Rss Feeds

Total news: 322
Last news: 7 hours 19 minutes ago

1 Cor 3:13 ...the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward.

Total news: 35
Last news: July 30, 2010 10:54:07

Drink it in while it is fresh because such moments of lucidity come very rarely to the “atheism” as anti-Christianity minds of people such as Richard Dawkins who make their living by expressing prejudice.

There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings.
I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers.
I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.
I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.1

On the other hand, do not be shocked as atheism leaves Dawkins so empty that he considers himself a “cultural Christian.”

1. 1. “Scandal and schism leave Christians praying for a ‘new Reformation’,” Times Online, April 2, 2010

Signature of Controversy is a new e-book that counter-argues to criticism of Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell.

It consists of various essays by David Berlinski, David Klinghoffer, Casey Luskin, Paul Nelson, Jay Richards, Richard Sternberg and Stephen Meyer.

Here is a paragraph from the intro:

Published in 2009, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design is recognized as establishing one of the strongest pillars underlying the argument for intelligent design. To call the book fascinating and important is an understatement.
No less interesting in its way, however, was the critical response and it is with that this book is concerned. For the fact is that despite SITC being written about in print and online by numerous friends and foes of intelligent-design theory, few - if any - of the critics really grappled with the substance of Meyers argument.
This is remarkable and telling. In this digital book which includes live links to the critics own writings, defenders of SITC analyze the hostile response.

The Signature of Controversy e-book is freely downloadable at this link.

Get Signature in the Cell from Amazon here:

William Lane Craig – South Africa Debates, part 1: vs. Yusuf Islam on “Identifying Jesus: Is He Man or both God and Man?”

William Lane Craig recently engaged in two notable debates in South Africa: Capetown and Pretoria. He states that, “Professional recordings of all the debates and conference talks were made and will be disseminated throughout South Africa”; hopefully they will find their way into cyberspace.

As for the Islam vs. Christianity debate:

…about a thousand people crowded the auditorium that night. The debate was anything but dull!
What Ismail (who is a lawyer by profession) may lack in substance he makes up in a robustious delivery, with lots of grandstanding and theatrics. By the time we reached the rebuttals, he had pretty much exhausted what substance he had, and so he began to throw out lots of red meat to his partisans in the crowd, offering the usual Muslim talking points like the inauthenticity of 1 John 5.7, at which they began to shout Islamic slogans.
In my rebuttal I rebuked them, saying that they ought to be ashamed of themselves for cheering for such irrelevant and fallacious arguments. I hammered home my positive case for Jesus deity, which Ismail could not answer, and in my closing speech gave a strong evangelistic appeal to the Muslims in the crowd. It was a great evening and a strong witness for Christ.1

Moreover,

In preparation for the debate I discovered that Ismail will use any argument he can find against Christianity, even if it also implies the falsity of Islam. For example, he uses all the drivel popular on the internet about Jesus being a mythological figure drawn from pagan religions of antiquity.
Never mind that the Quran itself teaches that that Jesus was the greatest of all the prophets who had ever lived, that he was miraculously conceived and born of the Virgin Mary, that he himself performed miracles, and that he was indeed the Messiah!
In order to pre-empt any such appeal to pagan mythology to dismiss the deity of Jesus, I explained in my opening speech that contemporary studies of the historical Jesus have come to recognize that pagan mythology is simply the wrong interpretive context for understanding Jesus…

when you do read the original myths, you find that theyre not really parallel to the Gospels at all and that all the supposed parallels are concocted and spurious….based upon pseudo-scholarship which is more than 100 years out of date…

With nothing much of relevance to say, Ismail then turned to doling out the red meat!2

Of interest may be the Avatar based metaphor that William Lane Craig employed:

