Atheism is Dead

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

2010-03-20T07:00:00.004-06:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker where it was posted at this link.

A “True Freethinker” from “Atheism is Dead”

2010-03-19T08:00:00.002-06:00

Dear “Atheism is Dead” readership,

In order to consolidate my various online projects, I have concocted a new website.

I have attempted to merged the best of websites and blogs with the running chronological updates of a blog on the homepage and the categorization capabilities of a website.

The website is now running but having to dump my circa 1,300 essays into it and adjusting them to their new home is a work in progress thus, it is still “under construction.” Meanwhile, "Atheism is Dead" will shortly go into stasis.

So, set your phasers to stun, and reset your favorites from “Atheism is Dead” to “True Freethinker” at http://www.truefreethinker.com

Christopher Hitchens’ Homosexual Flings

2010-03-18T07:00:00.001-06:00

Please note, this essay has been moved to True Freethinker where it is posted at this link

Interesting Facts the American Humanist Association (AHA) Might Not Know, part 3 of 4

2010-03-16T07:00:00.002-06:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker where it was posted at this link.

Tiger Woods and Atheist Umbrage?…I am Still Waiting

2010-03-15T07:00:00.001-06:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Review of John Loftus, “Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains”, part 2 of 2

2010-03-14T07:00:00.004-06:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed at this link

Freedom of Atheist Expression at “Liverpool’s John Lennon airport prayer room”???

2010-03-13T07:00:00.003-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

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

2010-03-11T07:00:00.002-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker where it was posted at this link.

Review of John Loftus, “Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains”, part 1 of 2

2010-03-10T07:00:00.004-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed at this link

“Porn For Bibles” and How “Atheists Devise Creative New Way to Alienate People”

2010-03-09T07:00:00.001-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Interesting Facts the American Humanist Association (AHA) Might Not Know, part 1 of 4

2010-03-08T07:00:00.002-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker where it was posted at this link.

Richard Dawkins – “Outraged atheists lose faith in Dawkins as he censors website”

2010-03-07T07:00:00.005-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Bart Ehrman’s Problem, part 2

2010-03-06T07:00:00.005-07:00

Please note that this essay has been moved to True Freethinker where it was posted at this link

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist Norman L. Geisler (Norm Geisler)

2010-03-04T07:00:00.000-07:00

Dr. Norman Geisler is president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina.
He holds a B.A. and an M.A. from Wheaton College, a Th.D. from William Tyndale College, and a Ph.D. from Loyola University in Chicago.

He co-authored I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist along with Frank Turek (of Cross Examined).

Following is a list of some of his other books:
Popular Survey of the Old Testament

A Popular Survey of the New Testament

Decide for Yourself: How History Views the Bible

General Introduction to the Bible

When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences

When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties

When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations

Conviction Without Compromise: Standing Strong in the Core Beliefs of the Christian Faith

Christian Apologetics

Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics

The Apologetics of Jesus: A Caring Approach to Dealing with Doubters

Legislating Morality: Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible?

Making Sense of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation

Systematic Theology Prepack: Introduction Bible

Systematic Theology, Vol. 1: Introduction/Bible

Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, God/Creation

Systematic Theology, Vol. 3: Sin/Salvation

Systematic Theology, Vol. 4: Church/Last Things

Systematic Theology (all 4 vols. together)

Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking

Miracles and the Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical Miracles

Miracles and Modern Thought

Signs and Wonders: Healings, Miracles, and Unusual Events : Which Are Real? Which Are Supernormal? Which Are Counterfeit?

Origin Science

Knowing the Truth about Creation: How It Happened and What It Means for Us

Creation and the Courts: Eighty Years of Conflict in the Classroom and the Courtroom

Creating God in the Image of Man?

Conversational Evangelism: How to Listen and Speak So You Can Be Heard

Introduction to Philosophy

Christian Ethics: Options and Issues

Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross

Living Loud: Defending Your Faith
Vida En Radical: Defiende Tu Fe

Unshakable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions about the Christian Faith

Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences

Is Rome the True Church?: A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim

Love Your Neighbor: Thinking Wisely about Right and Wrong

The Reincarnation Sensation

Philosophy of Religion

Bringing Your Faith to Work: Answers for Break-Room Skeptics

Integrity at Work: Finding Your Ethical Compass in a Post-Enron World

Is Man the Measure?: An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism

The Roots of Evil

Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal

Perspectives: Understanding and Evaluating Today's World Views

Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views

False Gods of Our Time: A Defense of the Christian Faith

Gambling: A Bad Bet : You Can't Win for Losing...in More Ways Than You Can Imagine

Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics

The Battle for the Resurrection

This essay is copyrighted by Mariano of the “Atheism is Dead” blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com.
It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose—in agreement or in order to criticize it—only as long as the following conditions are met:
1) Give credit to “Mariano of the ‘Atheism is Dead’ blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com”
2) Inform me as to which essay is being reproduced and where it is being reproduced via the comments section at this link

Bart Ehrman’s Problem, part 1

2010-03-02T07:00:00.005-07:00

Please note that this essay has been moved to True Freethinker where it was posted at this link

Midwest Atheist and Friend - Considered and Refuted, part 3 of 3

2010-02-28T07:00:00.001-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Atheism

“Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis” and “A Darwinian basis for citizen ethics”

2010-02-27T07:00:00.001-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker where it was posted at this link.

Ron Rhodes on Atheism, et al.

2010-02-26T07:00:00.001-07:00

In Pretence of Rational Thought

2010-02-25T07:00:00.001-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Midwest Atheist and Friend - Considered and Refuted, part 2 of 3

2010-02-24T07:00:00.002-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Atheism

The BOBA Digest: Dan Barker and the Confusing Author

2010-02-22T07:00:00.001-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom - Robert Morey

2010-02-21T07:00:00.000-07:00

The New Atheism and The Erosion Of Freedom is a book may be of interest and which was published way, way back in 2004 AD.

Robert Morey has also authored a few articles pertaining to atheism
Materialism

The Relative Logic of Atheists

The New Atheism

Atheism and Absolutes

He has also written other books on various topics:

The Trinity

Death and the Afterlife

Studies in the Atonement

The Nature And Extent Of God's Knowledge

Introduction to Defending the Faith

How to Answer a Mormon

How to Answer a Jehovah's Witness

The Truth About Masons

Islamic Invasion

Satan’s Devices

Reincarnation and Christianity

When is it Right to Fight?

Battle Of The Gods (The Gathering Storm in Modern Evangelicalism)

How to Keep Your Kids Drug Free

Worship Is All of Life

How the Old and New Testaments Relate to Each Other

How to Keep Your Kids Drug Free

Los Horóscopos y el Cristiano

Midwest Atheist and Friend - Considered and Refuted, part 1 of 3

2010-02-20T07:00:00.001-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Atheism

Online Apologetics Conference 2010

2010-02-19T07:00:00.000-07:00

On May 7th and 8th, 2010 AD An Apologetics Conference for Promoting the Christian Worldview through Literature and the Arts will take place online.

Presenters:

Keynote:
Robert Bowman, Jr.: Institute for Religious Research

Plenary:
Dr. Angus Menuge: Concordia University Wisconsin
Dr. Corey Olsen, aka “The Tolkien Professor”: Washington College

Workshops:
Dr. Bernard Bull: Concordia University Wisconsin
Mr. Robert Velarde: Author
Mary Jo Sharp: Confident Christianity
Mr. Anthony Horvath: Athanatos Christian Ministries
The 1st Prize winner of ACM’s 2010 Christian writing contest

Early Bird Registration Special: $30!
Click here to Register
(Early Bird Special expires March 15th)

Discounts available to Christian authors, publishers, publicists, literary agents, etc, as well as for group registrations.
Please email ACM representative Robert Cely for information.
Students may register for $25 using this link.

The “Darwin’s Dilemma” Censorship Scandal Continues

2010-02-18T07:00:00.003-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

The New Scarlet Letter: “A” for Abstinence

2010-02-17T07:00:00.003-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Unnatural Theology – On Atheism’s Erudite Elucidations

2010-02-16T07:00:00.003-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Hey Atheists, Leave Those Kids Alone (and parents such as myself, while you are at it), part 3

2010-02-15T07:00:00.003-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Prove “god”

2010-02-14T07:00:00.002-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Atheism and Rape - Walter Sinnott-Armstrong Elucidates

2010-02-13T07:00:00.004-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

The God I Don’t Understand: Reflection on Tough Questions of Faith

2010-02-12T07:00:00.001-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 4

2010-02-11T07:00:00.002-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

The Dawk Pieper Was at it Again

2010-02-10T07:00:00.004-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 3

2010-02-09T07:00:00.002-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

DOGMATHEISM : The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Annie Laurie Gaylor on the Solstice and God’s Un-Evidenced Non-Existence

2010-02-08T07:00:00.004-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

American Atheists National Convention to take place on April…

2010-02-07T19:00:00.002-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 2

2010-02-07T07:00:00.003-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Haiti as Soapbox – Dan Barker, Annie Gaylor, Danny Glover & Pat Robertson Take Advantage

2010-02-06T19:00:00.001-07:00

This post has been moved to Examiner were it resides at this link

Dan Barker Sues Hillary Clinton

2010-02-06T07:00:00.002-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 1

2010-02-05T07:00:00.002-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Pandorum’s Pandora’s Box

2010-02-04T07:00:00.003-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

“GOD IS DEAD” and I Don’t Feel So Good Myself

2010-02-03T07:00:00.000-07:00

“GOD IS DEAD” and I Don’t Feel So Good Myself Theological Engagements with the New Atheism is the title of a book edited by Andrew David, Christopher, J. Keller and Jon Stanley

Book description and endorsements; from Wipf and Stock:

In this pertinent and engaging volume leading Christian philosophers, theologians, and writers from all over the denominational map explode the black-and-white binaries that characterize both sides of the New Atheism debate.
They transcend the self-assured shouting matches of this latest expression of the culture wars by engaging in rigorous, polychromatic Christian reflection that considers the extent to which the atheistic critique-both new and old-might help the church move toward a more mature faith, authentic spirituality, charitable witness, and peaceable practice.
With generous openness and ferocious wit, this collection of essays, interviews, memoir, poetry, and visual art-including contributions from leading intellectuals, activists, and artists such as Stanley Hauerwas, Charles Taylor, John Milbank, Stanley Fish, Luci Shaw, Paul Roorda, Merold Westphal, and D. Stephen Long-provides substantive analysis, incisive critique, and a hopeful way forward for Christian dialog with atheist voices.

Brian McLaren; author of Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope

I was watching a TV documentary the other night that featured several highly religious parents dealing with their highly addictive adult children's drug and sexuality issues.
'Their faith seems to make them worse parents and worse people,' I said to my wife after the last commercial. I feel the same way when political leaders bring in religion to justify the unjustifiable, as they too often do. That's why I am so grateful for this brilliant book: atheism isn't just something to oppose or refute—it also can be a mirror, with much to teach us believers about ourselves and our distorted and unworthy ideas about God and religion. The atheist too is our neighbor, and God may want to speak to us all through the incisive insight of an honest atheist. Highly, highly recommended.

James K. A. Smith; author of The Devil Reads Derrida: And Other Essays on the University, the Church, Politics, and the Arts

The very shape of this book is a response to the New Atheism precisely because it refuses their narrow imagination and rationalist fundamentalism. Instead of playing by their rules, this book imagines faith otherwise in a stunning collection of poetry, prose, interviews, and images. It is an intellectual feast which seats us at the table with some of the most significant voices of our day.

Carl Raschke; author of GloboChrist: The Great Commission Takes a Postmodern Turn (The Church and Postmodern Culture)

In this exceptionally readable and engaging volume of essays—ranging from the accessibly academic to the largely belletristic—the diverse authors, along with their editors, pose one of the most effective answers to the so-called 'new atheists' that has come down the pike in recent years. Avoiding both the baroque scholasticism of so much contemporary postmodernist philosophy and the kitschy special-pleading of many popular theologians, God is Dead and I Don't Feel So Good Myself is special soul food for today's thinking Christian. . . . The book is a must read for all those frustrated onlookers who feel the new atheists have received far more attention than they deserve.

James H. Olthuis; Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto, Emeritus

A rich, diverse nuanced collection of essays, interviews, musings, poetry, and art that together add up to a generous, engaging response to the New Atheism. Readers will either be shocked or unsurprised to learn that the 'god' declared dead by the New Atheists turns out not to be the God of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob that Christians affirm. God is not an explanation. This volume makes a strong case that the appropriate response to the resurgent atheism is not better arguments, but patient humility, and the practice of gratitude with the fruit of wonder, and the honey of love.

Dwight J. Friesen; Mars Hill Graduate School in Seattle, author of Thy Kingdom Connected

Through insightful essays, penetrating conversations, and beautiful poetry, 'God is Dead' and I Don't Feel So Good Myself brings thoughtful theologians, philosophers, and poets together to engage, learn from, and critique the cultural expression known as the New Atheism. I highly recommend this text as a conversational form of cultural engagement marked by a careful and generous listening punctuated by conviction and humility, curiosity and critical thinking.

“If There's A God, Why Are There Atheists?” - R.C. Sproul’s Oldie But Goodie

2010-02-02T19:00:00.000-07:00

All I can say about the 1970s AD is that I was young enough to not be responsible for what I was wearing.

It was in 1978 AD when R.C. Sproul first published If There's A God, Why Are There Atheists?

Apologetic 315 has just posted a review.

ExChristian.Net Further Discredits Itself

2010-02-02T07:00:00.002-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on ExChristian.Net

Odd Objections to Miracles

2010-02-01T07:00:00.006-07:00

Paradoxically; two of the top objections to miracles are two of the planks upon which miracle claims are based.

These two seem to be 1) the natural order is obvious and unbroken and 2) miracles are rare, not predicable, events and are therefore surely fallacious claims.

These objections are rather odd considering that miracles are, by definition, events that 1) violate or bend the natural order and 2) are indeed, rare and unpredictable.

Odder still is the fact that two premises upon which the recognition of miraculous events are based are 1) that there is a natural order which is what makes a miracle recognizable and that therefore, 2) violations/bending of the natural order are evidence of miracles.

In other words, the top objections to miracles are the very premise upon which the recognition of miracles is based.

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

For more information about miracles see:

On Natural Laws and Miracles

And the series “Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles?”:
Introduction

The Apostle Thomas: Patron Saint of Scientists?

Moses as Skeptical Scientist

The Fleece

Malta’s Viper

Show Yourselves

Jesus’ Baptism

Lazarus Comes Forth

The Timing Test for Miracles

VIDEO: Richard Dawkins Exhibiting Neo-Paganism-Atheism, Childhood Rejection of God, Self-Professed Erudition and Lots of Stuff He Knows Nothing About

2010-01-31T08:31:00.004-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker at this link.

Conan Versus Jesus

2010-01-31T07:00:00.000-07:00

Remember Weird Al’s “Conan the Librarian”?

