5/31/09

Natural Atheology - John Allen Paulos “Irreligion”

Jim Holt’s article, Proof, is a succinct review of John Allen Paulos’ book “Irreligion.”

Jim Holt mentions that John Allen Paulos considers various arguments for God’s existence. While it is a little difficult to tell where Jim Holt begins and where John Allen Paulos ends, since there is no direct quotation at this point, one point is of interest:

Take the cosmological argument, the first one Paulos considers. It goes something like this. The universe we live in seems contingent. Nothing about it suggests that it exists by its own nature. Therefore, if there is an explanation for the universe’s existence, that explanation must involve another kind of entity — one that does exist by its very nature. Call this entity “God.”

From that barest of sketches, it is obvious that the cosmological argument has some grave problems. For one thing, it takes for granted the dubious principle that everything has an explanation. For another, there is no reason to suppose that the self-existent entity it points to has any other divine attributes, like omniscience or benevolence.

Now, atheists would rephrase the argument to their own pseudo-erudite ends by stating,

…Therefore, if there is an explanation for the universe’s existence, that explanation must involve happenstantial coincidincs — one that does exist by its very nature. Call this “Matter: the eternal and uncaused first cause.”

As to that “it takes for granted the dubious principle that everything has an explanation” this is certainly an anti-scientific-progress statement and yet, actually reminiscent of the atheism promulgated by Bertrand Russell who stated, “The universe is just there, and that’s all.”[1]

I am not certain that it is quite accurate to claim that the cosmological argument simply “takes for granted the dubious principle that everything has an explanation” or that it seeks to determine if it has an explanation and what the explanation may be.

Also, it seems faulty to conclude that “there is no reason to suppose that the self-existent entity it points to has any other divine attributes” since creation ex nihilo is, at least, indicative of: personality or personhood via volition and intelligence which demonstrates the ability to formulate, entertain and carry out a plan, the power to carry out such a plan, timelessness, immateriality, lack of time based restriction, etc.

Apparently, John Allen Paulos’ actual book/arguments deteriorate in typical New Atheist fashion into moking jokes likening the cosmological argument to “a jokey allusion to self-fellating yogis.” Thus, Jim Holt notes,

Like other neo-atheist authors, his tone tends to the sophomoric, with references to flatulent dogs and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ann Coulter crops up in the index, but one looks in vain for the name of a great religious thinker like Karl Barth, who saw theology as an effort to understand what faith has given, not a quest for logical proof.

John Allen Paulos also offers the obligatory qualifier of absolute agnosticism for all,

Paulos concedes that, just as arguments for God’s existence are logically inconclusive, so too are arguments against God’s existence. That means that you can either believe or disbelieve without being convicted of stark irrationality.

John Allen Paulos’ “Irreligious” may be good for a well-within-the-box-group-think laugh but who knows if it is worth anything else.

[1] Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, “The Existence of God,” in The Existence of God, ed. and intro. by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 175


Continue reading Natural Atheology - John Allen Paulos “Irreligion”...

5/29/09

Atheist Greydon Square - Rapper Extraordinaire

Atheist rapper Greydon Square is down with the 'ol peeps. Or are they down with him? I do not know how that works. He, an African-American, stated, “I do shows in front of senior citizen white people.”[1] Can you imagine? “Yeah boyyyyyy! Everybody in the old folks home take a tug from your oxygen tank and say ‘Ho!’”

It must be quite a site as he is doing “shows in front of senior citizen white people” whilst rapping classic lyrics such as,
Niggers believe in God; black people don't…A nigger blames white people for slavery, a black knows it was Africans who sold black people into slavery.

I could just imagine it, Wave you’re hands in the air, I’m prejudice and I just don’t care!

Amongst his many accolades is that he is,
A Trekkie from Compton. An Iraqi war veteran who majored in physics.
An intellectual alt-rapper who idolizes Canibus but beat down his former manager over money.

This intellectual rapper demonstrates his erudite nature by rapping about,
desecrating Brigham Young's grave and pissing in a synagogue.

He comments thusly,
“I'm confrontational with people who are, by nature, confrontational with their ideology,” he says. “You can't run around and tell people that they're going to hell because they don't believe in the same sky God as you. Are you serious? I will confront you over that.”

I certainly am down with that, as it were, and please do not forget to leave the safety and comfort of the USA which is premised upon Christian principles and tour Muslim countries confronting them about their sky god. He fought in Iraq, and his service is to be honored, now let him take on their theology on their turf.

I do not know if this is meant to be a put down or a compliment, form the context of the article it appears to be a compliment, but the Phoenix New Times I have been quoting states,
his rhymes are full of those atheist arguments you learn in Philosophy 101

Ah yes, Philosophy 101 when young rebellious teens who have just left home for the first time learn child’s play arguments walk around with their intellectual chest puffed out. It is actually adorable, especially when big people, such as Prof. Richard Dawkins or even Professor of Philosophy Daniel Dennett are still employing Philosophy 101 arguments; if they are even to that level and not stuck in Atheist Kindergarten.

I suspect that Prof. Paul Vitz would find it very telling that, “Greydon grew up in group homes” rejecting God the Father due to an absent human father and that “he’s been in a gang” seeking the approval, family atmosphere and looking up the gang leader as a father figure.

It is also reported that “most fans of a rapper” refer to Greydon Square as the “black Carl Sagan.” Indeed, it is one of Carl Sagans greatest claims to fame, or infamy, to pretend to do science while, in reality, premising his claims on the bias of his atheist worldview. After all, that “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be” is an utterly unscientific statement but is Atheist Mythology 101.

As for the aforementioned “beat down his former manager over money” the article states that the Rational Response Squad’s Brian] Sapient has been referred to by some atheists as “a cult leader and compared to David Koresh.” Greydon Square stated,
It never ceases to amaze me that when people join a group, they just accept the group position on everything. And I did that, with the Rational Response Squad. I accepted their methods and I accepted their beefs.

Thus, he has left the Rational Response Squad cult and is taking on sky Gods, Brigham Young, synagogues, “Niggers” and do not forget that,
“The fundamentalist atheists are not safe, either,” he says. “To me, if you run around and you treat non-belief like a religion, then I've gotta get at you, just because you're making everyone else look bad.”

