know nothing about and reject on the basis of ignorance. If one is simply arguing on the basis of what seems more rational, then I can understand, but even then it seems trivial, for if the reader admits to my former statements that rationality does not necessitate truth then there really is nothing to argue about.

So what are we to say on these matters? For which foundation are we to follow? The Atheist will claim that theirs is the most tenable because of lack of evidence, but it doesn’t seem apparent to the rest of the world (for which is the majority) that this is the case. It is claimed within scientific circles that a general consensus is necessary for something to be established (mostly along the lines of testing). It is also claimed that our general intuitions about the world are wrong insomuch as we believe things to be designed or purposeful from a rational being. But these views are all contrary to the majority of humanity, both past and present. Am I arguing that a majority constitutes as a form of evidence for truth? In a sense, no, but yes. A position should not be guaranteed on the basis of how many people believe it, but it should be taken seriously, if not allowed the privilege of a positive status to be challenged and not to be claimed as a sort of “delusion”. Rationality is not simply assumed by methods of logic and evidence, but by intuition. A man who claims to have been attacked by demons in his sleep is more likely to be placed in an asylum because of the fact that most people don’t claim such a thing. A man who claims to know God is justified on the same standards that most people in this world claim the same thing, while only a tiny minority perceives otherwise. We believe the minority to be wrong not on the basis of numbers, but on intuition. We believe that our general thoughts about the world are in accord with reality. We have faith that this is the case, because otherwise we would be damned to the pits of ignorance. Even the Strong or Positive Atheist affirms this in their Metaphysical Naturalism backed by Evolutionary Theory. Our general intuitions give rise to our behaviors, which correspond with the environment around us. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t survive. Of course, this principle is contradicted when speak of God rises in a conversation. Our perceptions of design are incorrect and are merely illusion to survival, while not truly corresponding with reality. The interesting thing about this sort of skepticism is that it doesn’t explain why such an illusion exists to begin with. We know it exists for our survival, but why that illusion. Why an illusion that is not connected to reality at all? How does a non-rational thing create something by which only rational beings can perceive and how does a non-immaterial thing create something in the minds of material animals that is perceived to be immaterial? The “evidence” then, that seems to be used against Theism is only that which the minority cannot perceive, and by the sheer weight insecurity and feeling as an outcast, does the Atheist perceive the rest of the world as delusional or in the least, wrong.

Of course, it can be stated the numerous examples of the majority being wrong in the past. This cannot be denied, but it must be stated that the wrong that was committed was only by way of the details, not by the general ideas. When the religious are faulted with limiting scientific enterprise they are often blamed because of their belief in God, but their belief in God had nothing to do with it, just their beliefs about what or how this God was. When Atheists today claim Theists to be wrong because of their belief in God regarding ideas about intelligence in the Universe aside from our own, they make an error in assuming that this is the belief has stopped scientific progress in the past. They make the error even, of assuming that Theism is improper because of what Theists have done in the past regarding scientific discoveries. They claim that ignorance is profound within Theism because of these mistakes, without first thinking that it is simply human error in interpretation. This false condemnation can equally be applied to the moral perceptions of Theists. The point is, that the majority has always thought along one line of thought: There is a God (or something similar to it). The Atheist is the person who has always denied this, has always gone against the fold, and has always impeded the thoughts of humanity, thoughts which have established all the necessary foundations of human knowledge. It is because of notions about God that have not only halted scientific discovery, but have progressed it. It is faith in our own rationality and our ability to perceive this world correctly that has led us to these discoveries. It has been the faith of the majority over the ages in an intelligent being(s) that has helped to further justify these views.

A man who says “I don’t know” or “I deny” has far more to explain than a man who does otherwise. A man who says “There is no God”, has far more to explain in relation to the world around us as well as how every other human being thinks. A man who says “Intelligence came from non-intelligence” has far more many to convince, most importantly himself.

The burden lies not with the Faithful, but the men of a rebel mind. The Allegory of the Cave does not burden the believers and is not the responsibility thereof to convince, but for the man who denies all allegory, who denies himself, and who denies his fellow man.

Peace in Christ,

M

Ben Stein Expelled!!!

2008-02-24T14:22:00.000-08:00

Ben Stein will be releasing a documentary entitled “Expelled,” which appears to be based on the issue of attempts to silence objections to Darwinism.

Looks like we will have to wait until Spring 2008 so see what it is really made of but for now, a trailer is available for the viewing here.

Atheism Sucks! Meets Paleo Radio

2008-02-23T15:59:00.000-08:00

As promised, here is an excerpt of my discussion with Paleocrat on Paleo Radio. We talk about some personal stuff, Atheism...one Atheist in particular...and Atheism Sucks! (of course).

If you want to know more about the ever listening (never learning) Atheist we banter on about, you can find him HERE.

I did edit down the discussion and I apologize that you can hear my 6 week old daughter screaming at points!