Conan’s, this time “the Barbarian,” worldview:

General: We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Soldier: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
General: That is good! That is good.

Jesus’ worldview:

Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
Jesus said to him,
“‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like it:
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:35-40)

The Argument for Atheism from Immaturity

2010-01-30T07:00:00.008-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker at this link

Truthbomb Apologetics is Da Bomb – Free Ebooks

2010-01-29T19:00:00.002-07:00

Following on providing the free online text of Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief I thought to make the interested reader privy to Truthbomb Apologetics’ provision of links to various free ebooks on various topics.

These include:
Mike Licona, What to Say to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses when they Knock on your Door

Ron Rhodes, Challenge of the Cults: Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response

Darren Hewer, The Historical Reliability of the New TestamentMoreover, they list various others in the following posts:
Free Apologetics E-Book Library

Free E-books from John Piper

Featured Resource: Pleaseconvinceme.com Free E-books

Also, see Apologetics Press’ ebooks

One Century After Her Birth, Mother Teresa is Still Inspiring…Vile Hatred

2010-01-29T07:17:00.003-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker at this link

Haiti and the Hypocrisy of Christian Theology - Richard Dawkins

2010-01-28T07:00:00.002-07:00

Yet again, Richard Dawkins’ amen chorus of adherents have come to the rescue of his illogicality and belligerence. He has taken it upon himself to accuse Christian theology of hypocrisy by juxtaposing the deluge with the earthquake that occurred in Haiti.[1]

Firstly, note that his condemnation of Christian theology, or anything at all for that matter, may be utterly disregarded due to the fact that he has no premise upon which to base his condemnations—none beyond his personal preferences which he bases upon his personal preferences.

When he was asked how he would show someone who broke into an old man’s house and murdered him that what they had done was wrong he responds, in part, by imagining what he would say to such as person:

“This is not a society in which I wish to live. Without having a rational reason for it necessarily, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this.”
I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, “Well, in this society you can't get away with it” and call the police. I realise this is very weak…”[2]

1) That that would not be “a society in which I wish to live” is irrelevant as the burglars do want that society and now it is survival of the fittest.
2) He admits that he has no “rational reason for it necessarily” and “couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually.”
3) That he would “call the police” presupposes that the police agree with him. If he called the police in Nazi Germany to complain about the mistreatment of Jews he would have been summarily placed in a camp.
4) Indeed, “this is weak.”

Yet, Richard Dawkins does take a solid stance on evil.On pedophilia; he references “gentle pedophiles” and thinks that too much is being made of it (see here).He makes a habit of referring to those with whom he disagrees in Hitlerian terms (for which I gave him The Reductio ad Hitlerum Award).
As for Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, (as stated to byFaith Magazine), “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.”As for parents who raise their children according to their “religion” (as stated to the Telegraph), “It is evil to describe a child as a Muslim child or a Christian child. I think labelling children is child abuse and I think there is a very heavy issue.”
Let us consider Richard Dawkins’ latest example of the lucidity with which he expresses his own ignorance and then rages against his very own misunderstandings.
He argues that while the earthquake was a natural event unconcerned with sin or human suffering and that “The religious mind” that is, the mind of the overwhelming majority of the entire planet’s population:

…restlessly seeks human meaning in the blind happenings of nature. As with the Indonesian tsunami, which was blamed on loose sexual morals in tourist bars; as with Hurricane Katrina, which was attributed to divine revenge on the entire city of New Orleans for harboring a lesbian comedian, and as with other disasters going back to the famous Lisbon earthquake and beyond, so Haiti's tragedy must be payback for human sin.

But where are the plethora of quotations and citation to such sentiment expressed, as if with one voice, by the overwhelming majority of the entire planet’s population? It comes down to a fallacious generalized assertion and one single name, you guessed it, “Pat Robertson” (where he to have thrown Jerry Falwell into the mix he would have all but exhausted his source for such statements).
But not so fast, he is about to demonstrate that those, Judeo-Christians, who do not agree with Pat Robertson are hypocrites:

Needless to say, milder-mannered faith-heads are falling over themselves to disown Pat Robertson, just as they disowned those other pastors, evangelists, missionaries and mullahs at the time of the earlier disasters.
What hypocrisy.

At this point; note that you are dammed if you agree with Robertson and dammed if you do not.
Richard Dawkins asserts that Pat Robertson, “stands squarely in the Christian tradition” and those who disagree with him, “are denying the centrepiece of their own theology. It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here.”

But why is this? Because via Noah’s flood God was “systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for ‘sin’” and likewise with Sodom and Gomorrah thus, he notes,

Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christian, your entire religion is founded on an obsession with 'sin', with punishment and with atonement.

And Richard Dawkins’ is obsessed with getting rid of sin by claiming that there is no such thing and by promulgating the atheist consoling delusion of lack of ultimate accountability and the delusion of absolute autonomy.

Now, he asks, “Where do you find the effrontery to condemn Pat Robertson” when, after all, “the President of one theological seminary” wrote,

The earthquake in Haiti, like every other earthly disaster, reminds us that creation groans under the weight of sin and the judgment of God. This is true for every cell in our bodies, even as it is for the crust of the earth at every point on the globe.

Committing an expandio ad absurdum he implies that the Bible asserts that every natural disaster and disease is demonic in nature—this is a common misconception.

Richard Dawkins concludes by proposing a Bible study,

Pat Robertson may spout evil nonsense, but he is a mere amateur at that game. Just read your own Bible. Pat Robertson is true to it. But you?...your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering.

Note that, actually, his own Darwinian worldview is one long celebration of suffering as it is through suffering/struggling to survive as the fittest that evolution occurs which is why Sam Harris argues that rape played a beneficial evolutionary role.
Charles Darwin asserted races are preserved via the struggle for life, “Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle…he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would soon sink into indolence, and the more highly-gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted.”[3]
Edward Grant Conklin wrote, “the lesson of past evolution teaches that there can be no progress of any kind without struggle.”[4]
Sir Grafton Elliot Smith made reference to the “glorious unrest” in that, “While man was evolved amidst the strife with adverse conditions, the ancestors of the Gorilla and Chimpanzee gave up the struggle for mental supremacy because they were satisfied with their circumstances.”[5]
Misia Landau noted, “Darwinian narratives, which, owing to their emphasis on natural selection, are often cast in terms of transformation through struggle.”[6]
Richard Dawkins succinctly wrote, “In nature, the usual selecting agent is direct, stark and simple. It is the grim reaper.”[7]

Now, the basic point is that since Judeo-Christian theology asserts that creation has fallen into entropy due to, beginning with, Adam’s rebellion against God, Adam’s sin, then every tragedy can be ultimately traced back to Adam’s sin. Thus, we all suffer because of Adam and Pat Robertson is correct is asserting that it was sin, “a pact with the Devil,” that caused the earthquake.

Firstly, let us note that indeed, the Bible paint a picture of the ultimate global village—we are all connected, all part of one family, all brothers and sisters, all created and love by God and also rebellious against God.
Yet, the Bible does not affirm that every natural disaster and disease is demonic, or sin related, in nature rather. Rather, it implies that God created the material realm and that the material realm functions according to material cause followed by material effect—this, by the way, is what makes science possible. While there are rare instances when certain un-natural disasters and diseases-like symptoms are demonic in nature, or sin related, it describes natural disasters as natural disasters and treats physical disease as physical disease (consider, for example, the medically regimented description of dealing with leprosy in Leviticus ch. 13 and 14).

Now, who is correct about the biblical worldview? Richard Dawkins, Pat Robertson or Jesus?
Jesus stated,

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish” (Luke 13: 1-5).

This may not be of any comfort to adherents of the Dawkinsian School of Dogmatheistic Theology. Yet, the point is that Dawkins claimed to have drawn a logical conclusion via the Bible to hypocrisy in disagreeing with Pat Robertson due to the Bible’s affirmation of the fall into sin. Yet, the Bible does not draw this conclusion and so Dawkins is in error.

Moreover, Pat Robertson did not appeal to sin in general or the fall into sin. He reference an, un-evidenced, “pact with the Devil.” Thus, Richard Dawkins is further in error via another expandio ad absurdum.

To reiterate; the point is not whether it makes sense to you or not. The point is that Dawkins claimed to draw a logical conclusion from the Bible and yet, he contradicts the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts.

[1] Richard Dawkins, “Haiti and the hypocrisy of Christian theology,” The Washington Post January 25, 2010
[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] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton reprint of the 1st edition), p. 2:403
[4] Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 35 quoting “The Trend of Evolution,” in The Evolution of Man, published by Yale University Press, 1922, pp. 152-84
[5] Lewin, p. 35 quoting Essays on the Evolution of Man, published by Oxford University Press, 1924, p. 79
[6] Misia Landau, “Human Evolution as Narrative,” American Scientist, 72:262-268, 1984
[7] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker—Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986), p. 62

This essay is copyrighted by Mariano of the “Atheism is Dead” blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com.
It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose—in agreement or in order to criticize it—only as long as the following conditions are met:
1) Give credit to “Mariano of the ‘Atheism is Dead’ blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com”
2) Inform me as to which essay is being reproduced and where it is being reproduced via the comments section at this link

The Bible Among the Myths

2010-01-27T07:00:00.002-07:00

The Bible Among the Myths is a book by John N. Oswalt.
Referencing this book provides an opportunity to link to various posts about comparisons between Jesus and various characters:

Jesus & Muhammad

Jesus & Buddha (this was a corroboration piece posted on AiD)

The following are provided by Marcus of the very informative blog What Had Happen′ Was…:
Jesus & Attis

Jesus & Dionysus

Jesus & Krishna

Jesus & Quetzalcoatl

Jesus & Xolotl

Jesus & Apollonius of Tyana

Jesus & Scipio Africanus

Jesus & Pythia-the Oracle at Delphi

Jesus & Titus Vespatian

Iliad & Bible

Also see:
Kyle Butt (you may recall that he debated Dan Barker), Reviewing Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ

Eric Lyons, Mythology and the Bible

JP Holding, The Christ Myth

Ronald Nash, Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions

Hank Hanegraaff, Is Jesus Myth? Answering More Prime Time Fallacies

Rational Christianity, Is the story of Jesus' life based on pagan myths?

Jonathan Sarfati, Was Christianity plagiarized from pagan myths?

Patrick Zukeran, Pagan Connection: Did Christianity Borrow From the Mystery Religions?

C.S. Lewis wrote:

A man who has spent his youth and manhood in the minute study of New Testament texts and of other people's studies of them, whose literary experience of those texts lacks any standard of comparison such as can only grow from a wide and deep and genial experience of literature in general, is, I should think, very likely to miss the obvious thing about them.
If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spend on that Gospel…I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this…[1]

The following is from Amazon.com

Product Description
The Bible Among the Myths is a sometimes controversial, always engaging corrective to a growing rejection in Western society of the revelation found within the Old Testament regarding a transcendent God who breaks into time and space and reveals himself in and through human activity.

From the Back Cover
Sixty years ago, most biblical scholars maintained that Israel’s religion was unique—that it stood in marked contrast to the faiths of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Nowadays, it is widely argued that Israel’s religion mirrors that of other West Semitic societies. What accounts for this radical change, and what are its implications for our understanding of the Old Testament?
Dr. John N. Oswalt says the root of this new attitude lies in Western society’s hostility to the idea of revelation, which presupposes a reality that transcends the world of the senses, asserting the existence of a realm humans cannot control. While not advocating a “the Bible says it, and I believe it, and that settles it” point of view, Oswalt asserts convincingly that while other ancient literatures all see reality in essentially the same terms, the Bible differs radically on all the main points.
The Bible Among the Myths supplies a necessary corrective to those who reject the Old Testament’s testimony about a transcendent God who breaks into time and space and reveals himself in and through human activity.

About the Author
Dr. John N. Oswalt (PhD, Brandeis University) is Visiting Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the author of numerous articles and several books, including the two-volume commentary on Isaiah in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament series and Called to be Holy: A Biblical Perspective.

[1] C.S. Lewis, “Originally entitled 'Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism', Lewis read this essay at Westcott House, Cambridge, on 11 May 1959. Published under that title in Christian Reflections (1981), it is now in Fern-seed and Elephants (1998).”—from Orthodox Web

Another Atheist Gives Up the Ghost – On the Atheism Just Is Approach

2010-01-26T07:00:00.003-07:00

It appears as if as atheists increasingly, and refreshingly, get tire of the New Atheism prompted definition of atheism as a “lack of belief in god(s)” and come right out and affirm a positive affirmation of God’s non-existence they instantly grow tire of being asked that troublesome question, “Where is your evidence? Please prove it.”

I ran across one of very many promulgations of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s positive atheism bus ads/billboards that read:

Atheist ads target valley residents at Christmas
Las Vegas, NV - Atheism has launched a Christmas ad campaign and it’s raising eyebrows
Clear Channel owns the billboards and removed that Santa version after just a few days, citing too many complaints. But two other ads, ’Reason’s Greetings’ and ‘Heathen’s Greetings,’ have been allowed to stay.
‘Yes Virginia… there is no God’ billboard

I posted a comment stating:

How long will the FFRF go on positively affirming God’s non-existence without evidence?
Is this not what they condemn as “faith”?
They are doing it this year and they did it last year:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/12/dan-barker-and-neo-pagan-atheism.html

The response was:

And.. we will continue to speak out, becoming more publicly and more vehemently opposed to this ridiculous delusion that serves only to erode rational thought, personal responsibility and the peace and security of all citizens. A more correct term is anti-theist. There is no theism involved. There is no faith involved. There was no historical figure named Jesus nor is there an invisible man living in the sky. This does not require faith to understand, only rational thought.

Agreeing (to some extent) I wrote:

Let us pray that atheists will continue speaking out as loudly and often as possible as nothing discredits atheism like having atheists express themselves.
Gone are the days of shying away from claiming that God does not exist because that would require proof. Now it is simply left to “I believe that God does not exist, so it must be true.”
Keep up the good work of self-refuting atheism.

More affirmation of just believe it-ism came about:

You are right, but for the wrong reasons. As you say ” Gone are the days of shying away from claiming that God does not exist”. This is true. The tyranny of the irrational can no longer be tolerated. The burden of proof rests with those making the claim. There is no more proof for the existence of a god than there is that I am the reincarnation of Mahandas Gandhi. I cannot prove it and you cannot disprove it. It’s a silly assertion with an easy and hollow defense designed to confuse the gullible. The fact that something is so unrealistic that it defies proof, both positive and negative, serves only to prove that it is unrealistic.

So I noted:

Pardon my delay as the holy days kept me happily busy and this new year is doing likewise.Interesting to learn that the neo-atheist position is that atheism is excluded from the real of making an argument in its favor.I suppose that for evidence I would begin considering this parsed essay which considers the Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and God.http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-flying-spaghetti-monster-invisible.html

Well, that was the end of it and a good example of the approach that asserts the “logic” that if you presuppose positive atheism then positive atheism must be true.