[1] Martin Cizmar, Rapper Greydon Square Is an Atheist Icon, Phoenix New Times, April 28, 2009

Continue reading Atheist Greydon Square - Rapper Extraordinaire...

5/27/09

Atheist Re-Education Camp for Children

If raising one’s child according to one’s faith is “child abuse” (as per very many militant activist atheists) what is raising one’s child according to anti-theism? “Re-education” seemed appropriate (de-education came is as a close second).

The UK Independent has reported on atheist re-educations camps for the children of parents who want their children to think exactly like they do.[1]

Atheists have become the latest group to cash in on Britain's booming summer camp industry by creating the country's first-ever retreat for irreligious children.

The camp, “Camp Quest,” was founded in 1996 AD and is a “godless alternative” the slogan of which is “Beyond Belief.”
The camp is for,

atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers and all those who embrace a naturalistic rather than supernatural world view.

Anti-supernatural and “Beyond Belief.” one can only imagine what those poor little children are taught. Actually, they are surely taught the same thing in public school classrooms where atheism is smuggle through the backdoor or, actually, directly in through the front. “That’s right kids, all that stuff about the supernatural is poppycock! Everyone knows that matter is the eternal uncaused first cause and that the universe and absolutely everything in it, including you, is a result of serendipitous coincidinc!”

Maybe they can be told what Prof. Richard Dawkins stated during his 1991 AD “Christmas Lectures for Young People”:

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’…fulfilling a purpose of propagating DNA…There is no purpose other than that.[2]

Next we find that the adults who run the camp, perhaps commensurate to their level of emotional maturity and intellectual prowess, engage in debate with little children as the camp revolves around “discussions about religion and non-belief” and features:

The centrepiece [sic; UK sp] of the camp is an ongoing discussion where participants are encouraged to try to disprove the existence of unicorns, which serve as a metaphor for God.
Campers are told that two unicorns live in the area and cannot be seen, heard or touched. The adult councillors pretend to believe in the unicorns on the basis that an ancient book handed down through the generations says they exist.
The children are encouraged to try to prove that the unicorns do not exist. If anyone is successful they will be awarded a £10 note which has a picture of Charles Darwin on it and is signed by leading atheist academic Richard Dawkins.

I thought that Charles Darwin was not used to promote atheism?!? See, I knew that promoter of youth rebellion against God promoter Prof. Richard Dawkins was involved somehow. But a £10 note reward? Please, the camp costs £275 to attend, what kind of deal is that?!?
Apparently, the adult indoctrinators do not know the difference between a necessary being and a mockery. Scientific observation and philosophic consideration of the universe infers a creator and can even alert us to certain characteristics while the mockery is a straw-horse readymade to be toppled (Atheism is Dead will feature a discussion of natural theology the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorns in the relatively near future).

Let us review: we have a “godless alternative” that is “Beyond [theistic] Belief” for “atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers and all those who embrace a naturalistic rather than supernatural world view” where little children are made to engage in sham debate adults and rewarded with a glorification of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins.

Get the picture?

Well, Camp Quest does not:

The organisers remain adamant, however, that the camp will not have a proselytising “atheist agenda”.
“We don't teach children not to believe in God, we simply tell them it's OK not to believe in God,” said Edwin Kagin…founder of Camp Quest…

“The idea of the unicorn debate is not to prove God doesn't exist, it is to illustrate that having such debates with religious people is futile because in the end faith trumps everything,” said Miss Stein [Samantha Stein, organiser of the British version of Camp Quest].

Also, in keeping with the general intellectual prowess demonstrated by the Camp Quest crew we find some comments about attempting to talk children into believing, as stated by Samantha Stein,

that it is OK to be an atheist and that a lack of religion does not mean a lack of morals or ethics.

One parent, Crispian Jago, agrees with this goal,

“We're a non-religious family but not anti-religion,” he said. “A lot of my religious friends insist their morality stems from a divine source rather than a natural one but I want my children to know they can have morals and ethics without needing to resort to a faith.”

Note that the premise of atheist morals and ethics is anti-theistic. Moreover, they appear to mistakenly correlate morals and ethics. While this is very common and ethics is sometimes defined as a body of morals; morals denotes mores and while ethics denotes the actual ethos. One is description of what is and the other prescription of what ought to be.

In reality this is another of the very many examples that Atheism is Dead has provided to the disparity between the atheist public relations claims and their actual modus operandi:

Atheism and the Continuing Public Image Shim Sham Shimmy: the Atheist Community of Topeka Give it a Shot

Atheist Nip and Tuck: the Metroplex Atheists Try on the Friendly Atheist Mask

Atheism - the Living Dead (on USA Today blog columnist Nica Lalli)

Atheism : Another Attempt at a, Positive, Face Lift (on the Seattle Atheists)

Is the “Atheist Alliance International” Atheism’s Happy Face?

The Godless Unholiday Tree (a follow up on Atheist Alliance International)

Why do professional atheist indoctrinators and parents simply admit that they too want their children to believe just as they do?

Since I have already written about this in another blog I will move that post over here in a few days.

[1] Jerome Taylor, “Summertime camps boom: The 'Godless alternative' for non-believers,” Independent, 29 April 2009
[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])


Continue reading Atheist Re-Education Camp for Children...

5/26/09

Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 4 of 4

We now conclude Atheism is Dead’s consideration of the New Atheist movement headed by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Part 1: Who Are The New Atheists? and What Are Their Claims?
Part 2:
What Is Their Appeal? and What Is The New Atheist Movement?
Part 3:
An Atheist New World Order – A One World Atheist Religion
Part 4:
Is The New Atheist Movement Dead? and Let Us Heed Their Words

Is The New Atheist Movement Dead?
The New Atheists have expressed that the proverbial straw-that-broke-the-Atheist-camel’s-back was the group of attacks on the United States of America on September 11, 2001 AD. That is not to say that some of them were not Atheist activists before then, but 9/11 fanned the flames of their activism.

The attacks on 9/11 where primarily caused by Islamic ex­tremism (with a long list of other causes such as maintenance or gaining of power, wealth, popularity, etc.). The question is: what have the New Atheists done in response to this particular event, this particular threat? Surely, they would focus their efforts primarily, if not exclusively, upon confronting this threat, this cause, head on.