Don't forget, Paleo Radio is on Monday and Friday nights 7pm-10pm, eastern (use Internet Explorer to listen).

Atheism Discussion on Radio...and Web

2008-02-22T09:57:00.000-08:00

The Paleocrat, i.e. Jeremiah Bannister, asked me to join him for a discussion on his radio program this evening. We'll be discussing Atheism Sucks! and atheism in general.

The Paleocrat is well-known among You Tubers and in Michigan politics. He has been sought after by various politicians and political organizations...and is verbally assaulted by atheists regularly!

He is the founder of Olivet, MI Young Americans for Freedom
His you tube account can be found HERE where he posts excerpts from his show and thrashes atheists as well.

His show is on from 7pm-10pm eastern on Mondays and Fridays. His show is also broadcast live in the internet HERE (you can only hear the broadcast using internet explorer...I don't know why, but to make you aware).

I will be talking with him around 8pm, eastern tonight.

He also welcomes atheists to call his show. You can be on the air if you call: 269-749-7398
Just be sure to keep your language at or below a PG rating if you call in, and mention Atheism Sucks! so he knows how you found out about his show.

The Quadripartite Equine Riders

2008-02-21T20:49:00.001-08:00

Please note that I have posted The Quadripartite Equine Riders.

This is a review of a conversation between Prof. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Prof. Dawkins’ website is making this available under the title “The Four Horsemen.”

NEW RELEASE: Tim Keller's THE REASON FOR GOD

2008-02-20T00:58:00.000-08:00

Expand/Collapse

Description: The End of Faith. The God Delusion. God Is Not Great. Letter to a Christian Nation. Bestseller lists are filled with doubters. But what happens when you actually doubt your doubts?

Although a vocal minority continues to attack the Christian faith, for most Americans, faith is a large part of their lives: 86 percent of Americans refer to themselves as religious, and 75 percent of all Americans consider themselves Christians. So how should they respond to these passionate, learned, and persuasive books that promote science and secularism over religion and faith? For years, Tim Keller has compiled a list of the most frequently voiced “doubts” skeptics bring to his Manhattan church. And in The Reason for God, he single-handedly dismantles each of them. Written with atheists, agnostics, and skeptics in mind, Keller also provides an intelligent platform on which true believers can stand their ground when bombarded by the backlash. The Reason for God challenges such ideology at its core and points to the true path and purpose of Christianity.

Why is there suffering in the world? How could a loving God send people to Hell? Why isn’t Christianity more inclusive? Shouldn’t the Christian God be a god of love? How can one religion be “right” and the rest “wrong”? Why have so many wars been fought in the name of God? These are just a few of the questions even ardent believers wrestle with today. In this book, Tim Keller uses literature, philosophy, real-life conversations and reasoning, and even pop culture to explain how faith in a Christian God is a soundly rational belief, held by thoughtful people of intellectual integrity with a deep compassion for those who truly want to know the truth.

Table of Contents:

"The Leap of Doubt"

1. There can't be just one true religion
2. A good God could not allow suffering
3. Christianity is a straitjacket
4. The church is responsible for so much injustice
5. A loving God would not send people to hell
6. Science has disproved Christianity
7. You can't take the Bible literally

"The Reasons for Faith"

1. The clues of God
2. The knowledge of God
3. The problem of sin
4. Religion and the gospel
5. The (true) story of the cross
6. The reality of the resurrection
7. The Dance of God

Tim Keller made some lectures (in mp3 format) based on the book:

Exclusivity: How can there be just one true religion?

Suffering: If God is good, why is there so much evil in the world?

Absolutism: Don't we all have to find truth for ourselves?

Injustice: Hasn't Christianity been an instrument for oppression?

Hell: Isn't the God of Christianity an angry Judge?

Doubt: What should I do with my doubts? (AM)

Literalism: Isn't the Bible historically unreliable and regressive?

Richard Dawkins gets $3.5 million for next book

2008-02-20T00:48:00.000-08:00

Link.

Apparently, Dawkins' next book will be in defense of evolution. In a way I'm relieved that he's going back to what he knows best: biology. After reading The God Delusion, it's obvious philosophy is not his forte.

Was the NIU Shooter a Nietzschean killer?

2008-02-20T00:14:00.000-08:00

Before the massacre of the NIU students, the shooter, Steven Kazmierczak, mailed a few items to his ex-girlfriend. Among the merchandise was Nietzsche's copy of The Antichrist, a book he had been reading recently, according to sources. Naturally, some doubt that this may have been a factor in the shooting (see here), but let's not forget about 14-year-old Bobby Frank.

Quote To Note...the new rebel is a Sceptic...

2008-02-19T18:35:00.000-08:00

Author: G. K. Chesterton
Year: 1908 AD
Book: Orthodoxy
Chapter: The Suicide of Thought

Expand/Collapse

“But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.

Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it.

As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.

Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

Loftus' Argument from the Scale of the Universe and a Weekend at Bernie's

2008-02-19T16:52:00.001-08:00

Previously, I addressed John Loftus' use of an argument by Nicholas Everritt, which claimed that God likely doesn't care about us or possibly doesn't exist because the universe is too old, too vast, and so on and so forth.

I thought the issue was over with. The argument was terribly unconvincing, but John defended it in a follow-up post, and I'm finally getting to it, which I promised him I would do.

Seeing John attempting to prop up the lifeless corpse of his argument is interesting, like watching A Weekend at Bernie's.

Expand/Collapse

For instance, John says this in response to the criticism that his argument is purely emotional:

That being said, I do not believe human beings are logical machines. We are influenced to believe what we do by our social backgrounds, peer pressure groups, dreams, aspirations and emotions. And as such there can be no complete separation from what one feels and what one thinks. There will always be a component of emotion included in our logical evaluations of these matters, and vice versa.

So we're supposed to ignore the well-known fallacy of appealing to emotion, simply because it helps out John's argument? No thanks.

But it is interesting to see the argument go down, kicking and screaming, with rationalizations like these.

I know people, smart people, who can logically defend something that they believe entirely for emotional reasons.

This sounds remarkably like some kind of postmodern approach to truth. "If someone thinks it, there must be some truth to it."

The very fact that people can come up with arguments to satisfy any number of their whims should only cause us to rely all the more on a logical approach to sifting the "good" arguments from the "bad".

Ultimately, this is just another emotional appeal. "OH NO! Everyone has an argument! Let's just give up and accept the validity of otherwise invalid arguments, because if we don't then we'd have to put a lot of thought into things!"

John also heavily implies that his argument largely relies on us accepting the premise: 'The only logical cosmology which "bible believing evangelists" can come to is that of Medieval, or even first century Christians'.

An overwhelming number of Medieval Christians did in fact believe they were on a fixed planet in the center of a very small universe.

John even goes as far as saying:

Take a good look at Dante's universe. THAT’S WHAT MOST PEOPLE EXPECTED PRIOR TO HAVING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. And as such, the force of Everitt’s argument is related to what they expected. Medieval people expected something different than what we found, and this constitutes some pretty strong evidence for what Everett argues for.

The problem is that the Bible is so equivocal on cosmology, that there really is no reason to accept this as true. Medieval Christian cosmologies are entirely irrelevant. Even if they weren't, at worst John's argument isn't an argument against God, its an argument against a literal interpretation of "scientific facts" in the Bible. Oh well.

So, as I said I got back on the argument, and after seeing this I don't see any reason to go on any further.

Kenneth Miller Wants to Equivocate Intelligent Design to Death

2008-02-19T09:17:00.000-08:00

I saw this "alert" in my e-mail inbox of late, but didn't think to check it out until today. I'm glad I did check it out. It seems Kenneth Miller wants to change the way evolution is portrayed to the public so that it appeals to "religious" people who embrace evolution-alternatives because they think evolution precludes value and meaning. *deep breath*

Expand/Collapse

I have respect for Kenneth Miller. Ultimately, I'm worried - for his sake - that he might just be a Useful Idiot for Atheist Darwinists, but at least he seems sincere.

However, with this news story, I just feel bad for him. He has to cater to his atheist peers, while trying to hide the repulsive atheist worldview from the public at large so that they'll embrace evolution. Its like trying to watch someone tight-rope walk on floss.

Miller thinks there's design in the universe! Well...sort of:

There is, indeed, a 'design' to life – an evolutionary design

Those words from Miller are interesting...A little bit suspicious, but whatever.

To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of ‘design’

My suspicion is rising...

Actually, Miller does reveal his bigger plan to get people to identify with evolution, and its pretty bad (more bait-and-switch than anything)...

The idea that there is ‘design’ in nature is very appealing. People want to believe that life isn’t purposeless and random. That’s why the intelligent design movement wins the emotional battle for adherents despite its utter lack of scientific support. To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of ‘design’ and the sense of purpose and value inherent in a scientific understanding of nature.

Just to pause for a moment, what purpose and value is inherent in a scientific understanding of nature? Science has nothing to say about value and purpose.

By this point, we can begin to see what Miller's plan for helping people to 'cope' with evolution is: Equivocate on the word 'design' so much that people no longer consciously consider the difference between actual Design, and natural design. Really?!

I kind of understand Miller's intent - though he doesn't say it, it seems he wants religious people to realize that evolution could be a form of "Intelligent Design" that doesn't conflict with their religious beliefs. But this is exactly the opposite of the philosophical beliefs of the scientific establishment. Does he really think they're going to give up their death-grip on the philosophical underpinnings of science? Let's face it, atheism is anti-intuitive, its repulsive, etc., the only thing atheists have going for them is that they've managed to convince most everyone that science actually supports their worldview. Why on God's green earth would they compromise on the one thing they have going for them?