Audio Bibles for Haiti and Atheist Hypocrisy

2010-01-25T20:37:00.001-07:00

Am I understanding this correctly?

For the past few years atheists worldwide have literally wasted enormous amounts of money during times of recession, war and poverty not in helping anyone in any material need but in order to purchase bus ads and billboards attempting to demonstrated just how clever they consider themselves to be; and now they want to become the charity police—please!

Futher dissection of this particular atheist hypocrisy here.

The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 3

2010-01-25T07:00:00.004-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Atheism

Coelacanth - From Evidence to Tall Tale (or is it tall “tail”?)

2010-01-24T07:00:00.002-07:00

What do you do when 1) your theory calls for gradual change from fish to human over an expanse of time, 2) then you find some nice fish fossils to which you can point, 3) then you point to modern day humans, 4) then you tell a nice impressive sounding story full of fancy book learnin′ words about how one changed into the other but then, 5) you find that the fish is still alive, well and unchanged?

Well, if you are a Darwinist or the “Evolutionary Theodicy” sort you do that which your theory is practically based upon; you disregard the evidence and concoct yet another tall tale to fill the gaps in your previous tall tale. And you always remember that when evidence contradicts theory you do not augment the theory in order to accommodate the evidence rather, you manipulate the evidence so that it will fit the theory.

The story of the coelacanth is fascinating for various reasons, for our purposes the fascination is in noting how the evidence implies one story and the Darwinist infers quite another.

Fossils of the fish coelacanth are said to date as far back as 400,000,000 years ago and they were thought to have gone extinct circa 60,000,000 years ago. This opened the door for the telling of tall tales about how the coelacanth decided to get out of the water and trot about on land. Oh, the stories that were told; we can tell from the fins that…and became legs because…anatomy this, evolution that, and bada bing—human being.

What a time they had; chin stockingly pontificating as they interpreted evidence based on bias schools of thought and adherence to theory (which I evidenced in the essay Scientific Cenobites). But then the show was over and reality swam past them as in 1938 AD South African fishermen made Marjorie Courtenay Latimer, the curator of a museum in East London (northeast of Cape Town, South Africa), aware of the living fish—the Gombessa, as they knew it.

But the party was not over. While many biologists express consternation at the upsetting of their theories, a good Darwinist never lets those troubling little facts get in the way of a good theory. For example, recall that the fact that human embryos have gill slits proved that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Yet, when it was proved that human embryos do not have gill slits this still proved that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny because human embryos used to have gill slits and have now evolved (as recently as a couple of year ago an atheist Darwinist who had actually studied anatomy told me that human embryos have gill slits—relying on a century and half old hoax anyone?).

Thus, when the living fish toppled the dead theory the fish was prepared with a twist of lemon and the theory was propped back up in the form of a red herring. What comes forth from this strange sort of weird science is that there are two stories of the coelacanth: the actual story told by the evidence itself and the story told regardless of evidence which is meant to function as smoke and mirrors which call attention away from the story told by the evidence—smoked coelacanth, yummy.

The evidence presents a fish which has not changed in 60,000,000 years (with the possible exception of size, etc.). The theory remains all but unchanged; this fish decided to go on walkabout. But how is the gap filled between the evidence of an unchanged and the human who examines the fish from which it supposedly evolved? By appealing to the mythical environmental pressures which caused part of the fish population to remain unchanged for 60,000,000 years and part to change into human beings who eat them (actually, I understand that they are too oily to be good eat′ns).

I encountered an interesting and vacuous statement which sought to take creationists to task at dinofish.com:

Seemingly immune to the pressures of natural selection, the coelacanth changed little (except in size and possibly in habitat) over the eons. Creationists have used this as evidence against the theory of Evolution, but most observers see the coelacanth as a startling, and loveable (Old Four Legs) messenger from the past.

No joke, this was the entirety of their refutation. Note the way that they fill the gap in that it just so happens that the coelacanth was “Seemingly immune to the pressures of natural selection.” What do we learn about natural selection? It is the driving force behind evolution except when it is not because some creatures are immune.

Dinofish.com also stated,

Two back, or dorsal, fins and one protruding beneath the nape of the tail are complimented by paired lobed pectoral and pelvic fins. These contain in their trunks bones mimicking those of Eusthenopteron which later developed into arms and legs. While coelacanths have not been observed to "walk" on the bottom, their pectoral and pelvic fins can be seen as "pre-adaptations" to land locomotion. Used under water their action maintains stability and balance. But in their cousin Eusthenopteron, the same action became four-legged land walking.
While the living coelacanths retain many ancient features they have also, contrary to their public image, done some evolving along the way. Live bearing, for example, would seem to be a modern feature.

So, they “changed little…over the eons” and have also “done some evolving along the way.” Incidentally, they are mistaken about “Live bearing” being “a modern feature” as it is claimed that in fish this process dates from the Carboniferous period of 360,000,000-290,000,000 years ago.

You will note that part of the evidence for the coelacanth becoming a land dweller is that its cousin became a land dweller; even though eusthenopteron is a fish of the open sea.

Hans Fricke, an ethologist with the Max-Planck Institute, wrote of the coelacanth’s advanced electric field detection capabilities as well as its lack of walking un-abilities:

they may also be able to locate prey by detecting changes in the electric field around them…it is intriguing that this fish may hone in on prey by detecting changes in the weak electric field the prey produces…

Our films settled another question that has intrigued scientists: whether the coelacanth can walk on its lobed fins. Though we observed several individuals resting with their fins braced against the sea bottom, we never saw any of them walk, and it appears the fish is unable to do so…

I confess I'm sorry we never saw a coelacanth walk on its fins. Professor Smith himself nicknamed the coelacanth Old Fourlegs in the belief that the creature actually did walk upon the seafloor like a seal on its flippers. Alas, that does not seem to be the case.[1]

When you see early taxidermic reconstructions of the coelacanth you can tell just how desperate the scientists were to, quite literally, bend the evidence in the favor of their theory as the coelacanth’s legs were bent downwards in order to make it seem as if the poor little guy was read to walk. This is quite evidence from the “Old Four Legs” book cover as well:

Indeed, there is quite a difference between manipulating a dead fish or skeleton to do as you please like so many marionettes on the one hand and observing the living fish in its environment doing as it will. Fricke notes,

For all their excellent work in the past, the scientists who preceded us in the study of coelacanths were severely hampered by the lack of a submersible. They could only examine dead or dying specimens brought up by Comoran fishermen.

Alas, as noted by Peter L. Forey

Fifty years ago this week [the week of Dec. 1988], Latimeria chalumnae was discovered, the only living representative of the otherwise extinct coelacanth fishes. Half a century of research shows it is not the hoped for missing link between fish and land vertebrates.[2]

Some years ago PBS aired a “documentary” retelling the story of the Coelacanth. You could literally take the documentary and re-edit it into two documentaries: one about the evidence for the unchanged fish which obviously did not turn into land walkers, much less human beings and the other which would be the evolutionary mythology about how, despite the evidence, it did so.

Lastly, I wanted to note that I learned that Jacques Millot had researched the coelacanth and checked the search engine at Scientific American for his article of 1955 AD simply titled, “The Coelacanth.” Having no hits searching various ways I finally typed “Jacques Millot” and got this result:

Your search for ""Jacques Millot"" resulted in 0 documents.
Did you mean "hotcakes Mildest"?

No, I did not—no, I did not.

[1] Hans Fricke, Coelacanths, The Fish That Time Forgot – first published in National Geographic, June 1988
[2] Peter L. Forey, “Golden jubilee for the coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae,” Nature, 336, 727-732 (29 December 1988)

The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 2

2010-01-23T07:00:00.003-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Atheism

Yet Again, the Most Intelligent, Well Informed and Vociferous Atheist in the World Cower from Debate

2010-01-22T07:00:00.008-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s debate category

The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 1

2010-01-21T07:00:00.003-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Atheism

Atheism Essays Particular to Bart Ehrman

2010-01-20T17:57:00.002-07:00

This post contains hyperlinks to Atheism is Dead’s posts regarding Bart Ehrman:

Bart Ehrman’s Problem

Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman, Interrupted - on the Bible and Christianity

Bart Ehrman’s Millions and Millions of Variants

Science Club of Long Island

2010-01-20T07:59:00.006-07:00

In seeking to open dialogue and provide information to the Science Club of Long Island I, very quickly, discovered that its founder, president and publisher, Oleg Dei, is a rather fiery person who appears to run the Science Club of Long Island as an anti-Christian support group.

In part, the Science Club of Long Island’s mission statement states:

It is our mission at the Science Club of Long Island Inc. to bring the current scientific accomplishments and breakthroughs and make them available to the general community at no cost…Topics range from astronomy, evolution, biology, genetics, medicine and physics and other science disciplines.

Overall, the mission statement does not, in the least bit, elucidate why the Science Club of Long Island’s website is exclusively anti-Christian. Their homepage does state that they are “DEDICATED TO PROVIDING SCIENCE EDUCATION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND DEBUNKING THE SUPERNATURAL.”

They offer various articles related to attempting to discredit the Bible, Jesus and Christianity in general. The main source of research for these is evilbible.com.
In fact, on their home page they reference EVIL BIBLE seven times. This is both their own statement that the Bible is evil (I am not aware how they define “evil”) and it is indicative of their very, very heavy reliance upon anything and everything that is stated in evilbible.com.
Having debunked large portions of evilbible.com (see here) I am well aware that anyone who relies on evilbibe.com is even less scholarly, less informed, less skeptical and much more erroneous than evilbible.com itself.

I will consider specifically debunking their articles although since they rely so very heavily upon evilbible.com; debunking the former equals debunking the latter. One article of interest is “JESUS CHRIST WAS NOT BORN ON DECEMBER 25TH” and could be categorized as: responding to a statement that no one is making.
Another favorite of mine states, “Perhaps James Cameron did more than sink the Titanic in the movie, maybe he sunk Christ the greatest hoax in human history!” and yes, of course, they list “One source: Evil Bible.Com” (see here for James Cameron’s utter failure).

Initially, I was interested in their article, “SLAVERY IS APPROVED BY THE BIBLE!” which was written by “By CHRIS THIEFE AND OLEG DEI” with the obligatory “Source: Evil Bible.Com.” Chris Thiefe runs evilbile.com or rather, he ran it until he got tired of so many people challenging him on his ubiquitous fallacies.

I wrote the following to Oleg Dei expecting that a person of science would be interested in opposing views, reconsidering their own views if need be, and would generally express a wiliness to exchange ideas:

I ran across your page asserting that slavery is approved in the Bible that was cut and pasted from evilbible.com
I wanted to make you aware that I conducted a study of the issue and wrote a point by point response that I know you will find interesting:
Does the Bible and its God Condone Slavery?

I also wrote a companion piece:
Does God Command You to Beat Your Slaves?

In fact, I have done likewise with much of evilbible.com’s content:
Atheism Essays Particular to EvilBible.com
aDios,Mariano

I received the following response (since I am not sure what the different colors, bold and italics are supposed to convey, I will reproduce them as they were in the email):

Nice name!

Yes, we know you spent a lot of time pasting your little articles together!
The study that you have conducted answers none of the points made, you merely injected your excuses in an effort to explain the atrocities in the Bible.
The Bible was written by ancient barbarians who were merely trying to justify violent times.
However in summary you failed to address the many other points made such as Biblical contradictions, rape, the evil God depicted in the Bible that kills at the drop of a hat.
God would not do that! You missed the illogic of religion, Christ failure to return as promised as well as countless of points made which are too numerous to mention!
You never bothered to study the science articles under the magazine section and conveniently assumed that this was just another atheistic website.
We don’t have to tell you what happens when you assume!
For reasons unknown you pasted a silly section on stupid atheistic T-shirts. How childish!
We agree that atheists contribute very little to the poor but you also fail to recognize that it is the religious nuts that start wars like Hitler and Bush, Christian Crusades, inquisitions on and on!
In addition you failed to recognize that the evolution of science is what being taught in schools as the explanation for man’s origins but merely pasted ridiculous articles of intelligent design that is dismissed by the scientific community as well as all the evidence.
Dinosaurs are no longer here, where they kidnapped by aliens or better question was your reasoning kidnapped by religion? Since the Dinosaurs are no longer here, evolution merely explains the change in the fauna of life!
Now just because people want God to exist, especially us does not mean that he does exist!
We are not atheists that say there is no God!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get your facts straight!
What we are saying based on scientific fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of
God or any other supernatural phenomenon. Include Ghosts, Bigfoot or little green men from Mars!
People start with the idea that they would like for God to exist and then twist all their thinking around this.
Does not work this way, you have to look were the evidence takes you no matter how uncomfortable
that may be. You don’t built a data base or selection of those facts that support your viewpoint and ignore
everything else! Again you look at all the evidence.
As of now, there is no evidence of a God. If you have some evidence come forward, we know several foundations that will pay a million dollars.
Unfortunately no one has yet claimed the prize!!!!!

SCLI

It is rather odd, or so it seems to me, to state that “The study that you have conducted answers none of the points made” when the only point of my essays was to answer each and every point made—point by point.
Perhaps Oleg Dei meant that my repose was not satisfactory yet, having been engaged in polemics for some time, I discern that it means I take evilbible.com’s word for it, will not practice skepticism, will no conduct further research nor specifically respond to your refutation and thus, I will generically shrug you off.
Note that Science Club of Long Island’s article on slavery in the Bible actually even tops evilbibel.com’s as they pile fallacy upon fallacy by including photos of (recreations of, actually) North American slavery and Kunta Kinte from Roots. Imagine condemning the Bible for that which the Bible condemns and does so by punishing via capital punishment at that.

Well, I wrote back:

Thank you so much for your consideration and getting back to me on this.

If I understand you correctly, I am somehow at fault for not attempting to discredit every single evilbible.com page. Yet, this is fallacious as I wrote to you about the issue of slavery in particular. And while you cut and pasted their assertions into a PDF file I did not paste my essay together but refuted theirs point by point.

Moreover, while you, for some reason, have chosen to un-contextually claim that I failed to address many other points made by evilbible.com such as rape, you would know, via the link that I provided: Atheism Essays Particular to EvilBible.com, that I have done just that—and much more.

What you must consider is that regardless of God’s existence and regardless of the origins of the Bible, the issue is the text of the Bible, whether evilbible.com and you by extension are representing the text correctly, and my refutation of their and your claims.

Your belittlement of myself, general put down of religion in general, references to dinosaurs, aliens, Ghosts, Bigfoot, etc. are irrelevant to our context.

Yet, you may be interested to learn that “The Encyclopedia of Wars” was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars. The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From over 10,000 years of war 123, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious war.

I discern that you are reacting emotionally to my evidence rather than rationally which is why your response is so very disjointed.
You may want to consider your thoughts as categories and then you will be able to stay on topic and deal with the issue at hand.