Yet, what have the New Atheists done? What they have and have not done makes one wonder if their appeal to 9/11 is a reason or an excuse. After all, why 9/11? Are they not aware of similar atrocities throughout history? Are they not aware of the recent chronicles of the most secular century in human history also being the bloodiest—with millions upon millions being murdered not only during war, but also by their own regimes? (see here).

Have any of the New Atheists toured Islamic countries giving lectures in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have any of them debated Muslims in Islamic coun­tries? Have any of them been interviewed on Al Jazeera? Have any of them written entire books in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have they done anything of the sort at all?

The answers to all of the above are: “No.” Rather, what they have done is sit within the comfort and safety of countries based on Christian principles and conveniently launched condemna­tions which are roughly quantifiable as being 90% anti-Christian and 10% anti-other religions (and this may be being too generous an estimation).

Richard Dawkins wrote:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vin­dictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capri­ciously malevolent bully.[1]


However, has Richard Dawkins dared to make this declaration re­placing his statement: “The God of the Old Testament” with “The God of the Qur’an”? Has he toured Islamic countries proudly promulgating such sentiments? No.[2] Has Sam Harris written a Letter to a Muslim Nation? No.

There are at least two aspects to answer the question as to why, or rather, why not?
Firstly, in their eyes, 9/11 was caused by “religion” in general—Islamic extremism being a mere side effect of the main problem.

Second, and more importantly, Sam Harris had a stroke of genius in laying the blame for religious extremism on religious moderates. He reasoned that it was the tolerance of the moderates that eventually led to unrestrained extrem­ism. This was brilliant because it allowed the New Atheists to excuse themselves from taking on the real danger which they should be tackling; and instead, they could focus on what they could now declare to be the true evil of our world: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Bishop of Canterbury, the Pope, et al. They could take aim at easy or otherwise mostly—if not altogether—harmless targets, while hiding from the real dangers of the world and at the same time paint themselves as courageous crusaders!


















Pope John Paul II forgiving the man
who attempted to assassinate him











Richard Dawkins also wrote:

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.[3]

Conveniently, Richard Dawkins’ pain allows him to completely fail to recount the atrocities of Islamic extremists and allows him to focus on the most preposterous examples of actions carried out by so-called “Christians.”

Thus, we ask: Is the New Atheist movement dead?
Atheists generally claim that “atheism” cannot be blamed for any malevolence, since it is merely a “lack of God belief.” And so similarly, we may argue that “theism” cannot be blamed for any malevolence, since it is merely an “existence of God be­lief.”
Moreover, “religion” cannot be blamed for any malevo­lence, since it is merely a “systematization of worship of God.”

The point: Atheists claim that since Atheism does not im­ply anything in particular beyond “lack of God belief,” it cannot motivate anyone toward anything. It is individual Atheists who go from “lack of God belief” to building their particular world views who may act malevolently.
Correspondingly, since theism does not imply any­thing in particular beyond an “existence of God belief,” it cannot motivate anyone toward anything. Furthermore, since religion does not imply anything in particular beyond a “systematization of worship of God,” it cannot motivate anyone toward anything.
It is individual theists and religionists who go from “existence of God belief” to building their particular world views or theolo­gies who may act malevolently.

Therefore, since the New Atheists generically condemn “religion” and have failed to focus their attention upon that which set the movement into motion in the first place, they—as a movement— are dead.
Granted, this is not to say they are done, or they will go away. They will surely remain vociferous and popular. The refer­ence to their movement’s death is to their credibility in general and to the direct consequence of being deficient in that which they had originally set out to accomplish.

Let Us Heed Their Words
Nick Spencer, a Christian and writer for the UK Telegraph blog, wrote:
Christians, whether or not they acknowledge it, have sometimes needed Atheists to remind them how to live like Christians.[4]

There is very much about which theists (and Christians, in particular) can agree with even the most militant Atheist activ­ists. We could “Amen!” many of their criticisms of “religion.”

Many of their objections are the same ones we voiced and are the reasons why we denounced “religion” and developed a personal re­lationship with the Messiah Jesus. Likewise, we could agree with their criticisms about superstition, religious fanaticism, religious abuse of power, money-hungry televangelists, hypocrisy, etc.

In fact, the only favorable mention of “religion” in the New Testament is,
Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Thus, while overall the New Atheism is very faulty for various reasons and ought to be refuted at every opportunity, they do play an important role in the dialogue, in sharpening our apolo­getics, and in waking up the slumbering church.

[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), p. 31
[2] The most they have done is that Sam Harris had one debate with Muslim Reza Aslan on US soil and Richard Dawkins inter­viewed a Muslim in Israel for his program “The Root of All Evil.” Richard Dawkins played nice by describing himself as “a gentle atheist.” In the same series, while interviewing American Pastor Ted Haggard, Richard Dawkins likened Haggard’s church service to a Nazi rally. He also wrote a truly pathetic critique of “Atlas of Creation” by the Muslim Harun Yahya.
[3] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, pp. 301-302
[4] Nick Spencer, “Atheism on a bus


Continue reading Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 4 of 4...

5/25/09

Atheism, Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins, being a masterful biologist, zoologist and the recently retired Charles Symoni Professor for the Public Understanding of Atheism, seems just the right person for the job of critiquing a book on Creationism. He has indeed taken up the task.

Richard Dawkins wrote an elucidating critique of Atlas of Creation by the Muslim creationist Harun Yahya which is entitled “Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya.”

The erudite biologist-zoologist-professor’s attention was drawn to the book due to its having been mailed to him “unsolicited and completely free.” The biologist-zoologist-professor’s primary concern appeared to be,
…where the money came from…expensive and glossy production values of this book…And where does the money come from.

How this relates to science, biology, the Darwinian theory of evolution or creationism is lost upon me.

Richard Dawkins also did something that I find stunningly immature, unprofessional and even dangerous; he provided Harun Yahya real name.
How this relates to science, biology, the Darwinian theory of evolution or creationism is lost upon me.

The scholarly biologist-zoologist-professor also committed an ad hominem by noting that, or claiming that, Harun Yahya,
…was sentenced in a Turkish court to a three-year prison sentence "for creating an illegal organization for personal gain."

How this relates to science, biology, the Darwinian theory of evolution or creationism is lost upon me.

Richard Dawkins, and you will recall that he is a biologist, zoologist and professor, first written critique of Atlas of Creation actually managed to get around to the book’s actual content. He notes that the book consists of “more than 700 high-gloss colour pages.”