Miller might almost get himself into some trouble here. Its obvious that his plan is meant to appease both his materialist colleagues, while appealing to the "ignorant religious layman", but I don't think it will appeal to either. Darwinian atheists who truly see what he wants to do will probably lose a bit of respect for him. Their philosophy simply won't allow any hint of purposeful, meaningful design into the equation.

Miller truly is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one.

Freethought Without Forethought?

2008-02-16T13:00:00.000-08:00

Continuing my review of Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s “non-tracts,” we are tackling # 11 which they entitled, “What Is A Freethinker?”

I have entitled this new essay Freethought Without Forethought?

The topics covered in their tract and my essay are as follows:

“How do freethinkers know what is true?”
“Do freethinkers have a basis for morality?”
“Do freethinkers have meaning in life?”
“Doesn't the complexity of life require a designer?”
“Why are freethinkers opposed to religion?”
“Hasn't religion done tremendous good in the world?”
“Do freethinkers have a particular political persuasion?”
“Is atheism/humanism a religion?”
“Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?”
“How can I support freethought?”

Neo-Atheist Preacher

2008-02-16T06:33:00.000-08:00

One of the most successful neo-atheist televangelist and proselytizing missionaries wants you to reach deep into your pockets and help him shove atheism right down children’s throats (again, or still, or more so) while they are away from you in their classrooms.

Expand/Collapse

For a couple of years now, Prof. Richard Dawkins has been campaigning in his self-appointed role as professor of the public understanding of atheism. His crusade seeks public-charitable funding to push his own particular, and peculiar, Dawkinsian worldview (which I examined here) into the classroom. He also wants to ensure that no other theories have a hearing. Daniel Dennett is also paving the way for a one way street of censorship. Moreover, Prof. Dawkins seeks to divert money from religious charities who provide life’s little luxuries such as oh, you know, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, disaster relief organizations, hospitals, adoption agencies, foster homes, etc., etc., etc. and into the coffers of his propaganda machine. Prof. Dawkins’ propagandist press will “maintain a database of charities free of ‘church contamination.’”

As Vox Day puts it, regarding Prof. Dawkins’ conversion crusades, “It’s like the Campus Crusade for Cthulhu, only sillier” (The Irrational Atheist, p. 10 - freely downloadable).

The Sunday Times – Britain report by Steven Swinford wrote:

“RICHARD DAWKINS, the Oxford University professor and campaigning atheist, is planning to take his fight against God into the classroom by flooding schools with anti-religious literature. He is setting up a charity that will subsidise books, pamphlets and DVDs attacking the ‘educational scandal’ of theories such as creationism while promoting rational and scientific thought. The foundation will also attempt to divert donations from the hands of ‘missionaries’ and church-based charities.”

Prof. Dawkins “describes the theory [of intelligent design] as a ‘bronze-age myth’ and plans to send his own material to schools to counter the ‘subversion of science.’” What Prof. Dawkins wants to see in the classroom instead of bronze-age myths is quaint Victorian-era myths, “‘The enlightenment is under threat,’ Dawkins said…We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity.”

As Chris Lehmann put it in his article, Among the Non-Believers - The tedium of dogmatic atheism:

“…village atheists are as numerous, and as shrill, as they’ve ever been, for the simple reason that the successive revolutions in thought that have furthered their cause—the Enlightenment and Darwinism—have been popular busts. As the secular mind loses mass allegiance, it becomes skittish and reclusive, succumbing to the seductive fancy that its special brand of wisdom is too nuanced, too unblinkingly harsh for the weak-minded Christer, ultraorthodox scold, or wooly pagan.”

And yet,

“Dawkins’s approach has also offended fellow scientists. Steven Rose, emeritus professor of biology at the Open University, said: ‘I worry that Richard’s view about belief is too simplistic, and so hostile that as a committed secularist myself I am uneasy about it. We need to recognise that our own science also depends on certain assumptions about the way the world is — assumptions that he and I of course share.’”

It is any wonder that Richard Lewontin, Harvard University Professor of zoology and biology, made the following points, “As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing.” He then states that Prof. Dawkins is among the contemporary science-popularizers who “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market” he particularly mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism.”[1]

It would be one thing for Prof. Dawkins to look through a microscope or telescope and merely report what he sees. Yet, it is quite another thing for his admitted atheistic proselytizing worldview-theories to enter the classroom in the guise of science. As Prof. Dawkins himself admits he did not become acquainted with Darwin because he read The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life but “it was because I was taught”[2] (see my essays The Gap Filler and or The Biologist Who Fills the Gaps in Our Knowledge With Faith for a fuller account).

I certainly will not accept Prof. Dawkins’ worldview/theories not only because as H. Allen Orr, the Shirley Cox Kearns Professor of Biology at the University of Rochester, wrote “most scientists do not accept Dawkins’s theory of memes”[3] but because if I did so I would be merely contracting a meme from Prof. Dawkins.