Thank you for your time and attention, aDios,
Mariano

The response was rather odd and it was written in a very large font size:

Here is some good articles for you ******* [expletive removed, let us just say that it started with a capital “A”]!
You think Chris Thiefe from Evil Bible is Tough?
I eat stupid dumbass Christians for lunch!

Oleg Dei had attached various of the articles that they provide on the website. Here is my response:

Most excellent, thank you for the information.

I will have to look these over and if need be, post responses on my blog.

There is actually one that I was interested in—Bible says - women are inferior to men—which appeared to be peppered with photos of scantly clad women.
I wonder if you could send me the text and just exclude the photos.

Thank you so much and aDios,
Mariano

PS: I do not think that Chris Thiefe is tough at all; that is a faulty inference.

Well, the discussion ended rather abruptly here and I, disappointingly, got yet another taste of an atheist who wears a façade of intellectual and scientific respectability in order to hide an emotional rejection of God and an inability to deal with issues in a scholarly manner.

Atheist Foundation of Australia and the Tasmanian Devil

2010-01-19T18:44:00.004-07:00

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has decided to waste money on bus ads during a time of recession and disaster.

They are placing bus ads in Tasmania, Australia that read, “Atheism” and “Celebrate Reason!” as if it is reasonable to waste much needed and donated money attempting to boast in how clever they are.

Again, I say as with certain Freedom From Religion Foundation ads: Oh, so close!

The ad came just short of quoting the Bible,

“‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD.” (Isaiah 1:18).

FYI: be on the lookout for the Atheist Foundation of Australia’s appearance in an upcoming January 22, 2010 AD post…………

The Freedom From Religion Foundation Again Positively Affirms God’s Non-Existence But Where is the Evidence?

2010-01-19T07:00:00.001-07:00

I barely got done posting Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Billboards when I learned of a new one. My oh my, they are busy in December—must be nice to have that kind of money!

Last year I reported on their belligerent positive affirmation of God’s non-existence which read:

At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Now they placed ads that state, “Yes, Virginia ... There is no God.”[1]

Freedom From Religion Foundation’s co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor again affirmed their “faith” based dogmatheism in stating, “The main purpose is to express something that's true that doesn't get said very much -- there is no god -- and it shouldn't be a taboo…If people are mad about it, it's because it's true.”

Just how long will they continue making dogmatheistic assertions about God’s non-existence without evidence?
Do not misunderstand, I find the honesty refreshing but I thought that merely expressing “faith” based assertions was not the manner in which supposedly evidence based atheism function. I know, I know; it is, it is.

Since atheists are not interested in influencing children—wink wink, nudge nudge—“Yes, Virginia ... There is no God” refers to a September 21, 1897 AD edition of The New York Sun which included the phrase “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.” Thus, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has pictured Santa Clause positively affirming God’s non-existence.

The true Santa:

[1] Monica Guzman, “Seattle's atheist bus ads: So, Virginia, is there a God?,” Seattle pi Blogs, December 14, 2009

SMRT’s “Five Good Reasons for Being an Atheist”

2010-01-18T07:00:00.005-07:00

Over yonder at Atheism Analyzed, Stan wrote Visiting weareSMRT Again which urged me to piggy back on his response to SMRT’s Five Good Reasons for Being an Atheist.
SMRT is “A site for Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers” with “SMRT” being “an anagram of Smart Minds and Rational Thinkers (SMRT, Who Are We?).

MacGyverJr wrote the post Five Good Reasons for Being an Atheist (November 2, 2009) and Stan wrote a fine response. I did not intend on attempting to improve upon his but as I read his I could barely believe what were being considered to be the good reasons and just had offer a few comments.

MacGyverJr’s premise is as follows:

It’s easy to point out the flaws in a religion or a certain god, but there’s no need to remain skeptical on a god-to-god basis. Lots of reasons exist irrespective of any single religion that makes atheism palatable. So listed here are five good reasons to be an atheist:

Unfortunately, what “atheism” means is not defined. However, due to the context of the article it is clearly a positive affirmation of God’s non-existence (something which is coming back into vogue in atheist circles).

I could not agree more that “Lots of reasons exist irrespective of any single religion that makes atheism palatable.” Amongst these are that atheism is a pseudo-intellectual excuse for the emotionally driven rejection of God; it is a psychological band-aid. Also, atheism is appealing via various consoling delusions such as the delusion of absolute autonomy, the delusion of lack of ultimate accountability, the delusion of being more erudite than thou, the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence, etc.

Now, let us consider the “Five Good Reasons for Being an Atheist” one by one:

1. We have not found any gods. Contrary to popular belief, lack of evidence is proof of lack of existence. Take, for example, my claim that there is a unicorn in my garage. If independent scientists came to my house and searched my garage without avail, they would conclude there is no unicorn. The same is true of gods. We have looked, but we haven’t found any, ever.

Unfortunately, the term “found” goes undefined as a methodology. Millions of people claim to have “found God”—was God lost? :o)
Lack of evidence is not necessarily proof of lack of existence. Right now, I am thinking about when, as a child, I sat eating by the sea shore when my father squeezed a lemon on his food but a stream of juice went directly into my brother’s eye. What is the evidence of this? Not only can I not provide evidence that the event occurred (you could ask them but they may have forgotten or we could have collated) but I cannot provide evidence that I was thinking about that event.
Stan provides examples of many things once considered to not being in existence only to be later discovered.
While on some level we have to be agnostics regarding flying purple people eaters on another level we do not have to be aUnicorn-ists or agnome-ist. The levels of which I speak are basically: 1) I do not believe in gnomes because their existence has not been evidenced and 2) no gnomes exist. This is like the atheist assertion to 1) merely lack a belief in god(s) and 2) asserting that god(s) does not exist.
What the “independent scientists” would do is to ask what MacGyverJr meant by reporting a “unicorn.” Is a magical mystical Invisible Pink Unicorn meant? Or, a horse with a horn?
There are many scientists, such as those who established the very fields and methods of science itself, who do claim to have searched for and found God. They have done so by drawing inferences from that which the universe and its fine tuning imply, etc. If MacGyverJr means that we move a rock or look on the dark side of the moon, point our fingers and say, “Hey, look! That’s God right over there!” then that is another issue.
Firstly, it depends on which God we are envisaging. For example, with the God implied by the universe and also reflected in the Bible we must recognize that there is no correlation between a unicorn and this—eternal and immaterial—being. Thus, if there is no unicorn, the same is true of only certain gods.
MacGyverJr needs to elucidate what would be considered finding God; what would be considered evidence of God? For example, seeking physical evidence of a non-physical being is tantamount to seeking wet evidence of a dry object.

2. There are lots of tales of gods. If you need any proof that gods are made up beings, look no further than the amount of mythology surrounding thousands of different gods. Most Christians, Muslims, and Jewish people are atheists to 99% of all the gods ever thought up. Most every agrees that all these gods, like Apollo, are made up. Nothing makes the Judeo-Christian god any more special than Zeus.

I suppose that since there are lots of tales as to how the universe came into being then the universe never came into being. Speaking for Christians; we are not “atheists to 99% of all the gods” but would be more likely to believe that these gods are fallen angels who are deceiving people (for example of this see The “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible” as a Heuristic Device). Thus, we deny that they are ontologically “gods” and thus reject them as “gods” due to them being fallen angels out to deceive: we believe in but do not worship all gods.
In any case, atheists and Christians do not reject other, respectively 100% and 99% of gods, for the same reasons. Atheists paint with a materialistic broom while Christians, being monotheists, deny the existence of any God but the one God implied by nature and expressed in the Bible. This is why it is faulty to correlate the Judeo-Christian God and Zeus.
The overall fallacy here is that since “Most every[one] agrees that all these gods…are made up” (an argument from authority) one can deny that any gods exist at all. This is an expandio ad absurdum.

3. Religion is silly. Take Christianity for example. They believe that they can turn crackers and wine into the symbolic (or real) flesh and blood of Jesus; then they eat it. Also, have you ever taken a look at what the pope wears? The Bible is full of absurdities such as condemning homosexuality but allowing servitude. Religion just doesn’t make any sense.

The fact is that something can be silly and yet, true. Subjective opinions about levels of silliness are irrelevant; this is basically an argument from personal incredulity.
Moreover, this is a non-sequitur since just because “religion” is silly does not mean that God does not exist.
Furthermore, how it is silly to symbolically turn bread and wine into flesh and blood (whatever it may mean to symbolically turn something into something else)?
But what about really claiming to do it? Now we are not speaking of “Christianity” in general but to, for example, Roman Catholicism which claims to possess the ability to transubstantiate: transform the substance of bread/wine into flesh/blood yet, under the appearance of bread/wine. Thus, their claim to a literal transformation amounts to not actually transform the substance (I tackle this issue historically, logically and biblically here).
May one argue that since some atheists believe in “silly” concepts such as a self-created universe, eternal un-cause matter, abiogenesis, etc.; therefore, atheism is false?
The Pope’s regalia is likewise 1) non-biblical, non-God ordained, nor 2) relevant to the issue of God’s existence. May one argue that since some atheists wear “silly” clothes; therefore, atheism is false?
Again, something may strike us as absurd but also be true such as that light behaves as both a particle and a wave—as Prof. Richard Lewontin wrote:

What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd.

MacGyverJr’s argument amounts to: God does not exist because “The Bible is full of absurdities such as…”
Yet, perhaps a god does exist but had nothing to do with the Bible. Now, why it is absurd to condemn homosexuality but allow servitude is something that is not elucidated; it is a politically correct emotionally charge appeal.
Firstly, any and every reasonably sane person condemns one or another form of sexual act; surely including MacGyverJr. Secondly, servitude allowed for the disadvantaged to pay off debt via working it off; this was a temporary arrangement which became null and void upon the repayment of the debt or at the year of jubilee.
As for the comment, “Religion just doesn’t make any sense”—again, just because something does not make sense to MacGyverJr does not mean that it is not true—or does not exist. Yet, I agree that all man-made religion does not make sense, is false and is the greatest obstacle to a personal relationship with God (see The Most Anti-Religion Book Ever Published).

4. Religion justifies horrible behavior. Last year in California, a proposition was put before the citizens to ban gay marriage. This was proposition 8. Who were some of the biggest donors to prop 8? The Mormons in Utah! There is no doubt that many in the United States use religion to justify their homophobia. Abroad in the Middle East, violence and bombings are all evoked in the name of Islam. Being religious is not the way to bring peace to this world.

Fighting for freedom justifies horrible behavior therefore, no one should fight for freedom.
Prop 8 opposed radically redefining marriage and thus, it is fallacious to correlate the protection of traditional marriage with homophobia. Any and every reasonably sane person condemns one or another form of marriage; surely including MacGyverJr.
The argument is that violence is justified by extremists by appealing to Islam and Mormons support traditional marriage (at least, on this side of heaven) and thus, religion is not the way to bring peace to this world. This is a non-sequitur since that some perpetrate violence in the name of “religion” does not mean that God does not exist.
Also, atheism has been used to justify horrible behavior therefore, atheism is false. In fact, since the most secular century in human history was also the bloodiest; atheism is not the way to bring peace to this world.
Lastly, consider that the “Encyclopedia of Wars” (New York: Facts on File, 2005) was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars. The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From over 10,000 years of war 123, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars.
See Is the Atheist Argument from Religious Violence Cogent? for further elucidation of this fallacy.

5. Prayers don’t work. I have a testable hypothesis for the existence of gods – pray for something and see if it came true. Prayer has been invoked since the dawn of humanity with no avail or proven results. Gods clearly don’t exist or don’t give a squat about human existence. Since the simplest answer is usually preferred, it’s reasonable to conclude that gods don’t exist.

This is a fallacy of not understanding the concept of prayer. Of course prayer fails when it is defined as God being a cosmic Jeeves. This view of prayer has the God at the human’s beck and call; we pray and God is somehow bound to accomplish the task to which He is put—this is iTheism.

Yet, at least form a Judeo-Christian perspective; prayer is primarily about building a personal relationship with God. Prayer’s primary purpose is therefore not to ask for stuff that we want. We pray and yet, God is sovereign and could be said to answer every pray indeed, but He can say “Yes,” “No” or “Wait.”
Also, the argumentum ad God not giving a squatum fails since, for example, sometimes my children ask for my help in performing a certain task but I, knowing better than they, know that they can accomplish the task at hand without my help. I have all the power whereby to help them but choose to not do so and I choose to not do so based on my knowledge that letting them struggle with a task that they are finally able to accomplish on their own is more beneficial to them than having me swoop in and do it for them.
At times, they ask for my help and indeed, they cannot do something without my help, in which case I help them.
At other times, I do not allow them to perform tasks which they are not physically and or mentally prepared to perform. All this and more based upon my greater knowledge and ability (for further elucidation see Atheism, EvilBible.com and Jesus Lied).

Overall, what MacGyverJr accomplished is a very clear example of the presumption of erudition, logical fallacies, and five good reasons for rejecting MacGyverJrian atheism.

Global Warming and Intelligent Design

2010-01-17T07:00:00.000-07:00

Some people seem to be flummoxed by the recent scientific scandal regarding how some scientists deal with other scientists and the data that contradicts their own with regards to global warming; I found myself metaphorically yawning and thinking, “Is this supposed to be new or unusual?”

While I certainly do not care to discuss the issue of global warming, the recent scandal is virtually a word for word example of how orthodox Darwinists deal with Intelligent Design.

I will use as an example the article by Jonah Goldberg, “Groupthink and the Global Warming Industry,” USA Today, December 1, 2009 although any such report will do.

I will also refer the interested reader of the very many examples that I have collected of scientists interpreting evidence and data according to schools of thought, professional rivalries, protecting preferred theories, etc. in the parsed essay: Scientific Cenobites
I also reproduced Rochus Boerner’s essay Some notes on Skepticism in which he dissects various pseudo-skeptical scientific fallacies.

Let us glean from Jonah Goldberg’s article, note how simple it is to insert the words orthodox Darwinism on the one hand and Intelligent Design on the other:

Computer hackers broke into the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded thousands of e-mails and other documents. The CRU is one of the world's leading global warming data hubs, providing much of the number crunching to global policymakers on climate change. And, boy, can they crunch numbers…

CRU scientists discuss with friendly outside colleagues…how to manipulate the data they want to show the world, and how to hide the often flawed data they don't. In one exchange, they discuss the "trick" of how to "hide…

Again and again, the researchers don't object to just inconvenient truths but also inconvenient truth-tellers. They contemplate and orchestrate efforts to purge scientists and journals who won't sing the same global warming hymnal…the CRU director, says a scientific journal must "rid (itself) of this troublesome editor," who happened to publish a problematic paper…we "will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"…

These documents reveal the trick behind how they hide the dissent. Climate change activists often dismiss critics by noting that the skeptics haven't offered their arguments in peer-reviewed literature. Hence why they work so hard to keep dissenters out of the literature!...