At the time of the writing of his critique the imminently scholarly biologist, zoologist and professor noted ONE error on “almost the first page I looked at” and then admits that “I have not scanned the book for other inaccuracies of this kind.”

One mistake in more than 700 pages! No joking! Maybe there is something to this book. By the way, I do not know this book nor much about its contents and am thus not endorsing it but discrediting Richard Dawkins for doing such a Pre-Atheist-Kindergarten level job of critiquing it.

But wait there is more the erudite Richard Dawkins, equipped as he is as a biologist, zoologist and professor wrote a “Postscript” where he really exposed Atlas of Creation’s dirty laundry or what he terms “this preposterous book.” By the time of the postscript he states, “I have now looked at some more pages” which makes one wonder what “some” means.

Well, this time the gloves are off and the biologist, zoologist and professor exposed TWO errors (a count of one being given to “The double page spreads” which deal with the same subject).

Yet, ever the clever pseudo-skeptic Richard Dawkins points out a THIRD error this time by putting his head together with the biologist and professor PZ Myers who managed to point out ONE error.

Let us see if we can count the cost: it took two professors of biology two articles to find FOUR errors in more than 700 pages! Note that in referring to errors I am granting Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers’ statements—foolish I know but I am feeling generous.

Having expended the full capabilities of two professors of biology Richard Dawkins ends his exhaustive critique by referencing the “‘breathtaking inanity’ of the content” of the Atlas of Creation (FYI: he does not bother accrediting the quote “breathtaking inanity” perhaps it was a PZ Myers-ism) and asks a question that is about as deep as he is apparently capable of getting,
Is it really inanity, or is it just plain laziness — or perhaps cynical awareness of the ignorance and stupidity of the target audience — mostly Muslim creationists.

WOW! Now this is news! This may be the very first time that Richard Dawkins has gathered up the courage to specifically critique anything Islamic—albeit he is referencing Muslim “creationists” and doing so from the comfort and safety of countries established on Judeo-Christian principles.

As for Atlas of Creation; the score to date is:
Richard Dawkins: 3
PZ Myers: 1
Harun Yahya: more than 696

Although, in reality the Atlas of Creation consist of three volumes totaling 2300 pages thus, Harun Yahya’s score is circa 2296.



Let me guess: as with just about everything else the Dawkinsian apologists will claim that, as with just about everything else, it is simply too far beneath Richard Dawkins to bother with such creationist nonsense. Thus, here again Richard Dawkins failed to fulfill his duties as Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. No wonder that Philip Johnson had to virtually beg him to do his job and even had to recommend how to do it:
I have come to the conclusion that Richard has never assumed the duties of a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science…He seems to lack the intellectual confidence to say anything of substance, so he sticks to the very safe path of appealing to materialist prejudices. I communicated this judgment to Richard, suggesting that he might consider taking on a more challenging subject…

The response that Philip Johnson received from Richard Dawkins was basically, “I take it the difficult target you have in mind is yourself…” a question about the age of the Earth and whether “human ancestry and lobster ancestry…meet in a single common ancestor?”

Philip Johnson writes,
I responded that I did not have only the intelligent design movement in mind as a suitable difficult target. For example, I had suggested to Richard that he write about the British government’s policy of mass slaughter of animals in the vicinity of any case of hoof and mouth disease…This would be a particularly appropriate topic for a Darwinian to use to educate the public about how scientific decisions are made, but Richard would not take it up. Too bad…[1]

Harun Yahya notes:
Dawkins, who on his web site described the picture of an insect in the Atlas of Creation that was actually a model as an error and thus attempts to cover up the powerful global impact of the Atlas, and imagines that this somehow represents a great discovery…

Note that on his web site Richard Dawkins never goes into the question of whether or not the caddis fly is still alive today, makes no comment at all about the subject, and is only interested in the nature of the picture in the Atlas of Creation. Dawkins naturally has not a word to say about the fact the creature is still living today and has never changed over the course of millions of years.

Neither does Dawkins have anything to say about the hundreds of living fossils shown on just about every page of the Atlas of Creation.[2]

Richard Dawkins has, yet again, managed to discredit himself even whilst seeking to discredit others.

[1] Philip Johnson’s Weekly Wedge Update, “Richard Dawkins,” Access Research Network, July 9, 2001
[2] Harun Yahya, “Richard Dawkins' And Daily Hurriyet's Ignorance,” Harun Yahya An Invitation to the Truth

Continue reading Atheism, Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Richard Dawkins...

5/24/09

Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 3 of 4

We now continue Atheism is Dead’s consideration of the New Atheist movement headed by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Part 1: Who Are The New Atheists? and What Are Their Claims?
Part 2: What Is Their Appeal? and What Is The New Atheist Movement?
Part 3: An Atheist New World Order – A One World Atheist Religion
Part 4: Is The New Atheist Movement Dead? and Let Us Heed Their Words


An Atheist New World Order – A One World Atheist Religion
Following on the steps of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778, who conceived of a civil religion) and Auguste Comte (1798-1857, who conceived of a religion of humanity), the New Atheists tear down Christianity and seek to build their church in the rubble.

Daniel Dennett stated:

… there could be a rational religion.[1]

Sam Harris elucidates:

There would be a religion of reason … We would be able to invoke the power of poetry and ritual and silent contemplation and all the variables of happiness so that we could exploit them. Call it prayer, but we would have prayer without bull****… At some point, there is going to be enough pressure that it is just going to be too embar­rassing to believe in God.[2] [expletive censored]

Dan Barker (of the Freedom From Religion Foundation) de­clared:

Darwin has bequeathed what is good….abortion is a blessing.[3]

Dan Barker also stated:

Atheism and Freethought and true humanistic moral­ity are, are so much more clear, so much more useful, so much more reasonable…Atheists and agnostics are more accountable they are more moral … true human­istic morality which is much superior to Christian mo­rality.[4]

Michael Martin (atheist philosopher and professor emeritus at Boston University) stated:

I’m nicer than God … Atheism is so special. So life affirming. So, so superior morally to the Christian sys­tem. So more respectful of human dignity and, and hu­man intelligence.[5]

Michael Shermer stated that his study of evolution was:

…far more enlightening and transcendent, spiritual, than anything I had experienced in seven years of be­ing a born-again Christian.[6]