[1] See my essay How Billions of Demons Haunted Baloney While Avoiding Detection for the full text of this fascinating and very telling article: Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Times Book Reviews, Volume 44, Number 1 (January 9, 1997) reviewing Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
[2] The Atheism Tapes, Part 4: Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Miller
[3] H. Allen Orr; Shirley Cox Kearns Professor of Biology at the University of Rochester, “A Mission to Convert,” New York Times, Vol. 54, No. 1, Jan. 11, 2007. A review of Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion

Announcing An Informal Debate

2008-02-15T14:34:00.000-08:00

I wanted to announce to people, if they are interested, an informal debate between myself and an Atheist who goes by the name ALogicalConstruct.

We exchanged comments on YouTube and we were frustrated by the limitation of characters and posting there...so ALogical asked to discuss these things in a different format...

Keep in mind I am NOT trained in philosophy, apologetics...or much of anything. ALogicalConstruct is a double major in philosophy and physics.

If anyone wishing to see me get spanked royally...this may very well be the time.

We'll be having our discussion on my site since AS is not really a forum to debate on as much as it is about informing. Also, I will be moderating comments so as to keep the debate ONLY between myself and ALogicalConstruct.

One Reason Why Atheism Sucks: Censorship

2008-02-14T14:05:00.000-08:00

Update -- I just realized that Frank already wrote a post on this subject. Which might make some of this post redundant, or ill-informed. Since the conclusion of my post is something that I would have addressed anyway, knowing that Frank wrote a post on this, I'll leave it up.

As I'm sure many have heard by now, Guillermo Gonzalez (prof. of physics and astronomy at Iowa University) was denied tenure. The significance is that he is a Protestant Christian and advocate of Intelligent Design.

Expand/Collapse

The obvious question is, "Did they fire him for his support of ID?" Of course the University's President denies this, because otherwise they'd sound like they were censoring him. However, be that as it may, it certainly doesn't provide us with an answer. Ultimately, because the factors involved in granting tenure, its nearly impossible to say - from this position - for sure whether or not Gonzalez did qualify, unless further information is brought to the table (which may well happen since it sounds like this is going to court).

But our old pal Hector Avalos just so happens to work at the same university, so perhaps he can help shed some light on the reasoning behind the decision.

Avalos told "The Tribune Friday" that he was worried that Gonzalez' support of ID would make ISU look like an, "intelligent design school". Avalos also said, "We certainly don't want to give the impression to the public that intelligent design is what we do." Avalos practically began a crusade against ID, and got 120 ISU faculty (and student?) members to sign a statement condemning Intelligent Design. When interviewed, Avalos admitted that his inspiration was Gonzalez.

If these things are true, then it certainly lends credence to the charge that Gonzalez is being discriminated against because of his personal beliefs. I can't really come to a certain conclusion myself.

However, the implications of Avalos' behavior go beyond quibbles over ID. As word of this gets around, what ISU (care of Hector Avalos) is essentially telling young, up-and-coming (budding, if you will) scientists is, "Don't bother aspiring towards a career in science unless you're willing to stick to established dogma. Do not, under any circumstances, think you're free to conflict orthodoxy." Atheists are freethinkers? In name only.

Thanks, atheists, for doing your part in attacking free inquiry (and ultimately science) all in the name of evolution...

Why Freethought?

2008-02-11T20:46:00.000-08:00

Seems like I’m following in the Farmer’s footsteps today in likewise announcing a review.

I have just posted a response to Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s “non-tract” # 12 which they entitled, “Why Jesus?”

My essay, which I have entitled Why Freethought?, is a response to each of the 48 biblical texts mentioned in the “non-tract.”

The issues dealt with range rather widely from murder to mustard seeds, from poverty to slavery, from sexual repression to martyrdom, from sword play to the Inquisition, from accursed trees to the claim that Jesus never existed and much, much more.

The God Delusion

2008-02-11T10:11:00.000-08:00

For those interested, I've started an ongoing review of the arguments found in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins here. It isn't meant to expose every silly thing Dawkins writes in his book (that would take far too long), but it does focus on every one of the attempted arguments which Dawkins makes...or maybe I should say, fails to make.

I haven't stopped my review of Loftus' book. However, its kind of boring reviewing entire chapters where no real argument is made. So I've decided to "island hop" the chapters until I find one which contains a good argument.

William Lane Craig vs George Williamson: pre-show radio debate

2008-02-10T15:43:00.000-08:00

MP 4 link.

The Dawkins Correlation

2008-02-05T15:36:00.000-08:00

In his book, “The God Delusion,” Professor Richard Dawkins correlates Christians and Islamic terrorists with specific mentions of the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and the perpetrators of the London bombings. One such mention reads as follows:

“In illustration of the dark side of absolutism, I mentioned the Christians in America who blow up abortion clinics, and the Taliban of Afghanistan, whose list of cruelties, especially to women, I find too painful to recount.” (pp. 301-302)

Comments of this sort are peppered throughout his book. They have the effect of making the murder of abortion providers by Christians seem legion. But are these valid correlations?