I explained the doctrine of Christs being one person who has two natures and used the movie Avatar to illustrate the doctrine. ("Avatar" is another word for incarnation.) The movie tells the story of Jake Sully, a disabled marine who becomes an avatar among a race of extra-terrestrials called the Navi. He becomes physically incarnated among them as one of them.
At the same time he doesnt cease to be human. So Jake has both a human nature and a Navi nature. In the movie these two natures have strikingly different powers. If you were to ask, "Can Jake Sully run?" the answer would have to be, "Yes and no: yes, in his Navi nature but no, in his human nature."
I told the audience that if you can make sense of Avatar, you can make sense of Christs incarnation. For in a similar way, Christ has both a divine nature and a human nature. These natures have different powers. In his human nature Christ experienced all the limitations intrinsic to human nature. But in his divine nature he had supernatural powers. Just as Jake Sully in his Navi nature became the Savior of the Navi people, so Christ in his human nature becomes the Savior of mankind.

1. 1. William Lane Craig, “Reasonable Faith Newsletter - May 2010,” Reasonable Faith, copyright 2007 Reasonable Faith. All rights reserved worldwide
2. 2. William Lane Craig, “Debate with Yusuf Ismail,” Reasonable Faith, additional from the June 10 ReasonableFaith.org Newsletter, copyright 2007 Reasonable Faith. All rights reserved worldwide

An obviously very talented friend has just cyber published this comic, “Sweet and holy mother of Dawkins!” what a line :o)

The same fellow also did a few other atheism related illustrations that I have used here and there in my essays.

In the near future I will load up a post with a few of them.

Following is an interesting trailer from the 2009 AD debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig.

Christopher Hitchens asks whether the debate would be a David vs. Goliath situation and he states that it will be a Goliath vs. Goliath. Quite true: a Goliath of substance vs. a Goliath of empty emotive rhetoric (as an aside; you may want to read A Lie About Goliath?).

Christopher Hitchens is seen asserting a ubiquitously promulgated atheist-group-think-talking-point, “Extraordinary claims require truly extraordinary evidence.”
I have never read, seen or heard anyone ever justifying this claim.
The fact is that just as any claim extraordinary claims require adequate evidence.

So why demand that certain claims which are labeled as “extraordinary” required “extraordinary evidence”?
The video actually gives us the answer as Christopher Hitchens is seen stating, “I find all your arguments in favor to be fallacious and unconvincing.”
See how it works?

1) Assert, without a logical or evidential premise at all, that “Extraordinary claims require truly extraordinary evidence.”
2) Employ this vague and arbitrary pseudo-standard in considering any arguments in favor of God’s existence.
3) Regardless of the arguments, merely retort that since “Extraordinary claims require truly extraordinary evidence…I find all your arguments in favor to be fallacious and unconvincing.”
4) Done.

In fact, this was the debate that took place after the one on this must hear clip when Craig is reviewing all of the arguments to which Hitchens gave no cogent response.

Interestingly, William Lane Craig repeats a characterization of Christopher Hitchens which asserts, or rather, identified him as one who chooses and or prefers to not accept the arguments and thus, not believe in God because, “I wouldn’t like it if it’s true.”
To this Hitchens appears to take umbrage as he asks/states, “No such assertion was ever made by me” which is acknowledged by Craig who goes on to state that, “…it sticks” and that it does so due to the absence of argument.
But, keep in mind that the characterization of Christopher Hitchens is accurate as he has placed the label of “anti-theist” upon himself—this, my friends, is God in the hands of an angry sinner.

It brings me no pleasure to be at the computer at 3 am, for soon morning will come and I will need to go to work and I will go wearily. But here I am, a watchman on the wall that is staring into the darkness, because I know something is not right.

Perhaps it has always been not right, perhaps I have only recently become aware of what is not right. Does that lessen the danger? I don’t know. My hackles are up. Does this make me more likely to perceive danger, risk, and outliers? I feel like NEO seeing cracks in the code, but I also feel like his shipmate who just wanted to go back to blissful ignorance.