First, the climate change industry is shot through with groupthink…Activists would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of "real" scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed or greedy "deniers" akin to flat-earthers and creationists. These e-mails show that what's really at work is a very large clique of scientists is attempting to excommunicate perceived heretics for reasons that have more to do with psychology and sociology than physics or climatology.

Second, the climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations and foundations. The grantors want the grantees to confirm the global warming "consensus." The tenure and peer-review processes likewise hinge on conformity. That doesn't necessarily mean climate change is untrue, but it does mean sloppiness and bias are unavoidable.

This is an example of what Judith Curry calls “climate tribalism,” now consider what Jonah Goldberg termed “Journalistic tribalism”:

By now you might have heard something about the scandal rocking the climate change industry, though you can be forgiven if you haven't, since it hasn't gotten nearly the coverage it should…

in big newspapers and TV news, the story has gotten less attention [than on the Internet]. And that's a scandal, too. The New York Times' leading climate reporter, Andrew Revkin (whose name appears in some of the e-mails), won't publish the contents of the e-mail on the grounds it would violate the scientists' privacy. Can anyone imagine the Times being so prissy if such damning e-mails were from ExxonMobil, never mind Dick Cheney?...

The same journalistic tribalism that allowed Dan Rather to destroy his career over "Memogate" keeps reinforcing itself. Rather picked sources who said what he wanted to hear, then he reported what they said as if it were indisputable. The same thing is happening on climate change. Ideological bias is a major factor in the news media's work as a transmission belt for the climate industry. But part of the problem is also that the journalists do a bad job when the majority of "respected" experts agree on anything complicated…

most journalists aren't qualified or capable of working through the climate data. So they opt for the consensus…While there's often reason for governments to hide classified intelligence, there's no reason for climate data to be classified. If the science is a slam dunk, why are CRU researchers keen on hiding their research?

Stephen Meyer has stated, “There are powerful institutional and systematic conventions in science that keep (intelligent) design from being considered a scientific process” to which Barbara Forrest (Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond) responded, “Oh, baloney; they aren't published because they don't have any scientific data.”[1] The Discovery Institute has provided a list of their peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications here.

Yet, the problem is a deeper one as, for example, there is a ubiquitous claim that any scientist, no matter how educated in science and active in the fields of research, who infers the supernatural is not a “real scientist” doing “real science” because as per PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins (to offer a mere two examples) “science” and “evolution” are synonymous to atheism.

The censorship is not even restricted to specifically attempting to keep Intelligent Design papers from the peer review science journals but it expands to blacklisting individuals from the journals regardless of what their papers convey.
For example, Jonathan Wells is a biologist and wrote a paper dealing with embryology. I attended a lecture in which he presented his research, at the end of the lecture someone asked him what it had to do with Intelligent Design. He answered, “Nothing.” Why should it? He was presenting on embryology without delving into issues of origins or design.
Wells submitted the paper to a peer review science journal, it was approved by the referees right down the line, it was due to be published until; he received an email asking if he was “that” Jonathan Wells, you know, one of those people. Merely due to the fact that Wells has done some work in Intelligent Design his non-Intelligent Design work is being censored.

Note the statement by Scott C. Todd (Department of Biology, Kansas State University),

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.[2]

The reason that this sentiment is fallacious is because it amounts to worldview adherence. If all the data point to an intelligent designer science would thus change in order to accommodate the new evidence: our definition of, our understanding of, science would change. Excluding evidence because it does not fit the theory is unscientific.

This is not rare or unusual; it is to the credit of honest scientists, journalists, and in this case hackers, that such human faults are removed from the heuristic methods of true science.

[1] Dan Vergano and Greg Toppo, “‘Call to arms’ on evolution,” USA Today, March 23, 2005
[2] Scott C. Todd, “A View from Kansas on that Evolution Debate,” Nature, Vol. 401, Sep. 30, 1999, p. 423

Bart Ehrman, Interrupted - on the Bible and Christianity

2010-01-16T07:00:00.006-07:00

Please note that this essay has been moved to this link.

Austin Dacey and the Psychology Today Sell Out – On Ethics, Bus Ads and Atheism, part 2

2010-01-15T07:00:00.000-07:00

We now conclude considering the propaganda written for and by the New York City atheist ad campaign, by Austin Dacey and Michael De Dora, Jr. (spokesperson for the New York City campaign) via the platform of Psychology Today.

The context—historical and grammatical—of the Ten Commandments is that of giving a constitution to a brand new nation that was being built up from the ground up (I detailed this point here). The commandments deal with issues of ethics: its premise and its practice. Thus, they are to be applied to ethically questionable situations in ethical ways. For example, lying to save someone’s life would be ethical as it is protecting a life. This is because in such a case one is not lying in order to deceived someone in order to get away with something is unethical; for self-serving, selfish, petty, purposes.
Stealing to feed your family in a dire situation would be ethical while otherwise stealing would be unethical (or, some may state that in some cases, such as stealing to feed a starving family, one must do certain things even though they are unethical).
To the issue of the one-week old embryos; note that many people, such as Dacey, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Barker etc. always argue in favor of abortion by appealing to a mere clump of cells (which is what we all are in a God-free universe) whilst disregarding the fact of abortions which take place at every single stage of development.
Dan Barker (see Dan Barker's Views On Human Dignity),

a fetus that’s the size of a thumb that has, what, what would you put it in a little locket and hang it around your neck?

Sam Harris,

A 3-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all.[1]

Richard Dawkins:

Does the embryo suffer? (Presumably not if it is aborted before it has a nervous system; and even if it is old enough to have a nervous system it surely suffers less than, say, an adult cow in a slaughterhouse.)…if late-aborted embryos with nervous systems suffer – though all suffering is deplorable – it is not because they are human that they suffer. There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any stage suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage.[2]

Remember “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”?[3] Well, a cow is a sheep is a fly is a human baby. Incidentally, the feeling of pain as an arbiter of when abortion is or is not ethical is an arbitrary assertion; if we could anesthetize somebody’s body completely could we then proceed to murder them? In fact, abortion is none-but the brutal and yes, sometimes painful murder of beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies—inhuman, subhuman brutality is committed in dismembering the bodies of babies.

At this point I should perhaps state that I am 100% pro-choice in that I believe that every woman has the right to choose whether or not to get pregnant. Once she is pregnant we deal with ethical issues. For example, in the case of the mother’s life being in jeopardy it is ethical to have an abortion because the alternative is standing by, doing nothing and watching two people die instead of doing something to at least save one life.
But what is the point of abortion? Since life begins at conception (when the sperm fertilized the egg) the person getting the abortion does not want what they know to be a human being to exist any longer, they do not want them to live, they do not want to have to deal with them, and so they take action to rid themselves of this bothersome person.
They dehumanizing them as “zygote,” “embryo,” “conceptus,” “by-product of conception,” etc. Terms which no woman who is looking forward to the birth of her baby would use, “Oh, my by-product of conception just kicked!” This is why it is murder at any stage of development; it is keeping a human being from developing from a fertilized egg into a person who argues in favor of brutalizing babies as long as they are a few inches on the inside of a woman.

Austin Dacey continues,

It cannot tell us why we should follow it, rather than some other set. Of course, it would be no help to add an Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Follow Commandments since the same question would arise about that commandment

Here he is admitting the ultimate metaphysical or transcendental foundation for all and any ethical system and he is missing the point that the regress is actually finite and ends at the foot of the Triune God. This is the case within the context of the Decalogue as well as logically (as I demonstrated with regards to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.) and it is why it does indeed, tell us why we should follow it, rather than some other set.
Note, again, that since the Decalogue is the, as it were, founding document of the nation of Israel it provides the premise of, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2-3). God liberated the Israelites form the four centuries of slavery—Egyptian slavery, which atheists never condemn—and defeated the gods of Egypt; this is why He is qualified to guide them.

Dacey further states,

We are the ones who must discern whether it is a voice to be trusted…[and] decide which of these voices made the most sense. Moral thinking is like that. No one else can do it for you.

This is another false dichotomy which juxtaposes ethical imperatives such as the Decalogue, on the one hand, and discerning, deciding, thinking, on the other.
Whence did he get the idea that never the twain shall meet? They were meant to meet, they were supposed to meet and they have met. Considering life and logic as we know it, God could not make a statement that was not filtered through human reason since the manner in which we are designed makes it so that all information, from the conceptual to the sensual, is filtered through our minds and brains and are therefore subject to human reason. Moreover, God is the very one who urges us thusly, “let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).

Austin Dacey notes:

Sometimes it is said that human life is valuable because we are made in the image of God. But we have no idea what the image of God looks like, except as reflected in the things we find valuable in human beings, like imagination or self-awareness. It is not that we find life to have worth because we believe we are made in the image of God, but rather that we believe we are made in the image of God because we find life to have worth.

Note the disconnect: Sometimes it is said that human life is valuable because we are made in the image of God but we have no idea what the image of God looks like except that we do as reflected in the things we find valuable in human beings, like imagination or self-awareness. This is a non sequitur as we do not need to know what the image of looks like in order to claim that human life is valuable because we are made in that image. By this reasoning we could not claim that life has worth, as Dacey claimed, since we do not know what “worth” looks like except ____________ (fill in the blank). The last sentence is merely a presuppositional atheist assertion.

Dacey does make one positive point even whilst offering a however, however:

No one can ignore the importance of Judeo-Christian values to the history of Western cultures, and no one can deny that faith is a source of virtue for many people. However, in the evolution of humanity, religion arose after the capacity for reason and empathy--the conscience. And in determining which values are best, we have no alternative but to rely on conscience.

As per above, we epistemically agree on the administering function of the conscience whilst disagreeing about the ontology premise upon which it functions; his being “evolution” and mine being theism.

Lastly, having done what he thinks is discrediting the Judeo-Christian ethic Austin Dacey declares “the secular message”,

This is the secular message: Ethics comes from below, not above. It is a message that reaches out to believers as well as atheists--and anyone else who might be riding the subway.

My conclusion is that ethics comes from above and is administered from below and that this God authored and given ethos is a message that reaches out to believers as well as atheists. God leaves no one unguided and un-provided for: He gives all of us His ethos in our very beings and our conscience whereby to administer it; “He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).

[1] Sam Harris, “A Dissent: The Case Against Faith - Religion does untold damage to our politics. An atheist’s lament,” MSNBC / Newsweek, Nov. 13, 2006
[2] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), pp. 293, 297
[3] Ingrid Newkirk, (President, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals-PETA) Vogue, September, 1989

Friedrich Nietzsche Nails Richard Dawkins

2010-01-14T07:00:00.005-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Atheism

Alvin Plantinga - Warranted Christian Belief

2010-01-13T19:00:00.001-07:00

The entire text of philosopher Alvin Plantinga’s book Warranted Christian Belief is available online.

Old school page turners may be interested in the actual tree killing paper printed, ink wasting, glue bound book—where is Al Gore when you need him?!?!

Here are the hyperlinked sections:

Title Page
Dedication
Preface

Part I. Is There a Question?
1. Kant
I. The Problem
II. Kant
A. Two Worlds or One?
B. Arguments or Reasons?
2. Kaufman and Hick
I. Kaufman
A. The Real Referent and the Available Referent
B. The Function of Religious Language
II. Hick
A. The Real
B. Coherent?
C. Religiously Relevant?
D. Is There Such a Thing?

Part II. What is the Question?
3. Justification and the Classical Picture
I. John Locke
A. Living by Reason
B. Revelation
II. Classical Evidentialism, Deontologism, and Foundationalism
A. Classical Foundationalism
B. Classical Deontologism
III. Back to the Present
IV. Problems with the Classical Picture
A. Self-Referential Problems
B. Most of Our Beliefs Unjustified?
V. Christian Belief Justified
VI. Analogical Variations
A. Variations on Classical Foundationalism
B. Variations on the Deontology
C. Is This the de Jure Question?
4. Rationality
I. Some assorted versions of rationality
A. Aristotelian Rationality
B. Rationality as Proper Function
C. The Deliverances of Reason
D. Means-Ends Rationality
II. Alstonian Practical Rationality
A. The Initial Question
B. Doxastic Practices
C. Epsitemic Circularity
D. The Argument for Practical Rationality
E. Practical Rationality Initially Characterized
F. The Original Position
G. The Wide Original Position
H. A Narrow Original Position?
5. Warrant and the Freud-and-Marx Complaint
I. The F&M Complaint
A. Freud
B. Marx
C. Others
D. How Shall We Understand the F&M Complaint?
II. Warrant: The Sober Truth
III. The F&M Complaint Again

Part III. Warranted Christian Belief
6. Warranted Belief in God
I. The Aquinas/Calvin Model
A. Models
B. Presentation of the Model
II. Is Belief in God Warrant-Basic?
A. If False, Probably Not
B. If True, Probably So
III. The de Jure Question is not Independent of the de Facto Question
IV. The F&M Complaint Revisited
7. Sin and Its Cognitive Consequences
I. Preliminaries
II. Initial Statement of the Extended Model
III. The Nature of Sin
IV. The Noetic Effects of Sin
A. The Basic Consequences
B. Sin and Knowledge
8. The Extended Aquinas/Calvin Model: Revealed to Our Minds
I. Faith
II. How Does Faith Work?
III. Faith and Positive Epistemic Status
A. Justification
B. Internal Rationality
C. External Rationality and Warrant: Faith is Knowledge
IV. Proper Basicality and the Role of Scripture
V. Comparison with Locke
VI. Why Necessary?
VII. Cognitive Renewal
9. The Testimonial Model: Sealed upon Our Hearts
I. Belief and Affection
II. Jonathan Edwards
A. Intellect and Will: Which Is Prior?
B. The Affirmations of Faith
III. Analogue of Warrant
IV. Eros
10. Objections
I. Warrant and the Argument from Religious Experience
II. What Can Experience Show?
III. A Killer Argument?
IV. Son of Great Pumpkin?
V. Circularity?

Part IV. Defeaters?
11. Defeaters and Defeat
I. The Nature of Defeaters
II. Defeaters for Christian or Theistic Belief
III. Projective Theories a Defeater for Christian Belief?
12. Two (or More) Kinds of Scripture Scholarship
I. Scripture Divinely Inspired
II. Traditional Christian Biblical Commentary
III. Historical Biblical Criticism
A. Varieties of Historical Biblical Criticism
B. Tensions with Traditional Christianity
IV. Why Aren’t Most Christians More Concerned?
A. Force Majeure
B. A Moral Imperative?
C. Historical Biblical Criticism More Inclusive?
V. Nothing to be Concerned About
A. Troeltschian Historical Biblical Criticism Again
B. Non-Troeltschian Historical Biblical Criticism
C. Conditionalization
VI. Concluding Coda
13. Postmodernism and Pluralism
I. Postmodernism
A. Is Postmodernism Inconsistent with Christian Belief?
B. Do These Claims Defeat Christian Belief?
C. Postmodernism a Failure of Nerve
II. Pluralism
A. A Probabilistic Defeater?
B. The Charge of Moral Arbitrariness
14. Suffering and Evil
I. Evidential Atheological Arguments
A. Rowe’s Arguments
B. Draper’s Argument
II. Nonargumentative Defeaters?