Michael Shermer also made reference to, “the spiritual side of sci­ence” which he referred to “sciensuality.”[7]

Richard Dawkins stated:

…you and I probably do have…feelings that may very well be akin to a kind of mystical wonder when we contemplate the stars, when we contemplate the galaxies, when we contemplate life, the sheer expanse of geological time. I experience, and I expect you ex­perience, internal feelings which sound pretty much like um, what mystics feel, and they call it God….con­templating mitochondria is actually much grander than anything that you will get by contemplating the tradi­tional objects of religious mysticism.[8]

Richard Dawkins also stated:

…science does have some of religion’s virtues…almost worship…beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics…far outclasses any of the…world’s re­ligions…The universe at large couldn’t possibly be anything other than indifferent to Christ, his birth, his passion, and his death.[9]

These attempts to co-opt science for the purposes of filling the God shaped hole in every human heart are fulfillments of Romans 1:18-23, 25:

… men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eter­nal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Profess­ing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corrupt­ible man…who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Fuller quotes are provided in History of Atheism.

By the term “child abuse,” the New Atheists refer to teaching your children your faith. They consider this worse than physical abuse. They not only condemn this but seek to dictate childrear­ing.
Daniel Dennett wrote:

…many declare, there is the sacred and inviolable right of life…On the other hand, many of the same people declare that, once born, the child loses its right not to be indoctrinated or brainwashed or otherwise psychologically abused by those parents.[10]

Richard Dawkins stated:

It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in?[11]

Richard Dawkins also stated:

A phrase like “Catholic child” or “Muslim child” should clang furious bells of protest in the mind … Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Mus­lim child? Shudder.

The ultimate goal (besides “society stepping in” shud­der) is that this, “might lead children to choose no religion at all.”[12]

The New Atheists seem to overlook the fact that children sometimes are referred to in such a way due to cultural and/or social consid­erations and not theological. For instance, Judaism has a Bar/Bat Mitzvah when a child becomes a willing/thinking adult and decides to make a commitment to the faith. Likewise, various forms of Christianity have confirmation, etc.

Next we will consider whether the new atheist movement is dead.

[1] During his interview with Gary Wolf, “The Church of the Non-Believers
[2] Ibid.
[3] During his debate with John Rankin entitled “Evolu­tion and Intelligent Design: What are the issues?
[4] During an audio clip that was played in an interview with William Lane Craig.
[5] During his debate with Phil Fernandes entitled “Does God Exist?”
[6] From a video that was entitled “Kent Hovind Schools Dr. Mike Shermer
[7] During his debate with Jonathan Wells entitled “Why Darwin Mat­ters” – video, audio
[8] During his interview with Jonathan Miller
[9] Richard Dawkins, “Is Science a Religion?
[10] Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell – Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin Group, 2006), p. 326
[11] During his interview with Gary Wolf, “The Church of the Non-Believers
[12] Richard Dawkins, “Now Here’s a Bright Idea


Continue reading Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 3 of 4...

5/23/09

Ida, the Missing Link, Fossils and the Gospel of Judas

The Hopeless Monsters

I know, I know: say what?! Now Atheism is Dead is correlating Ida (the newly canonized fossil) and the Gospel of Judas?! Oi vey!!

Let us consider the reason for the correlation and then some issues involved with the new missing link fossil named, “Ida” including its history, celebrity and controversy.

The Correlation
The new missing link fossil Ida has been hailed as a “transitional fossil,” a “missing link” “a scientific discovery that will undoubtedly revolutionize how we understand our own evolution,” an “astonishing breakthrough,” “an extraordinary fossil,” and the “eighth wonder of the world.”

The new missing link fossil Ida and the Gnostic gospel of Judas are represented by one piece of evidence:
The gospel of Judas is represented by one manuscript (vs. 24,000+ for the New Testament, representing a substandard double standard).
The new missing link fossil is represented by one fossil: Ida.

Both the new missing link fossil Ida and the Gnostic gospel of Judas were fragmented: the new missing link fossil Ida as a purposeful hoax and the Gnostic gospel of Judas due to its age and poor storage.






Both the new missing link fossil Ida and the Gnostic gospel of Judas were discovered decades before the public outing: the new missing link fossil Ida circa 25 years prior and the Gnostic gospel of Judas circa 36 years prior.

Both the new missing link fossil Ida and the Gnostic gospel of Judas were originally possessed by dealers of antiquities and fossils.

Both the new missing link fossil Ida and the Gnostic gospel of Judas were presented to the public as the star of a media circus.



Both the new missing link fossil Ida and the Gnostic gospel of Judas were popularized along with books and documentaries ready to go.

Both the new missing link fossil Ida’s and the Gnostic gospel of Judas’s popularization was motivated in part by considerations that went beyond unbiased science and scholarly research: Ida in “Honoring Charles Darwin on the occasion of his 200th birthday” and the timing of the release gospel of Judas was around Easter (when the media releases its latest anti-Christian myths) and was also “aimed at capitalizing on interest in the film version of The Da Vinci Code.”[1]

A Hoax?
No. Apparently, it is not a hoax (at least not anymore) but I did have my initial suspicions.

After all new missing link fossil Ida was:
Claimed to have been discovered 25 years ago.
Identified 2 years ago.
Pieced together by removing purposefully faked reconstructions. I was having flashbacks to Archaeoraptor for a moment.

















It was unveiled on the year of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday.
In order to honor Charles Darwin its “Derivatio nominis” is Darwinius masillae.
Why it was not actually released on his birth date (when Kyle Butt and Dan Baker debated) has me flummoxed; perhaps the books and DVDs were not ready yet.







Background
The original research article on new missing link fossil Ida is provided by PLoS ONE (“An interactive open-access journal for the communication of all peer-reviewed scientific and medical research”) as Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology by Jens L. Franzen, Philip D. Gingerich, Jörg Habersetzer, Jørn H. Hurum, Wighart von Koenigswald and B. Holly Smith.

The fossil is a truly fascinating specimen in that despite that “the skeleton is lightly crushed and bones cannot be handled individually”:

Darwinius masillae represents the most complete fossil primate ever found, including both skeleton, soft body outline and contents of the digestive tract.

It is thought to have been found in Grube Messel, near Darmstadt, Germany.