Expand/Collapse

For unknown reasons Prof. Dawkins did not provide any statistics in support his claims. However, being honest skeptics who are interested in fact, regardless of our personal opinions, we ought to conduct some research in order to ascertain “whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Let us consider two terrorism incidents that have actually made it into the Guinness Book of World Records:

Largest Death Toll From Chemical Weapons Attack: 4,000 killed by Saddam Hussein’s attack on the Kurdish minority at Halabja, Iraq.

Most Individuals Killed In A Terrorist Act: 2,823 killed on Sep. 11th, 2001, USA.

Next, let us consider statistics regarding terrorist bombings in particular:
Between January 1968 and July 2007 there were circa 19,683 incidents which resulted in 29,704 deaths.
According to the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) there were circa 14,000 terrorist attacks in 2006, which resulted in more than 20,000 deaths.

What about abortion statistics?
More than 42,000,000 (legal) abortions have taken place worldwide from 1973-2002.

To recap:
4,000 lives were taken in a matter of hours in one in Halabja.
2,823 lives were taken in a matter of hours in the USA.
29,704 lives were taken in four decades due to terrorist bombings.
20,000 plus lives were taken in one single year due to terrorism in general.
42,000,000 abortions have taken place in three decades.

How do these statistics compare with Christian murders of abortionists?
In the past 30 years in both the USA and Canada there have been a grand total of 7 murders of abortion providers and there have been a total of 41 bombings.

Seven lives were taken over 30 years in separate incidents in both the USA and Canada combined.
Moreover, there has not been one single murder of an abortion provider in nearly a decade (9 years as of Jan. 2008). That makes 0.2 deaths per year and 1.37 bombings per year in two countries in 30 years.

One can only wonder why Prof. Dawkins did not delve into the statistics and we cannot discern his motivation unless he revealed it. However, one thing is clear statistically speaking, the correlation is clearly invalid. Prof. Dawkins’ ubiquitous correlative references are simply out of proportion by orders of magnitude. Yet, this correlation is continually recycled in various forms. If you read Frank’s Jan 24th post, "The top 100 impossible questions for believers of god" by Richard Dawkins' disciples - ANSWERED!, you will note that #73 makes the following correlation “…Presbyterian serial molester of toddlers, the proselytizing Catholic killer of abortion-supporting doctors, the Muslim who stones to death his daughter…”

Another form of the corollary is Prof. Dawkins’ statement:

“However misguided we may think them, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them.” (p. 304)

In this case Prof. Dawkins appears to have experienced a sadly rare moment of clarity in referring to “what they perceive,” their perceptions are clearly misperceptions.

Anyone with biblical knowledge that goes beyond Prof. Dawkins’ various distortions of it knows that murder, bombings and arson are not part of the Christian message or lifestyle. Should we not then consider the perpetrators to actually have psychotically inspired perceptions of “righteousness” and “what their religion tells them”? Of course, a rational person would quickly come to the conclusion that they are psychotic. But since admitting their psychosis would not allow Prof. Dawkins another opportunity for anti-religious belligerence he, in sadly typical form, denies the logical outcome of valid observation and turns again to his favorite subject—besmirching religion:

“They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith.” (p. 304)

Apparently, according to Prof. Dawkins’ claims it is Christian abortion clinic doctor murderers who are the only ones who actually understand what the New Testament teaches. The only real problem is that they did not question the accurately taught biblical Christianity. But again, if Prof. Dawkins would have bothered providing statistics, and one can only wonder if he has even researched them, he and his audience (some of whom have unquestioning faith in him) would have been forced, by logical conclusion, to admit that 7 murders in 30 years in two countries is proof enough that the perpetrators are not in any way orthodox Christians.

The truly tragic aspect of Prof. Dawkins is that he is so influential and has virtually endless resources at his disposal and yet, he appears to be much too controlled by his emotions. He may also be engaging, interesting, and the maker of emotionally charged statement but is far from accurate.

Inference to Atheism from the Nature of the Universe

2008-02-04T09:54:00.001-08:00

John Loftus believes that the universe reveals the non-existence of God, or at the least makes His existence unlikely.

In his argument, which consists largely of quotes from Nicholas Everitt, he claims that the universe is not what we would expect if the "God of classical theism" actually existed. John - or Nick - seems to be attempting to argue from inverse teleology. Ultimately, the result isn't anywhere near as convincing as the traditional teleological arguments.

Expand/Collapse

John introduces his argument, and explains exactly who his post is directed towards, with this phrase:

Christians think humans are so valuable to God that he created it all just for us.