[Original] Index
Indexes
Index of Scripture References
Greek Words and Phrases
Index of Pages of the Print Edition

Austin Dacey and the Psychology Today Sell Out – On Ethics, Bus Ads and Atheism, part 1

2010-01-13T07:00:00.000-07:00

What happens when you give Austin Dacey the floor of Psychology Today to discuss ethics with the advent of atheist bus ads/billboards? You get Austin Dacey teaming up with Michael De Dora, Jr., who is the spokesperson for the New York City campaign (surely, a coincidence), and an anti-Judeo-Christian tirade disguised as psychology, or philosophy, or something.[1]

Sadly, the article is not only propaganda written for and by the New York City atheist ad campaign, it is an attempt to discredit Judeo-Christian ethics/theology which plays upon fallacious atheist talking-points. This is not surprising as the very purpose of the article besmirches Judeo-Christianity and promulgates a pseudo-gospel: “This is the secular message.”
Granted, the article presupposes atheism yet, that is not its main problems which is that 1) it demonstrates a basic lack of knowledge of the Bible’s statements on ethics, 2) on how they are premised, 3) on how they are administered and most problematic 4) it presents a false dichotomy which juxtaposes divine commandments, on the one hand, and our ability to—our need to—muse upon and or react to moral situations, on the other.

Austin Dacey specifically references “the ‘good without God’ posters” and notes that certain media outlets have “characterized them as ads promoting atheism” which they most certainly do and which is acknowledge, “the campaign aims to reach out to nonbelievers” yet, “it also raises a broader issue—something most people seem to have missed.” First, note that they promote atheism by urging the rejection of God and they are being promoted by having atheists such as Austin Dacey and Michael De Dora, Jr. use the platform of Psychology Today to seek to discredit one particular theology whilst promoting atheism.

Dacey writes,

The obvious meaning of "good without God" is that atheists can be good people. But a closer look reveals a more universal message: people can be good regardless of their beliefs about God. From this perspective, the ad was not about atheism, but about the nature of morality…When we act ethically, our reasons are usually nothing transcendental, just simple respect and compassion for others.

That “atheists can be good people” is something that I am not aware that anyone contends (the fact that studies consistently show that they are the least “good” amongst us is another matter) yet, seeking to defeat an argument that no one has made is a favored premise for atheist talking-points.
Let us dive right into his, apparent, lack of knowledge of the Biblical statements on this matter as he states, “people can be good regardless of their beliefs about God”: true,

when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them (Romans 2:14-15).

These two verses are enough to discredit Austin Dacey’s criticism’s of Judeo-Christian theology with regards to ethics since they postulate that 1) Gentiles—non-Jews who do not believe in God (the only true God as per the Bible’s context)—can be moral, 2) because “regardless of their beliefs about God” they show the work of the law written in their hearts, 3) as the law—the moral code, the ethos—is administered via their conscience which bears witness; convicts or excuses/condemns or approves. In fact, the Bible further claims that people can abuse their conscience to the point that they end up, “having their own conscience seared with a hot iron” (1st Timothy 4:2).
For now, let us note that he offers a sort of definition of ethics as “simple respect and compassion for others”; why we should be ethical, have respect and compassion, goes unstated—this is his atheist commandment. He does not seem to consider that what is necessary, what his commandment is missing, is a premise. A premise will always turn out to be something transcendental as when we ask “Why express respect and compassion?” another assertion will be made to which we can again ask “Why…?” and then another assertion will be made to which we can again ask “Why…?” and on it goes. What we need is an ultimate premise, an ethical ontology and not just an epistemology—we need an ethos.

Dacey wrote, “No set of commandments is self-authorizing…no voice of moral authority is self-authenticating” which, if we grant it, means that neither are Austin Dacey’s condemnations of Judeo-Christian ethics self-authenticating nor his commandment; to what then is he appealing? As G.K. Chesterton noted, “all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind.”[2] We will see that he ultimately bases his condemnation on “the secular message [emphasis added].”

Austin Dacey continues:

With split seconds to save a stranger from death on the tracks at the 137th Street subway station, Wesley Autrey didn't pause to seek divine guidance or reflect on his reward in heaven…As Autrey later explained, "I just saw someone who needed help. I did what I felt was right." The exact words that went through his head were, "Fool, you got to go in there." Responsibility is like that. No one else can claim it for you.

While the implication is that this was pure impulse; it was premised upon the transcendental ethos—ontology—and was impulsive only by having been premised upon the ethos; in other words it was a moments action that was prepared by a lifetime of ethical considerations, specific training and maybe, maybe even God’s urging.
While it is stated that he “didn't pause to seek divine guidance…” Autrey did stated, “I had to make a split decision,” and “Since I do construction work with Local 79, we work in confined spaces a lot. So I looked, and my judgment was pretty right. The train did have enough room for me” so part of it was a trained assessment based reaction. Moreover, it is very odd to note that it, again, was not merely impulsive but directed by “words that went through his head”; might this be God’s “still, small voice”? Perhaps “Autrey didn't pause to seek divine guidance” but he got is anyway.
In any regard, Autrey stated that he “just saw someone who needed help. I did what I felt was right” but what if he felt that what was right was to save his own skin and sit safely by? Well, in an atheistic/Darwinian sense this too would be moral as it would go some ways toward assure the propagation of his DNA whilst leaving the less fit to be run over by a train—he has young daughters and needs to be there to provide for them.

The statement that “Autrey didn't pause to…reflect on his reward in heaven” is an unfortunate statement in that it is 1) presumptive, 2) unnecessarily belligerent and 3) a fallacious atheist talking-point to which I have responded in the essay: The Red Light of Punishment

Employing another apparently compulsory jab at Judeo-Christianity, Austin Dacey continues,

Moral choices are not always as clear-cut as Autrey's. The solution to complex ethical debates is seldom as clear as a stone tablet or a voice from a burning bush. One problem with stone tablets is that there is only so much you can fit on them. Lists of shalts and shalt nots in and of themselves can never be comprehensive and precise enough to render right answers on borderline cases and contemporary issues.

This sort of statement is exemplary of making an accurate assessment but coming to the wrong conclusion—and that, due to a lack of knowledge, or so it seems to me. This is because indeed, ethical choices are not always clear-cut yet, he seems to think, as he is sadly reinforced in his conclusion by many Judeo-Christians, that by an absolute ethical code or ethos what is meant is one single and narrow prescription for each and every situation.
This is not so, what is absolute is the premise, the ontology, the ethos: the spirit of the law is the parchment upon which the letter of the law is written. This premise/ontology/ethos/spirit of the law is no mere list of “shalts and shalt nots” but it is what provides the basis upon which to render right answers on borderline cases and contemporary issues.

As an example of the supposed non-specificity of the “shalts and shalt nots” Austin Dacey notes,

"Shalt not kill" does not resolve whether one-week old embryos count as the kind of thing that may not be killed; "shalt not steal" does not explain when derivatives trading becomes stealing.

I note a tinge of desperation whereby to turn murder into a “secular message” approved, ethical, act. Note that he references “kill” while I refer to “murder” which is, regardless of the translation, that to which the biblical text refers (killing being the legal and moral taking of a life such as in self-defense, a just war, etc. while murder is the illegal and immoral taking of an innocent life such as happens in the midst of committing a crime). Of course, there are other “shalt nots” such as not committing adultery for which there is no reason to break but only fallacious excuses—this is because there is no way to make adultery into something ethical, there is no moral good which comes from it.

[1] Austin Dacey, Ph.D., “The Secular Conscience - Why belief belongs in public life - Putting God out of the ethics business - The deeper meaning of the "good without God" ad campaign,” Psychology Today, November 2, 2009
[2] In a chapter of his book “Orthodoxy” entitled “The Suicide of Thought”

Darwin’s Dilemma of Suppressing Opposing Views by Means of Unnatural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Theories in the Struggle for Life

2010-01-12T19:00:00.001-07:00

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Atheism and Science - Is There a Relation?, part 3 - On the Difference Between Science and Philosophy: Richard Dawkins

2010-01-12T07:00:00.001-07:00

In that which follows I will 1) agree with Richard Dawkins, 2) point out his “faith” based adherence to atheistic materialism and 3) answer his ultimate question.

In part 1; I explained that atheists who claim to base their atheism on science are actually admitting to purposefully employing a method, the scientific method, that was intelligently designed to only explore the material, which observes and experiments upon the material and does so in order to come to material conclusions and then claim that the material is all that there is.

In part 2, we saw how Massimo Pigliucci explained the difference between science and philosophy and elucidated that science is premised upon philosophy. That is to say that science, methodological materialism, and atheism (of which ever sect) is based on metaphysics: intangible, immaterial, unobserved, un-experimented upon, not proved nor evidenced but assumed—first principles, axioms, propositions, presuppositions, which are intuited.

Richard Dawkins has made various statements about how religion, theism, etc. are really irrelevant since 1) he is an atheist and such is what follows but more specific to our point 2) “science” (by which he means methods meant to prove his view of atheism) will ultimately answer all and every question or they will be left unanswered as “religious” answers are to be rejected—he is a big fan of answering question by appealing to the scientists-are-working-on-it of the gaps.

This means that, in this view, evidence of creation via Intelligent Design is not only lacking but is impossible since not matter what is being evidenced the answer will be that someday, oh someday, we will surely find a God-free materialistic explanation—this is “faith”; thy kinglessdom come.

My interest is in his statements, a mere couple which I reproduce here, to the affect of if science cannot explain it religion cannot either (or, as a convenient byproduct if religion does explain it, it is not science):

the deep questions — why do we exist, why does the universe exist, how big is the universe, how old is the universe, how old is the world…They are the questions that I suppose historically have been answered by religion — or have attempted to be answered by religion.[1]

I am tempted to parse the deep question considering that we must ascertain what sort of answers we seek. For example, one could answer “why do we exist” by claiming that nothing caused an eternal and uncaused piece of matter to explode for no reason and made everything. Or, that lightning struck a swamp and life came from non-life. Or, God created the heavens and the Earth and human beings in His image.

When asked “What about the old adage that science deals with the ‘how’ questions and religion deals with the ‘why’ questions?” Richard Dawkins responded:

I think that's remarkably stupid, if I may say so. What on earth is a "why" question?...They mean "why" in a deliberate, purposeful sense…Those of us who don't believe in religion -- supernatural religion -- would say there is no such thing as a "why" question in that sense. Now, the mere fact that you can frame an English sentence beginning with the word "why" does not mean that English sentence should receive an answer…[2]

If you have read the transcript of the 1948 AD debate between Bertrand Russell and F.C. Copleston you know that this is a paraphrase of Russell who seemed to think that if he claims that a question or statement is meaningless then can simply sidestep the issue—“the universe is just there and that’s all” was stated during this exchange.

Dawkins also stated:

There are core questions like, how did the universe begin? Where do the laws of physics come from? Where does life come from?...Those are all perfectly legitimate questions to which science can give answers, if not now, then we hope in the future. There may be some very, very deep questions, perhaps even where do the laws of physics come from, that science will never answer. That is perfectly possible. I am hopeful, along with some physicists, that science will one day answer that question. But even if it doesn't -- even if there are some supremely deep questions to which science can never answer -- what on earth makes you think that religion can answer those questions?[3]

Also:

Consciousness is the biggest puzzle facing biology, neurobiology, computational studies and evolutionary biology. It is a very, very big problem. I don't know the answer. Nobody knows the answer. I think one day they probably will know the answer. But even if science doesn't know the answer, I return to the question, what on earth makes you think that religion will? Just because science so far has failed to explain something, such as consciousness, to say it follows that the facile, pathetic explanations which religion has produced somehow by default must win the argument is really quite ridiculous. Nobody has an explanation for consciousness. That should be a spur to work harder and try to understand it. Not to give up and just say, "Oh well, it must be a soul." That doesn't mean anything. It doesn't explain anything. You've said absolutely nothing when you've said that.[4]

Sadly, Richard Dawkins and others in his school of thought have concocted and promulgated this false dichotomy; that it is either an atheistic scientific explanation or else a claimed act of God.
Certainly, stating something like, “God created life” is only one category of explanation. For example, it does not explain “how” God did it but could explain “why.” The point of asking “how” versus “why” questions is an attempt to narrow down what sort of answers we seek.
Claiming that God did it, “why,” does not preclude seeking to explain “how” God did it. In fact, the people who established methods and fields of science believed that God was a rational being and created a rational creation which functions according to material cause followed by material effect and that this creation and its functions could be discerned, repeatedly experimented upon and that thus, we could learn about the material realm and its creator.

The bottom line of the point which I seek to make is Dawkins’ ultimate question/statement, “what on earth makes you think that religion can answer those questions?”

Well, science functions within certain parameters whilst philosophy (theology being a branch of philosophy) is not bound by those same parameters. This is why “religion” can answer questions that science cannot. It can also answer the questions in a different way. For example, “religion” can claim that “In the beginning [time] God [a preexisting being outside of the universe] created [volitionally carried out a plan] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]” and via the scientific method we can then discern how universe expanded, is fine tuned, etc.

By understanding that there are different levels of answers to be offered and different disciplines which function under different rules we answer the question as to how and why “religion” answers certain question in certain ways that science cannot and how and why science answers certain question in certain ways that “religion” cannot.

[1] Edward Keenan, “Richard Dawkins - The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution,” Eye Weekly, September 29, 2009
[2] Steve Paulson, “The Flying Spaghetti Monster,” Salon, Oct 13, 2006
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.