The PLoS ONE article describes the history of the find as follows:

The specimen has an unusual history: it was privately collected and sold in two parts, with only the lesser part previously known. The second part, which has just come to light, shows the skeleton to be the most complete primate known in the fossil record…

The fossil was apparently unearthed in 1983 by private collectors who split and eventually sold two parts of the skeleton on separate plates: the lesser part (herein plate B) was restored and in the process partly fabricated to make it look more complete. This was eventually purchased for a private museum in Wyoming, and then described by one of us who recognized the fabrication[2]. The more complete part (plate A; Figs. 1–2) has just come to light, and it now belongs to the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo (Norway). When made available for study, plate A was immediately recognizable as the complete complementary and unaltered counterpart of plate B…

part and counterpart of the same individual fossil can have such different histories…excavation for fossils [at Grube Messel occurred], between 1971 and 1985…Once mining was finished, plans arose to use the open pit as a garbage dump. With this in mind, early excavations for fossils were necessarily rushed, and less attention was paid to careful bed by bed collecting of fossils…

From what we know of the present fossil, it was privately collected at Messel in 1983, at the foot of what is known as the Schildkrötenhügel (Turtle Hill) see Fig. S1, although the exact horizon is unknown (personal communication from previous owner of plate A, Thomas Perner, Bad Homburg).
Plate B (Figs. 1,2), originally described by Franzen[3] as the sixth Messel primate (Table 1), had a curious history. It was purchased in 1991 by Dr. Burghard Pohl for the Wyoming Dinosaur Center at Thermopolis, Wyoming…Franzen[4] showed that some of the specimen is real, while substantial parts were faked to give an illusion of greater completeness…

Plate A (Figs. 1,2) described here, became available for sale and was purchased in 2007 by the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo (Norway). This plate, showing a skeleton from the right side, proves to be the hitherto unknown and much more complete counterpart of the Wyoming Plate B…

The Oslo specimen, plate A, clarifies exactly which parts of plate B were faked…Traces on the surrounding polyester resin background suggest that a cast of the tail of another mammal was inserted into plate B. Additional parts such as the vertebrae between sections 1 and 2 as well the nasal part of the skull on plate B were simply fabricated.
























Slow Your Roll
Stunningly, not everyone is gaga over Ida; and I am not just talking about those wacky Bible-thump'n-born-againer-fundie-evang-YECers:

John Fleagle, Stonybrook University paleoanthropologist, stated,

What does it tell us about human evolution that we didn't know? Precious little.

Chris Gilbert, Yale University paleoanthropologist, stated,

On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing…They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they're proposing.

Richard Kay, Duke University paleontologist, stated,

They claim in the paper that by examining the anatomy of adapids, these animals have something to do with the direct line of human ancestry and living monkeys and apes. This claim is buttressed with almost no evidence…And they failed to cite a body of literature that's been going on since at least 1984 that presents evidence against their hypothesis.

Clara Moskowitz notes,

Kay said the researchers did not compare Ida to other important fossil primates from this time, especially those from a group called Eosimiads, that could contradict their claims.

Matt Cartmill, Duke University in North Carolina anthropologist, stated,

It's a very beautiful fossil, but I didn't see anything in this paper that told me anything decisive that was new.

Chris Beard, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, stated,

This fossil has been hailed as the eighth wonder of the world. Frankly I've got 10 more in my basement.

Clara Moskowitz notes,

Though the fossil is a beautiful specimen, it is not dissimilar to many slightly less well-preserved primate fossils from around the same period.

She also notes that Chris Beard,

disagreed with some of the outlandish claims researchers made during the press conference, such as the suggestion that Ida represents a ‘missing link’ between early primates and humans. “It's not a missing link, it's not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they're trying to make.” (all quotes endnoted here[5])

Come to think about it, Ida reminds me of other celebrities:





[1] The Associated Press’ Richard N. Ostling, “Expert Doubts ‘Gospel of Judas’ Revelation,” USA Today March 2, 2006
[2] Franzen JL (2000b) Der sechste Messel-Primate (Mammalia, Primates, Notharctidae, Cercamoniinae). Senckenbergiana lethaea 80(1): 289–303
[3] Franzen JL (1994) The Messel primates and anthropoid origins. In: Fleagle JF, Kay RF, editors. Anthropoid origins. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 99–122
[4] Ibid.
[5] Clara Moskowitz, “Animals: Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt 'Ida' Is Your Ancestor,” Live Science, May 20, 2009

Continue reading Ida, the Missing Link, Fossils and the Gospel of Judas...

5/22/09

Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 2 of 4

We now continue Atheism is Dead’s consideration of the New Atheist movement headed by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Part 1: Who Are The New Atheists? and What Are Their Claims?
Part 2: What Is Their Appeal? and What Is The New Atheist Movement?
Part 3: An Atheist New World Order – A One World Atheist Religion
Part 4: Is The New Atheist Movement Dead? and Let Us Heed Their Words


What Is Their Appeal?
Their appeal is at least two-pronged: One is their self-pro­fessed appeal, and the other is the facts of the matter (which will be considered from a Christian perspective).

Their self-professed appeal is stated by Richard Dawkins as “intellec­tually fulfilled Atheist.”[1] Atheism promises enlightenment—in the forms of scientific literacy, rationality, happiness, morality—and freedom from guilt, superstition and adherence to dogma.
Another aspect not generally identified as an appeal, but one that is milked for all it is worth, is the image of the Atheist as the “underdog.” Even in a time such as this—when being an Atheist is about the hippest thing to do, and there are quite a few shekels to be made from books, lectures, and even movies about Atheism—the New Atheist still will claim to be a second class citizen—she is the underdog who is not under God (this pun makes sense if you are dyslexic as I am).

Having mused and researched on this subject, I have found that being “an intellectually fulfilled Atheist” means that fulfill­ment is found in materialistic stories about how things may have or could have (or should have?) occurred: for example, how the uni­verse came about and functions on purely materialistic grounds.

The New Atheist movement is particularly popular among the youth. Popular are Atheist activists such as The Golden Com­pass author Philip Pullman who stated that his children’s books are about “killing God,” and he is “trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.” He has also produced a pro-Atheism DVD for “children that are 11 years old and above” (details found here).
Richard Dawkins has launched the “Out Campaign” aimed at the college crowd. The youth are naturally rebellious and the New Atheists come along, wealthy, happy, vociferous, erudite, iconoclastic and urge them to commit the ultimate rebellion: rebellion against God. The youth are being told they basically can do as they please within certain vague notions of “right” and “wrong.” The youth confuse rebellion against religious authority with rebellion against God.