This is rather a broad brushing of Christians, without warrant. For instance, though I have no way to prove this I suppose, I concluded years ago (based on much of the same 'evidence' which Loftus will cite) that the universe wasn't designed just for us. Needless to say, it didn't damage my theology in any way whatsoever. However, even if Christians have historically held this view, its irrelevant. Disproving it does not damage generic theism in any way (that is, it doesn't prove or imply atheism). For instance, consider this line of reasoning:

(1)If the universe were created by God, then it should be designed just for humans. (2)The universe does not appear to be designed just for humans. (3)Therefore, the universe wasn't created by God.

A cursory examination reveals that this reasoning doesn't pan out. I would say that the only necessary follow up to the statement, "If the universe was created by God," would be, "it should have evidence of its intelligent creation." The problem with this, however, is that there's no reason God couldn't create an unintelligible universe that doesn't have any signs of design. It just wouldn't be what we would expect, and we would have no way of detecting its intelligent origins.

Regardless - back to the point - John makes an interesting statement.

When I look at pictures of the universe I conclude that human beings live on a mere small pale blue dot that will last a short while and then cease to exist.

This sort of reasoning could come back to bite John. Not because I think it proves anything in itself, but because it highlights one interesting implication of teleological arguments: The absolutely unlikely nature of anything "life-friendly" appearing in the universe. That is, we obviously live on an unlikely "island" in the middle of an otherwise harsh universe. But this point helps highlight the 'miracle', if I can use the term, of life. In turn, this implies intelligent origins for the universe.

At this point, Loftus begins citing Everitt, and I think the argumentation nearly speaks for itself. But of course, I'll insert my commentary regardless. :)

Is the universe as it is revealed to us by modern science roughly the sort of universe which we would antecedently expect a God of traditional theism to create? The short answer to this is 'No'. In almost every respect, the universe as it is revealed to us by modern science is hugely unlike the sort of universe which the traditional thesis would lead us to expect.

Unless Everitt elaborates on this elsewhere, he doesn't address the universe in "every respect". He merely attacks the notion that the universe was designed for humans. However, I don't think that the premise, "God created the universe" logically leads one to accept the conclusion, "therefore the universe was designed for humans." Even on the face of it, its absurd. Obviously Everitt is using some hidden assumptions.

Traditional theism would lead you to expect human beings to appear fairly soon after the start of the universe.

I should explain right now that I'm assuming that the Big Bang is true, and that cosmic "evolution" has taken place. I'm not going to tell any Christian what to believe, but if you're a young earth creationist, then you probably believe that humans did arrive on the scene shortly after the creation of the universe, in which case this point is moot without further elaboration.

However, without "aeons" of cosmic evolution, we wouldn't have the earth, and we wouldn't have life. So it seems to me that we wouldn't expect humans to arrive on the scene shortly after the Big Bang, unless its reasonable to believe that God would want humans to go extinct immediately. Nick, or Loftus, could argue that I must interpret Genesis literally, but "liberal" interpretations of Genesis have been around for centuries. Without getting into that debate, I see no reason why I must interpret Genesis literally.

For, given the central role of humanity, what would be the point of a universe which came into existence and then existed for unimaginable aeons without the presence of the very species that supplied its rationale? You would expect humans to appear after a great many animals, since the animals are subordinate species available for human utilisation, and there would be no point in having humans arrive on the scene needing animals (e.g. as a source of food, or clothing, or companionship) only for them to discover that animals had not yet been created. But equally, you would not expect humans to arrive very long after the animals, for what would be the point of a universe existing for aeons full of animals created for humanity's delectation, in the absence of any humans?

Here Nick seems to imply that it would make no sense if humans were created as the Bible said (taken literally), before the animals were created (as if waiting for a couple days for the animals to appear would be too much for Adam). However, he also argues that it makes no sense for animals to evolve, or to be created (being created, as they were, for humanity) millions of years before humanity was even around.

This, again, assumes something about Christianity without warrant. There is absolutely nothing scriptural that the Christian must abandon if s/he wants to believe that animals weren't created for humanity.

Further, you would expect the earth to be fairly near the centre of the universe if it had one, or at some similarly significant location if it did not have an actual centre.

This doesn't appear to be true by necessity. First of all, its entirely possible that the universe doesn't have a "center" in the first place (speaking of space being curved in on itself, so that traveling in a straight line long enough would lead you right back where you started), in which case, relatively speaking, you're in the "center" no matter where you are.

Nick plans on the possibility of the universe lacking a "centre", however without a center where else would you expect humanity to be except on a life-friendly island like the Earth? To me, there seems no more privileged place in a universe which is otherwise inhospitable to life than right where we are. We are basically in the "center" of the universe as far as life is concerned.

However, let's assume the universe does have a center. Would we really expect to find ourselves in this center? Not by necessity. Consider the design of the universe. If the universe was designed in such a way that the center put humanity in mortal danger, then I wouldn't expect to find us there. There is nothing in the nature of the "center" of the universe that we must find ourselves there or conclude that we are either unimportant, or not created by God. If there is a center to the universe, we have no reason to believe that its life-friendly. In fact, given that most of the universe is dangerous for life, we have good reason to believe that it isn't life-friendly.