What Darwin Got Wrong - Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini

2010-01-11T19:00:00.000-07:00

Next month Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini will published an interesting sounding book, What Darwin Got Wrong

The following is from Amazon.com

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

Praise for What Darwin Got Wrong
“A challenging, intriguing argument that poses important scientific and philosophical questions about evolution . . . Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini take a brave stance that will likely draw reaction . . . from across the scientific and theological spectrum. A dense, scholarly, engaging testament to modern scientific thinking and its ability to adapt and evolve.” —Kirkus Reviews

“From the shocking title onward, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini have set the cat among Darwin’s pigeons. In arguing why the operation of natural selection says nothing about the causal mechanisms underlying the evolution of coextensive traits in an organism, they take us to the conceptual fault line at the heart of Darwin’s theory. My prediction is that Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini’s book will raise hackles galore wherever the theory of natural selection is all too glibly misused, not only in studies of the ontogeny and phylogeny of biology, but also in those great overlapping disciplines of philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and behavior—in short, human nature. This book will set the agenda for years to come. It cannot be ignored if the study of evolution is to be honest with itself.” —Gabriel Dover, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics, Universities of Leicester and Cambridge, and author of Dear Mr. Darwin: Letters on the Evolution of Life and Human Nature

“Evolution needs a persuasive theory if the struggle for public acceptance is to be won. Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini’s bold treatise, What Darwin Got Wrong, convincingly shows that natural selection is not that theory. Drawing on scientific literature spanning the molecular, behavioral, and cognitive scales, with sophisticated excursions into evolutionary-developmental biology and the physics of complex systems, the authors perform a philosophical dismantling of the standard model of evolutionary change that is likely irreversible. Their unambiguous grounding in the factuality of evolution renders this work a service to science and a setback for its opponents.” —Stuart Newman, Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy, New York Medical College

“In this provocative, enlightening, and very entertaining book, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini argue that natural selection (NS) cannot explain how evolution occurs. The argument is largely conceptual and proceeds in two steps: (1) that theories of NS are conceptually parallel to Skinnerian theories of learning and so share most of the same debilitating problems, and (2) that NS is actually in worse conceptual shape when its central explanatory notion, ‘selecting for,’ is properly unpacked. This argument will annoy a lot of important people, both for its conclusion and for the evident delight the authors display in getting to it. The ensuing fireworks should be delightful, and (possibly) enlightening.” —Norbert Hornstein, Professor of Linguistics, University of Maryland“This highly informative and carefully argued study develops two central theses. First, there are alternatives to classical neo-Darwinian adaptationist theories that are plausible, and very possibly capture principles that are the rule rather than the exception even if the basic adaptationist account is accepted. Second, that account cannot be accepted. The two theses are sufficiently independent so that they can be evaluated separately. Whatever the outcome of intellectual engagement with this stimulating work, it is sure to be a most rewarding experience.” —Noam Chomsky

Product Description
This is not a book about God, or about intelligent design. Rather, here is a remarkable book, one that dares to challenge natural selection—not in the name of religion but in the name of good science. Most scientists are so terrified of religious attacks on the theory of evolution that it is never examined critically.

But there are major scientific and philosophical problems with the theory of natural selection. Darwin claimed the factors that determine the course of evolution are very largely environmental. This is a thesis that empirical results in biology are increasingly calling into question. The authors show that Darwinism is committed to inferring, from the premise that a kind of creature with a certain trait was selected, the conclusion that that kind of creature was selected for having that trait. Though such inferences are fallacious, they are nevertheless unavoidable within the Darwinist framework. Ultimately, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini level a devastating critique against Darwinist orthodoxy and suggest new ways of thinking about evolution.

Fodor first presented his critique in the London Review of Books, in an article that generated heated discussion on both sides of the Atlantic. What Darwin Got Wrong is certain to be as controversial as it is precisely argued.

ITS NAME IS DOOM — PZ Myers’ A Priori Presuppositional Presumption of Atheism

2010-01-11T07:00:00.001-07:00

Martin Buber on the “deactualized self”:

The capricious man does not believe and encounter. He does not know association; he only knows the feverish world out there and his feverish desire to use it…

When he says You, he means: You, my ability to use!...

In truth he has no destiny but is merely determined by things and drives, feels autocratic, and is capricious.
He has no great will and tries to pass off caprice in its place….

But the unbelieving marrow of the capricious man cannot perceive anything but unbelief and caprice, positing ends and devising means. His world is devoid of sacrifice and grace, encounter and present, but shot through with ends and means: it could not be different and its name is doom.

For all his autocratic bearing, he is inextricably entangled in unreality; and he becomes aware of this whenever he recollects his own condition. Therefore he takes pains to use the best part of his mind to prevent or at least obscure such recollection.[1]

Having endured and digested the death knell which PZ Myers authored it seemed relevant to dissect certain portions.

Some people seemed to be honestly taken, in a good way in their estimation, by PZ Myers’ materialistic, mechanistic, reductionist, view of life. When that is all you think you have then, that is all you think you have. Sadly, they do not seem to stop, dissect his statements and note that they are premised upon an a priori presuppositional presumption of atheism.

Certainly, this is nothing but what one would expect, that an atheist to presuppose atheism, but one must nevertheless connect the dots of one thoughts and ask how PZ Myers reached such conclusions.

Let us glean from his essay Happy Wary Vigilance Day! about which we ought be wary and vigilant as it is a very, very confused text. This is because he attempts to weave together theism with materialism; a theistic concept with a materialistic application. Since this rather odd arrangement does not work, he takes pleasure in pointing out that it does not work and yet, it is a fallacious concoction of his own.

Let us note that within the text PZ Myers offers a Mosaic-mosaic as he promulgates four positive and six negative commandments all premised upon a positive atheism spiked “get over it”:

1. Sit at that table and contemplate the threats to your existence

2. Thank [helpful people] them personally

3. Share human feelings with other human beings

4. Have a grand old day off

5. Don't sit at your table and think you're being good

6. Don't beam happy thoughts

7. Don't be hypocritical and radiate gratitude

8. None of this nonsense

9. Don't waste your time praying

10. Forget this silly business of feeling blindly thankful

Thus saith PZ.

He begins by stating “Sorry, I don't believe in Thanksgiving Day” which is not surprising since whether you consider the Pilgrims or George Washington’s declaration; both reveal the Judeo-Christian, or generically theistic, premises upon which the USA is based.

PZ Myers presupposes positive atheism in the following terms:
1. “there is nothing out there that can be aware of just how glad you are to be alive” – please prove it.
2. “there's no agent out there who will feel pleased that you noticed” – please prove it.
3. “Also, gods don't exist, so they haven't done squat for you. Don't waste your time praying to them, either” – please prove it.

Based upon this unproven, unevidenced, a prior worldview adherence he states “This whole notion that one should have vague and aimless feelings of gratitude for the nature of one's existence is just too weird” which is an arguments from personal incredulity; what seems weird to PZ Myers has no relevance to what is factual, true, moral, etc. Also, he is injecting the concepts of “vague” and “aimless” into the act so that it is easier for him to discredit. Yet, when I am grateful for my existence it is not “vague” and “aimless” but specific and aimful.
He makes the same fallacious presumption again in stating, “None of this nonsense of bland, undirected, unfocused, smug gratitude”; fine, none of that, but he is presupposing that they, we, are being bland, undirected, unfocused and smug. And again “forget this silly business of feeling blindly thankful” done; but who is being blindly thankful? He only thinks this as it is a logical conclusion from his illogical atheism.

He continues by stating that the “bow-your-head-at-the-table and radiate-blessings-at-the-cosmos tradition is pointless and silly.” I fully agree, even though what he or I think is pointless and silly is irrelevant. Since he presupposes positive atheism he thinks that people are “bow-your-head…radiate-blessings” aka praying “at-the-cosmos” but they are not; they are addressing God.

He states, “The universe is cold and uncaring” with which I fully agree. Yet, when we bow-our-heads radiating blessings we are not addressing the universe but its creator. Likewise with the statement, “don't sit at your table and think you're being good by warmly thanking an indifferent universe for whatever. It doesn't care”; true but who is doing any such thing? He also states, “Nature is not appeasable, get over it” done; it is gotten over, but who thought to appease nature, Pagans?

Now to the next issue which is that “Gratitude is to be shared between sentient beings” with which I again agree: I am grateful to a sentient God. His point is “Don't get me wrong: I can be appropriately and happily grateful to people who have gone out of their way to do good for me…for the most part, our existence is not the product of selfless altruism.”
From here he explains that even the people you may imagine thanking are not worthy since they are merely greedily serving their own needs as he references “the machineries of profit…the market forces” thus:

Then a gang of people who were mostly concerned with trudging through another day and making a living wage decapitated it, gouged out its guts, stripped off its feathers, and wrapped it in plastic so you could thoughtlessly stuff fragments of its carcass into your hungry maw…If you're eating tofurkey, you aren't off the hook, either. Think of the soybeans!...Don't beam happy thoughts at the farmers who stocked your larder — they can't hear you, and they did it for their own personal profit anyway…you probably do have people who have done good things for you, at personal cost, and without carrying out the calculus of profit. If you want to have a day of thankfulness, thank them personally.

This is a false dichotomy as during my Thanksgiving Day supper, and I imagine that of many others, we thanked both God and humans. We rendered to Cesar that which is Cesar’s and to God that which is God’s.

Note that he references “luck” in the following terms, “We're all doomed. We are currently survivors by luck, sustained by selfish processes, and I don't thank luck” since it is fickle and asks if we would be “resentful of nonexistence, or place blame for random bad luck?”
Well, I, for one, do not believe in luck—good, bad or indifferent. But in the worldviews of PZ Myers and, as a prime example Richard Dawkins, “luck” replaces “miracle” but offers the same results, occupies the same station: the luck-of-the-gaps that can accomplish anything whilst filling the gaps in our knowledge. This is how Dawkins states it:

It is as though, in our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 145).

Explain[ing] how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises...makes heavier demands on luck(The God Delusion, p. 121).

Is it any wonder that he concludes,

We don’t actually need a plausible theory of the origin of life (The Greatest Show on Earth, p. 421)

If we are just here and that’s all, we need not bothersome explanations.

Thus, PZ Myers is overall confusing a theistic premise with a positive atheistic application, basing his comments on prejudicial presuppositions of that which people are doing during Thanksgiving and only accurately representing the doom, gloom and hopelessness which is the logical conclusion of atheism.

[1] Martin Buber (Walter Kaufmann, trans.), I and Thou (New York: Scribner’s, 1970), p. 111

This essay is copyrighted by Mariano of the “Atheism is Dead” blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com.
It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose—in agreement or in order to criticize it—only as long as the following conditions are met:
1) Give credit to “Mariano of the ‘Atheism is Dead’ blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com”
2) Inform me as to which essay is being reproduced and where it is being reproduced via the comments section at this link

Atheism and Science - Is There a Relation?, part 2 - On the Difference Between Science and Philosophy: Massimo Pigliucci

2010-01-10T07:00:00.003-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Science

About.com, Austin Cline, Adolf Hitler and the Continued Promulgation of Nazi Propaganda, part 5

2010-01-09T07:00:00.004-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

Sam Harris Proves Karen Armstrong’s Point

2010-01-08T19:00:00.002-07:00

Sam Harris—atheist activist and pseudo-neuroscientist—attempted to take Karen Armstrong to task and did a splendid job of strengthening her point. Karen Armstrong wrote an article with which Sam Harris took umbrage yet, being an emotive reactionary he simply fails to respond intellectually and merely poured derision upon her whilst providing even more evidence to back up her original point.

Sam Harris wrote:

In her article ("Think Again: God," November 2009), Karen Armstrong discovers that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and I have mistaken "fundamentalism" for the totality of religion. (Sorry about that.) But do Richard and Christopher really hold religion responsible for "all human cruelty"? That is a surprise. I hadn't realized that they were idiots.[1]

Well, welcome to the light of day Mr. Harris.

Considering statements such as Christopher Hitchens’ “religion poisons everything” (it is right there on the very front of his book).

Or, Richard Dawkins’ statement:

Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition (religious riots between Hindus and Muslims where more than a million people were massacred), no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as “Christ-killers”, no Northern Ireland “troubles”, no “honour killings”, no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money (“God wants you to give till it hurts”). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it.

The fact that this is jejune, myopic, historically absurd and that he backs away from it when challenged does not negate the fact that he promulgated this position.

The problem is not that the debunked New Atheists are only ever seen asserting that religion responsible for "all human cruelty"? but that they are so lacking in making balanced statements that one is virtually forced such a conclusion. Whether it is Sam Harris, “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, Harris explains, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion”[2] or the New Atheists anti-historical denial that atheism motivated Communism they, themselves, are to be faulted for the manner in which they come across.
Sam Harris prescribes capital punishment for thought crime and is then shocked when people are shocked by the fact that he prescribes capital punishment for thought crime, “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”[3]
Sam Harris’ first book was titled The End of Faith—Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and not The End of the Various Human Nature Related Dangers to the World—Whether Faith-Based or Not.

But what is Sam Harris’ specific response to his notion that Karen Armstrong mistakenly believes that the New Atheists “really hold religion responsible for ‘all human cruelty’”? He adds fuel to the fire and proves her point by launching into a tirade against religion—and he did not realize that he is an…well; his words, not mine.

Let us glean from Sam Harris’ article:

I can't quite remember how we got it into our heads that jihad was linked to violence. (Might it have had something to do with the actual history and teachings of Islam?) And how could we have been so foolish as to connect the apparently inexhaustible supply of martyrs in the Muslim world to the Islamic doctrine of martyrdom?...

The point is not whether Sam Harris is correct but that he never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He has a chance to elucidate the fair and balanced views which he claims to hold but he does not, will not or cannot.

He then references, “a preoccupation with witchcraft” such as “belief in the curative powers of human flesh” in Africa.

He notes that in “Kenya elderly men and women are still burned alive for casting malicious spells.”

That “In Angola, unlucky boys and girls have been blinded, injected with battery acid, and killed outright in an effort to purge them of demons.”

That “In Tanzania, there is a growing criminal trade in the body parts of albino human beings -- as it is widely believed that their flesh has magical properties.”

And concludes, “I sincerely hope that my ‘new atheist’ colleagues are not so naive as to imagine that actual belief in magic might be the issue here.” Again and again, that is not the point; his understanding of her assertion was that he and the New Atheists hold that “religion responsible for ‘all human cruelty’” and he proves it and adds more weight to it.

In part, Karen Armstrong replied thusly:

It is clear that we need a debate about the role of religion in public life and the relationship between science and religion. I just wish this debate could be conducted in a more Socratic manner. Socrates, founder of the Western rationalist tradition, always insisted that any dialogue must be conducted with gentleness and courtesy, and without malice. In our highly polarized world, we really do not need yet another deliberately contentious and divisive discourse.

I think that she simply does not understand; to personages such as Sam Harris “religious” people are antiquated evolutionary vestiges no more to be regarded with respect than a mosquito that in biting you.

Since Sam Harris’ worldview is premised upon a rejection of God his responses cannot help but being emotionally motivated and charged, he is certainly exciting and inciting but he is simply in error.

For this is the will of God,
that by doing good you may put
to silence the ignorance of foolish men
—1st Peter 2:15

[1] Sam Harris, “The God Fraud,” Foreign Policy, January/February, 2010
[2] Jörg Blech, “THE NEW ATHEISTS - Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists,” Spiegel, October 26, 2006
[3] Sam Harris, The End of Faith—Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2004 ), pp. 52–53

Atheism and Science - Is There a Relation?, part 1

2010-01-08T07:00:00.007-07:00

One of the most ubiquitously employed atheist talking point is to basically use the word “atheism” and “science” in the same sentence whilst expressing anything at all related in any way to any discussion of atheism / theism (same goes for “atheism” and “evolution” but that is another issue).

Yet, what is the relation of atheism with science or science with atheism?

Atheism is Dead has already determined that science has nothing to offer atheism in the post Omni-Science. Yet, it seemed appropriate to focus on the specific question of what is the conclusion of having many atheists claim that they base their atheism on science or that science implies an atheistic universe.