Atheism is an appealing, consoling delusion which includes the delusion of absolute autonomy, the delusion of lack of ulti­mate accountability, the consoling delusion of subjective mean­ing in an objectively meaningless existence, and the delusion of being more erudite than thou. (Atheists are the smartest, they are “right” and everyone else is “wrong.”)

What Is The New Atheist Movement?
The title of this parsed essay referred to the “New (Emergent) Atheist” move­ment in order to draw a correlation between the “Emergent Church” movement and the New Atheists. The Emer­gent Church movement is about popularization, broad appeal, and watering down orthodox doctrines until they are malleable enough to become harmless and friendly.

Likewise, the New Atheism is about broad appeal, but it is of a bas­er sort. It is pushing a septic skeptic outlook. This movement is very good at media campaigns, that is certain; they have erected a façade of scientific and intellectual respectability around poor arguments, faulty logic, bad philosophy and have also turned sci­ence into a play thing to be bent in the direction the Atheist wants it to go.[2]

For example, while Sam Harris will soon be a scientist, he will by no means represent the integrity of an unbiased researcher. When asked, “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?” he stated:
Once the neurology of belief becomes clear…re­ligious faith will be exposed for what it is: a humble species of terrestrial credulity.[3]

In other words, he already believes something and is becom­ing a scientist in order to build a façade of “science” around his Atheistic beliefs.

In reality, the movement is about being vociferous, emotive, and disrespectful.
At first consideration, I thought that these various scientists and professors were vociferous, emotive and disrespectful, be­cause theists were beneath their contempt and they could not bother with those foolish mental children. Yet, I have come to find that they are vociferous, emotive, and disrespectful because they do not have much more with which to work.

Being vociferous draws attention to you, makes you look heroic, authoritative, and self-assured.
Being emotive (making emotionally charged statements) is a great tool, since you can cut right through any thought process and touch people’s feelings which builds a connection to the speaker. Emotiveness is a way to skirt around arguments. Also, who can argue against adrena­lin-spiked feelings: feelings are tangible while ideas, thoughts, arguments are ethereal.
Being disrespectful is a very attractive quality, particularly for someone with a rebellious bent or some­one who has a dislike for, and a feeling of impotence against, religious authority and the demands of dogma.

The Atheist Michael Shermer, while certainly not being dip­lomatic himself, has written an open letter to the top four celebri­ty Atheists asking that they curb their intolerant rants. However, he has gone unheeded.[4]

Certainly, the New Atheism has its moments of clarity in that ad­herents do make attempts at argumentation or rightly criticize fallacious theology as well as religious oppression. Yet, they do tend to replace rational discourse—whereby we treat our oppo­nent’s positions fairly—with taking jabs at straw-men (misrep­resenting a position in order to make it look foolish and easy-to-tear-down). Why focus your attention on serious, dry, scholarly debates and lectures when you can elbow your buddy in the ribs and say, “Those religious people are so foolish!”

The New Atheism is also peppered with immaturity. This is caused by at least three factors:
As alluded to previously, it is easier and more 1) amusing (another “a” word) to poke fun than it is to exercise the intellect.
Many Atheists 2) rejected God in particular and rejected whatever “Christianity” means to them at a very early age.
The result of 2) is that 3) they allowed their knowledge of the Bible, theology, Christianity, etc. to remain stagnant at a child’s level. This child-level understanding undergirds their claim to knowl­edge, thus we hear familiar rebuttals: “I was raised Christian,” “I went to Sunday School,” “I was an altar boy,” etc.

Thus, I have found it all too common that Atheists argue not against the actual contents of the Bible, the actual char­acter of God, the actual doctrines of Christianity but they argue against watered-down straw-men which are childish versions of the genuine. Thus, in the end, they actually succeed in arguing against their very own caricatures.
It is also common to find the New Atheists correlating belief in the God of the Bible to belief in “a sky daddy,” “an imaginary friend,” “fairies,” “super friends,” “magic powers” and even “Invisible Pink Unicorns,” “Flying Spaghetti Monsters.” As Sam Harris puts it:
…beliefs about God … are the same as beliefs about numbers, penguins, tofu, or anything else.[5]


Yet, these are perfectly legitimate correlations in their minds not only because they are generally functioning on a child’s Sunday School level but also because they disregard natural theology.[6]

The New Atheists also attempt to rewrite history as a tale of Atheistic be­nevolence and religious malevolence. This is expressed by per­petuating the myths of warfare between “science and religion,” declaring that America’s founders were Deists (at best), claim­ing there is no relation between Atheism and Communism, etc. (Galileo, Copernicus, myth of a flat earth, Communism).

Ultimately, the New Atheism is nothing new but a mere plagiarism of 19th century secular-anti-Judeo-Christian philosophies.

Let us note three further aspects of the New Atheists: 1) their desire to establish an atheist religion, 2) their promotion of atheism as being more holy and more moral than Christianity and 3) their condemnation of “child abuse” (as they redefine it) which subsequently will be dis¬cussed in part 3.


[1] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: Norton, WW & Co., Inc., 1986), p. 6
[2] Read Prof. Richard Lewontin’s fas­cinating comments about materialism and science, “Billions and Billions of Demons”
[3] Edge The World Question Center
[4] Michael Shermer, “Rational Atheism - An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens
[5] Edge The World Question Center
[6] Inferring a creator and even some of the creator’s characteristics from scientific observation of nature / the universe and through reasoning.


Continue reading Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 2 of 4...

5/21/09

The New York Times – Latest Victims of Atheist Propaganda

Actually, considering that the New York Times is a liberal “news” paper it is difficult to discern if they are victims of atheist propaganda or promulgators of it.