Perhaps, as a last ditch effort, one could say that God should have made it so that the center of the universe was where the Earth ended up (in other words, we should reasonably expect that God would make the center of the universe our very own island of life). There are several obvious absurdities to this proposition. First of all, the Earth (and even our solar system) are in orbit, and therefore even if we started in the center, we wouldn't find ourselves there for long. Furthermore, the universe is expanding, which is another obstacle to Nick's belief. When you couple cosmic evolution - the way the universe was designed to unfold - with "traditional theism", you find that you should expect that the Earth would develop "late", if at all, and therefore would be relatively far from the center of the universe.

You would expect the total universe to be not many orders of magnitude greater than the size of the earth.

Exactly how this universe would function isn't explained by Nick. Fact is, as our universe stands, it wouldn't function with these proportions.

The universe would be on a human scale.

I can't think of anything more horrible. A universe that is cramped, and confined, and doesn't foster exploration and a sense of wonder and mystery? I can't think of anything worse for humanity.

You would expect that even if there are regions of the created world which are hostile to human life, and which perhaps are incompatible with it, the greater part of the universe would be accessible to human exploration. If this were not so, what would the point be of God creating it?

Though there are numerous issues to explore here, I think this is actually a terrible idea. Given the poor excuses people use to remain in a state of unbelief, I think that God giving us a universe that seems to necessarily entail life would be counter productive.

These expectations are largely what we find in the Genesis story (or strictly, stories) of creation.

I'll wait until I see chapter and verse. Long ago (and believe me, I wasn't the first), I came to opposing conclusions despite my Christian beliefs, so I don't see it.

(1) If the God of classical theism existed, with the purposes traditionally ascribed to him, then he would create a universe on a human scale, i.e. one that is not unimaginably large, unimaginably old, and in which human beings form an unimaginably tiny part of it, temporally and spatially.

(2) The world does not display a human scale. So:

(3) There is evidence against the hypothesis that the God of classical theism exists with the purposes traditionally ascribed to him.

Premise one is a non sequitur. There is no reason to believe that God must create the universe solely with humanity in mind, and even if there was, we have no reason to believe (and I think, reason not to believe) that the universe would be on "a human scale". Nick, and subsequently Loftus, have provided bald assertions and poor reasoning to support their conclusion. It ultimately doesn't work.

Shalom Aleichem!

2008-01-31T20:16:00.000-08:00

My name is Mariano and I have been graciously invited to function on this blog as a contributor. I am very appreciative for the opportunity to join the contributing team as well as the readership.

I was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina. I now live in Albuquerque, New Mexico (where Bugs Bunny made a wrong turn). Yes, we are part of the USA. I have traveled to the United States of America, Peru, Mexico, Israel, The Bahamas, Curacao, Aruba and Bonaire.

I teach apologetics as a hobby and a service. I have lectured at the Santa Fe Conference on Biblical Discernment and have had two essays published in the MCOI Journal (Summer/Fall 07 and Winter/Spring 08, they are not available online quite yet).

I have been a “Blogger” blogger since 2005 and have created a succinct page from which to read my material at Pagination.

Here I am, with Alb. Mayor Martin Chavez and a Federal Judge, when I became a US citizen. I was in the first group to become US citizens after 9/11/2001.

See you in the blogosphere.

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?: Craig-Ehrman Debate - in AUDIO!!!

2008-01-31T03:22:00.000-08:00

Click To Play

In my opinion, Dr. William Lane Craig bested Dr. Bart D. Ehrman in this debate. (Here's the transcript in pdf).

Debate on the resurrection of Jesus: Mike Licona vs Richard Carrier

2008-01-30T00:01:00.000-08:00

Debate:

Q&A:

Licona won this debate. Carrier's presentation was deadpan and boring. He has to work with his communication skills with the audience. I daresay some of his points did not leave any real impression with the listener. He did better during the Q&A, but overall the debate belonged to Licona.

Related:

Tunnel Vision by David Wood

Interesting search engine made for apologetics

2008-01-29T01:50:00.000-08:00

Check it out: www.apologiasearch.com

Should a 21st Century Scientist believe in God?

2008-01-28T23:11:00.000-08:00

Jeffrey Shallit (atheist) vs Kirk Durston (theist):

Durston was so much more philosophical, thought-provoking, and articulate than Shallit. Shallit... well, Shallit just sucked. He sounded like an insecure and snotty-nosed kid, while Durston sounded like a cool and calm professor. Shallit's first rebuttal was just plain bad. He moved back and forth from the podium and did the ol' "see, I told you so" routine. Quite frankly it made him look immature and childish. Durston was so much more smarter and intelligent than Shallit.

Historian Dr. Gary Habermas answers some questions

2008-01-26T22:00:00.000-08:00

Part 1:

Part 2:

Hank Hanegraff on Richard Dawkins

2008-01-25T01:57:00.000-08:00

Audio mp3