What is science? There are many definitions. Within the comments section of Atheism is Dead an atheist even included feelings in their definition of science. There is science as method, science as profession, science as co-opted by atheism, science as supposed know it all, science as only providing the best guess thus far, science as an operational process, science as a body of knowledge, science as a thing to be manipulated via schools of thought and professional rivalries, forensic science, hard science, soft science, etc., etc., etc.[1]

Let us consider common definitions of what people generally mean by “science” particularly within our context: science denotes a series of fields of study which apply certain methods—such as observation, testability and repeatable experimentation—which seek to ascertain, to the best of our current ability, the workings of the physical world / nature / the material realm. True science functions within limits, admits these limitations and does not pretend to go beyond them.

Many great and influential scientists, those who established the methods and fields of science in the first place, were theists of one sort or another—mostly from the Judeo-Christian tradition. These scientists premised the scientific endeavor upon their belief that there was a God, that this God is a rational being, that thus this rational God had created a rational creation and that therefore, the creation functions upon certain established laws which ensure a continuum which allows us to explore, observe and reproduce experiments—they believed in the heuristic God. Sans such rational consistency; one scientist would observe ice melting into water and another would observe ice melting into a dyslexic chinchilla.

The main point here is that those great scientists who established the methods and fields of science were intelligently designing a manner by which to explore God’s creation—the physical world, nature, the material realm—they believed that God created the material realm and thus, that therein there functions a system of material causes bringing about material effects. Some atheists seem to think that the more we uncover material causes for material effects the more that God becomes a superfluous concept. This may be a good defeater for certain theologies.
Yet, speaking from a Judeo-Christian perspective: material causes for material effects are only expected. This is a scientific prediction made within the Bible itself as God created the material realm, created time in which it functions and ceased from His creation activities (this was a biblical prediction of the first law of thermodynamics) so that it may function as tuned.

To reiterate: it is not surprising to theists and not deleterious to theism when scientists discover material causes bringing about material effects. Yet, this is too generalized as there certainly are theologies which claim that god(s) do things such as directly and constantly causing natural phenomenon such as a lightning god/dess, rain god/dess, wind god/dess, etc.

Thus, various theologies of these sorts may actually be discredited through scientific methods. However, others may not. For example, Judeo-Christian theology specifically denies that God is busy causing each and every natural phenomenon. It may claim that God is ultimately responsible for the whole of creation and may even act during specific events to cause certain supernatural phenomenon to occur but that God established the natural phenomenon and yet is not part of them; does not have to constantly cause them to occur (for example, the Bible describes the hydrological cycle[2]).

In fact, the Bible presents an interesting anti-pantheistic example:

Then He said [to Elijah], “Go out, and stand on the mountain before the LORD.”
And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore into the mountains and broke the rocks in pieces before the LORD,
but the LORD was not in the wind;
and after the wind an earthquake,
but the LORD was not in the earthquake;
and after the earthquake a fire,
but the LORD was not in the fire;
and after the fire a still small voice (1st Kings 19:11-12).

In any regard, let us clearly note that science is about exploring and understanding the material realm; it considers the one corner of reality to which it has access. Science is specifically restricted from even considering the vast majority of what is claimed to be supernatural. Now, since science is relatively very young it may evolve to the point where it can, for instance, develop the ability to detect the signs of design.

Scott C. Todd, Department of Biology, Kansas State University wrote,

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

The reason that this sentiment is fallacious is because it amounts to worldview adherence. If all the data point to an intelligent designer, science would thus change in order to accommodate the new evidence. Excluding evidence because it does not fit the theory is unscientific (Todd’s fuller statement is dissected in Omni-Science).

Atheists who claim to base their particular worldviews on science are tantamount to horses wearing blinders (aka blinkers or winkers). Blinders allow some vision but restrict the ascertaining of the complete view: they allow vision directly ahead of the horse but restrict the side and backwards view.
Science is the atheist’s blinders since through it they do get a reasonably clear view of that which is directly in front of them, but they simply cannot see anything else and thus, they conclude that there is nothing else.

The more we hear atheists claim that they base their atheism on science the more we are being alerted to the fact that what they are really admitting is that they are purposefully restricting that which they consider acceptable to consider. This is the very opposite of freethough; this is restricted well-within-the-box-group-think adherence.
They are purposefully restricting their vision and then concluding that there is nothing more to see.

Brian Cox, prominent scientist with the University of Manchester’s Particle Physics Group notes,

Scientists should be able to draw a line between things we do and don't know – they should be comfortable in doing that. We can't rule anything out as being impossible, including the existence of God or a greater being.[3]

With regards to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem it follows that science cannot fully comprehend nature in terms of nature—such knowledge cannot be self-referencing.

Generally stated atheists of the science=atheism or atheism=science school would claim that they accept only that which is scientifically verifiable.
The very first question to ask is whether this premise is scientifically verifiable. Moreover, has it been scientifically verified that scientific verification is the only true method by which to discern reality? Is it the only way to know what we ought to accept?
If it has not, and it has not, the premise is faulty and the statement disproves itself and must be discarded.

The next question to ask is if, indeed, absolute materialism been scientifically evidenced.
If it has not, and it has not, then the atheist co-option of science as somehow pointing to atheism is faulty, the statement disproves itself, and must be discarded.

You want to say something like, “Maybe not—but it is the best.” That is fine, but science is the best only at doing what it was intelligently designed to do—within parameters, no further and nothing more.

Again, consider the sentiment of accepting only that which is scientifically verifiable—since the only things that science verifies are material then such a view guarantees, a priori, a materialistic conclusion. Yet, science has no way of determining that there is nothing beyond the material, at least not at this level in its development.

Atheists who take this view are purposefully blinding themselves by accepting one narrow view of reality. They are purposefully taking a view that was specifically designed to make materialistic observations and come to materialistic conclusions about the material. Then they are telling themselves something that science does not tell them and that is that the material is all that there is—something which is not scientifically verifiable.

This is tantamount to putting on eyeglasses with red tint, looking around and concluding that the only color that exists is various shades of red. Someone may challenge such a conclusion by pointing out that there are other colors. They may urge the red bespectacled to take off the glasses and have a look around. Yet, the bespectacled simply states that the red glasses are the best way to look around the world and there is no reason to take them off. Yet, the bottom line is that they are only seeing red because they purposefully put on red glasses and refute to look through any other color.

Atheist of the rosy colored sort are purposefully staring at one little corner of reality, telling themselves that the little corner is all that there is, and refusing to turn around to see the full glory of creation.

Thus, they end up defining science as strictly materialistic; not merely in its methods but in its conclusions—conclusion which they mistakenly take to be absolute (tentative in its details but absolute in its materialism).[4]

[1] Stephen C. Meyer comments on this issue thusly (from Signature in the Cell; DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, beginning at p. 400):
“scientists in different fields use different methods…historical and structural geology use distinct (if partially overlapping) methods…
Some sciences test their theories by making predictions; some test their theories by assessing their explanatory power; some test their theories by assessing both explanatory power and predictive success.
Some methods of scientific investigation involve direct verification; some employ more indirect methods of testing.
Some test theories in isolation from competing hypotheses.
Some test theories by comparing the predictive or explanatory success of competing hypotheses.
Some branches of science formulate conjectures that cannot yet be tested at all.
Some sciences study only what can be observed.
Some sciences make inferences about entities that cannot be observed.
Some sciences reason deductively; some inductively; some abductively.
Some use all three modes of inference.
Some sciences use the hypothetico-deductive method of testing.
Some use the method of multiple competing hypotheses.”
[2] See Job 36:27-29; Psalm 135:7; Jeremiah 10:13
[3] Douglas Walker And Peter Hutchison, “In the beginning there was God AND the Big Bang (well, maybe, says top scientist),” The Scotsman, 10 April 2007
[4] Consider the observations of Richard Lewontin (Harvard University Professor of zoology and biology) as he observes that scientists have purposefully concocted an apparatus that will produce the results that they desire:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural…we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [emphasis added]

Richard Lewontin further points out the following with regards to Carl Sagan:

…he believes that “a proclivity for science is embedded deeply within us in all times, places and cultures”…He does not tell us how he used the scientific method to discover the “embedded” human proclivity for science, or the cause of its frustration. Perhaps we ought to add to the menu of Saganic demonology, just after spoon-bending, ten-second seat-of-the-pants explanations of social realities…Sagan believes that scientists reject sprites, fairies, and the influence of Sagittarius because we follow a set of procedures, the Scientific Method, which has consistently produced explanations that put us in contact with reality and in which mystic forces play no part…if the exhortation is to succeed, then the argument for the superiority of science and its method must be convincing, and not merely convincing, but must accord with its own demands. The case for the scientific method should itself be “scientific” and not merely rhetorical. Unfortunately, the argument may not look as good to the unconvinced as it does to the believer. [emphasis added]

He references Carl Sagan and his Saganic demonology due to the fact that these comments were made within his review of Sagan’s book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (read the full text here).

This essay is copyrighted by Mariano of the “Atheism is Dead” blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com.
It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose—in agreement or in order to criticize it—only as long as the following conditions are met:
1) Give credit to “Mariano of the ‘Atheism is Dead’ blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com”
2) Inform me as to which essay is being reproduced and where it is being reproduced via the comments section at this link

About.com, Austin Cline, Adolf Hitler and the Continued Promulgation of Nazi Propaganda, part 4

2010-01-07T07:00:00.002-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

One-Minute Answers to Skeptics: Concise Responses to the Top 40 Questions—Charlie H. Campbell

2010-01-06T19:00:00.002-07:00

Hot off of the press, as of January 1, 2010 AD, Charlie H. Campbell has published a new book titled, One-Minute Answers to Skeptics: Concise Responses to the Top 40 Questions

From Harvest House Publishers:

Speaking all over the Unites States about apologetics issues, Charlie Campbell has heard just about every question skeptics have to offer. In this concise, reader-friendly handbook, he provides brief responses to the top-40 questions that keep people from the faith, such as…
What evidence do you have that God exists?
How do you know the Bible is actually true?
What about those who have never heard of Jesus?
Will they be condemned to hell?
If God is so loving, why does He allow evil and suffering?
How can you say Jesus is the only way to heaven?
Don’t all religions basically teach the same thing?
Aren’t a lot of churchgoers hypocrites?

With a gracious introductory note to skeptical readers and a generous sprinkling of inspiring quotes throughout, this handy resource is an enjoyable read as well as a powerful evangelistic tool.

Endorsements:

“This is a handy book with helpful answers for busy people.”
—Dr. Norman Geisler, author or coauthor of more than 70 books, including The Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics

“A refreshing model of ‘conversational apologetics’! This book will equip you to be ‘always ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within you.’”
—Nancy Leigh DeMoss, author and Revive Our Hearts radio host

“Outstanding...such good answers!”
—Chuck Smith, founding pastor, Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa

“I hope many seekers will give serious consideration to the thoughts so well expressed in this timely and pithy book. Well worth reading.”
—Charles Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship and author of more than 20 books

“Charlie is a man of integrity, a true Berean, and a personal encouragement to me. I’m excited to see what the Lord has in store for this man of faith.”
—Jeremy Camp, Dove Award winner

“The Christian faith is the most reasonable faith in the world, and Charlie Campbell shows that in a straightforward and down-to-earth way in this book. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and plan to give it away to as many people as I can.”
—Brian Brodersen, associate pastor, Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, California

“I would like to thank Charlie for One Minute Answers to Skeptics and congratulate him as well. It is both basic and excellent in that it provides simple, accurate, and precise answers to many questions that people have in their struggles to understand the Bible. I appreciated Charlie’s ability to take the often difficult questions and answer very well.”
—Don McClure, pastor, author, and founder of Calvary Way Ministries

“One-Minute Answers to Skeptics is a much-needed book in the world today. Charlie Campbell has done an excellent job bringing to the reader answers to age-old questions. He has shed light in a dark world with this easy and enjoyable read.”
—Mike MacIntosh, founder and president, Horizon International Ministries

“In his book, Charlie Campbell invites every honest skeptic to take a good look at the Christian worldview, if for no other reason than to be better informed as to how the Bible answers man’s most intriguing and challenging questions and why Christianity is a reasonable faith. Succinctly written, One Minute Answers to Skeptics offers concise information for both skeptic and believer alike.”
—Jack Hibbs, pastor, Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, California

“I have heard that one definition of genius is taking complex things and being able to simplify them. I was impressed that such difficult questions could be adequately answered in such a few lines. I think the majority of Christians who want and need answers to tough questions like these often want a simple, sufficient answer without having to read an entire book on the subject. In quick, simple answers, Charlie has done it. I know this was not easy, but on behalf of Christians everywhere in all sincerity, thanks.”
—Bryan Newberry, pastor, Calvary Chapel San Diego, California

“Succinctly and very powerfully answers skeptics’ questions...It is immensely readable...I highly recommend this book.”
—William M. Alnor, PhD, author, professor, and Access Director of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project

“Great primer for apologetics! One Minute Answers to Skeptics strikes a great balance—crisp, well-structured responses that also whet the appetite for deeper study. Seekers, skeptics, and believers will all benefit from Charlie’s clear presentation and readable style.”
—Lloyd Pulley, pastor, Calvary Chapel Old Bridge, New Jersey

“Charlie Campbell has done a wonderful job of earnestly contending for the faith. His depth of thought will be a powerful tool for leaders and defenders of the faith, and his succinct clarity will be a blessing to all who want to know the truth.”
—Britt Merrick, senior pastor, Reality Carpinteria, California

“Charlie Campbell provides believers with one of the most useful tools to come along in a long time. In fact, I know of no other book that covers so much important territory in such a short time.”
—George Bryson, author and missionary

“It is with tremendous excitement that I can wholeheartedly recommend this long anticipated work by Charlie Campbell.”
—Chuck Wooley, pastor, the Bridge Calvary Chapel, Palm Springs, California

“Charlie Campbell has an incredible gift for simplifying that which can seem complicated. This book is a great example of that.”
—Rob Salvato, pastor of Calvary Chapel Vista, California

“A simple answer that you can remember is more useful than a complex answer that you can’t quite recall. One Minute Answers to Skeptics provides answers you can give when on the spot.”
—Carl Westerlund, director of the School of Ministry, Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa

Atheist Circular Alogic - “Who Designed the Designer?”

2010-01-06T07:00:00.003-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Atheism

A Thoroughly Detailed Consideration of Exclusivism

2010-01-05T19:00:00.000-07:00

My assertion is that exclusivism is the only logical option.

If you disagree with me, you have just proven my point.

About.com, Austin Cline, Adolf Hitler and the Continued Promulgation of Nazi Propaganda, part 3

2010-01-05T07:00:00.002-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

Speaking of Assiduous Absconders…Yet Again, Vox Day Challenges PZ Myers to Debate

2010-01-04T07:00:00.003-07:00

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s debate category