Atheism is Dead has been noting failed attempts by various atheist sects to put a happy public relations face on atheism. Taking advantage of the fact that reporter/journalists no longer seem to bother with annoying little tasks such as conducting research and checking facts various atheist sects get free advertizing by granting interviews. During these interviews they try very hard to control their anti-Christian rage and put on the victim, martyr, friendly atheist next door act. I say “act” because unlike the media I have taken the next step and also considered how these various atheist sects present themselves on their own websites. That is where you find the disparity between the “Can’t we all just get along maaaaaaan?” public image and the anti-Christian support groups found on their well within the box group think prejudice expressing websites.
This is evidenced within the following Atheism is Dead essays:

Atheism and the Continuing Public Image Shim Sham Shimmy: the Atheist Community of Topeka Give it a Shot

Atheist Nip and Tuck: the Metroplex Atheists Try on the Friendly Atheist Mask

Atheism - the Living Dead (on USA Today blog columnist Nica Lalli)

Atheism : Another Attempt at a, Positive, Face Lift (on the Seattle Atheists)

Is the “Atheist Alliance International” Atheism’s Happy Face?

The Godless Unholiday Tree (a follow up on Atheist Alliance International)

The free press was provided by the New York Times[1] which noted that the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry spent thousands of dollars of donated money during a time of worldwide recession in order to purchase billboards that stated the innocuous enough statement, “Don’t Believe in God? You Are Not Alone.”

As we have considered in the past (at this post in particular) atheists also have more than pure motives of doing good deeds. This time we get a refreshingly very good example of that as it is reported that the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry:

They are connecting on the Internet, holding meet-ups in bars, advertising on billboards and buses, volunteering at food pantries and picking up roadside trash, earning atheist groups recognition on adopt-a-highway signs.
They liken their strategy to that of the gay-rights movement, which lifted off when closeted members of a scorned minority decided to go public.

Thus, volunteering at food pantries and picking up roadside trash is a mere strategy employed to earn atheist groups recognition, which they also seek to get by turning adopt-a-highway signs into advertisements.

Founded the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, Herb Silverman, stated, “The most important thing is coming out of the closet.” Assuming that this is true; the problem for such atheists is that the modern day New Atheist movement seeks not only to come out of the closet but then to kick down their neighbor’s door and shove atheism down their throats—as they already do in public school classrooms.

The New York Times also reports,

Ten national organizations that variously identify themselves as atheists, humanists, freethinkers and others who go without God have recently united to form the Secular Coalition for America, of which Mr. Silverman is president. These groups, once rivals, are now pooling resources to lobby in Washington for separation of church and state.

And encouraging the unification of atheism and state.

While the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry sport t-shirts reading “Non Prophet Organization,” an unfriendly anti-theism mockery, they certainly are not nonprofit. At the very top of the Secular Coalition for America website are two prompts to “donate” and one “support us.”
Their advisory board consist of, in part:

The President of the anti-Christian “American Atheists” Ed Buckner.

Militant activist atheist, Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Atheism.

Buddhist mystic atheist, Sam Harris who does not like the terms Buddhist, mystic or atheist and who is describe as “author on the dangers of religion to modern society” and who has a one word answer for all of the world’s ills, “religion.”

Self professed “anti-theist,” Christopher Hitchens.

Contender for the record of number of lawsuits filed and claimant that atheism is a religion, Michael Newdow who attempted to have his religion shoved down public school children’s throats by removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ellery Schempp who was a “litigant in…the 1963 Supreme Court ruling that public school-sponsored Bible readings were unconstitutional.”

And Julia Sweeney whose “comedy” is premised upon promulgating misconceptions about the Bible and Christianity in the form of atheist propaganda.

In an utter display of intolerance and lack of diversity they ask “Can the Obamas Help the Boy Scouts See the Light?” and state:

With reports indicating President Obama will accept the traditional role of honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America, the Secular Coalition calls on him to use his power to move the Boy Scouts beyond their “traditional values” and to practice the American values of diversity and tolerance. The Coalition also hopes the First Lady, likely to become Girl Scouts’ honorary president, uses her position to promote that group’s enlightened embrace of diversity.

Apparently, to the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry is to intolerantly and in lack of diversity seek to make the Boy and Girl Scouts adhere to uniformity and change them at their core; their core of “traditional values.”

They also do not seem to know the difference between the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and a letter written by Thomas Jefferson who attended worship services in a Christian church that worshipped the God of the Bible in the Capitol Building:

The Secular Coalition Thanks the Senate for Upholding Church-State Separation…Secular Coalition for America and its allies won the first battle to protect church-state separation…

We also learn from the New York Times that,

A wave of donations, some in the millions of dollars, has enabled the hiring of more paid professional organizers, said Fred Edwords, a longtime atheist leader who just started his own umbrella group, the United Coalition of Reason, which plans to spawn 20 local groups around the country in the next year.

We can only expect success as such groups prefer legislation from the bench.

Also of interest is,

Andrew Morency, who attended a Christian high school, said that when he got to college and studied evolutionary biology he decided that “creationists lie.”

Not a big surprise as I have evidenced that atheists smuggle atheism through the back door of our science classrooms. Actually, they go right into the front door as they have managed to get atheist propaganda to be printed directly into textbooks that are supposed to be about science (see here).

It was also reported,

Part of what is giving the movement momentum is the proliferation of groups on college campuses. The Secular Student Alliance…At the University of South Carolina, in Columbia, 19 students showed up for a recent evening meeting of the “Pastafarians,” named for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster — a popular spoof on religion…

That’s right college students confuse rebellions again corrupt religion with rebellion against God, remember that there is no ultimate accountability, that you are absolutely autonomous, that if you get away with it you just got away with it and oh, yeah, do whatever you want and still look in the mirror and say, “I’m a good person.”

In keeping with the new generation of atheist evangelists, the Pastafarian leaders say that their goal is not confrontation, or even winning converts, but changing the public’s stereotype of atheists. A favorite Pastafarian activity is to gather at a busy crossroads on campus with a sign offering “Free Hugs” from “Your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist.”

Apparently, the “Friendly Neighborhood Atheists,” all 19 of them, seem to think that it is not confrontation to premise their sect upon mocking theism. Perhaps according to the atheist morality de jour this makes some sort of sense. And who knows who is responsible for referring to the Pastafarians as “atheist evangelists” while claiming that “their goal is not…even winning converts.” How stereotypical the whole thing is.

Overall, we find that, yet again, the happy face is just a mask hiding the old, tired, stereotypical anti-Christian atheist support groups.

[1] Laurie Goodstein, “More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops,” April 27, 2009


Continue reading The New York Times – Latest Victims of Atheist Propaganda...