People who love me are worried about me. Am I stalking shadows? Have I forgotten how to relax, to enjoy life, to be my fun loving self? No, I still love fun and I love sleep…yet both are hard to come by these days.

This week, there were more cracks in the code. The federal reserve admited to breaking the law. A brave whistleblower nailed a prediction on silver market manipulation while the “watchdog” agencies yawned and did nothing, zero news broke on the subject from any station. Further light has been shed on recently passed legislation and the corrupt and hidden aspects would make a sailor blush. And perhaps the oddest bit of news, the traditional media giants have lost half their audience yet they refuse to report meanginful news and they persist in serving as the government’s propoganda arm, reporting fluff that noone believes in as if it were credible news.

“CNN executives have steadfastly said that they will not change their approach to prime-time programs“

Corruption and hidden deals are not new in politics or power, I get that. What is new is the brazenness. It begs the question, why are the criminal politicans, stock market manipulators, and media moguls being so bold? John 3:19 states that “men love darkness better than light because their deeds are evil.”  So why now, are they bringing their evil deeds into the light?

Are they trying to foment violence? Are they seeing what they can get away with? Would a currency collapse triggered by a lack of confidence in the soundness of money and government somehow serve their interests?

I don’t know, but it keeps me up at night…

Homosexuality, Christianity, the Bible, Larry King, Jennifer Knapp, Ted Haggard and Bob Botsford, part 1

An interesting conversation took place between Larry King, Jennifer Knapp, Ted Haggard and Bob Botsford on CNN’s Larry King Live (April 23, 2010) on a show titled, “Christian Singer Comes Out As Lesbian.”

Consider True Freethinker’s section on homosexuality.

LARRY KING, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, a Christian singers shocking admission. She admits she is a lesbian, alienating some of her fans, angering devout followers.
Jennifer Knapp reveals how a God-loving woman rejected church teachings to be true to herself…
Can you be Christian and gay? Should anyone have to choose one or the other?...
Jennifer Knapp is a Grammy-nominated Christian music artist. Recently came out publicly as a lesbian revealing that she has been in a same-sex relationship for the past eight years.

The conversation begins betwixt Larry King and Jennifer Knapp and later includes Bob Botsford (senior pastor of Horizon Christian Fellowship in San Diego) and Ted Haggard (who is described this way, “former pastor of the New Life Church. A 2006 gay sex and drug scandal destroyed Teds New Life Megachurch Ministry, shocked the Evangelical community to its core” and who “says today that he no longer has homosexual thoughts”).

KING: Did you know early on you were gay?

KNAPP: No, I wouldnt have put it that way…

Yes, when I fell in love with a beautiful woman. That was a pretty good indicator. But I was -- at the time I was actually involved in sharing my faith in music. I was celibate for 10 years…

KING: Do you still call yourself a Christian artist?

KNAPP: I still -- I am a person of faith. Its a long-debated term, the connection of those two terms. I am an artist. I very much as an artist often find myself reflecting my faith in my music, and will probably continue to do that.

What we often find in situations such as Jennifer Knapp’s is that she expects theology to be re-written for her particular desires. Overnight, she goes from Christian singer to theologian who seeks diligently to justify herself whilst demanding that whatever she is doing still allows her to be a Christian. Bob Botsford will have some good points to make on this note. One problem is that, indeed, there are many “churches” who have literally been built around justifying particular sins and Jeffiner Knapp is well aware of this fact:

KING: Does what you do, do you think belie your faith since so many in the Christian world regard homosexuality as a sin?

KNAPP: ^{Well, not every Christian denomination belies homosexuality}…there are many denominations in the country…many other denominations…openly accept the rich diversity of the types of believers that are within their community…

KING: No problem for you to be Christian and gay.

KNAPP: Not with myself personally, no.

KING: You dont feel that your Bible speaks against it. Or, do you?

KNAPP: Well, I think theres plenty of evidence in my exploration of my faith through the sacred text of the Holy Bible that I have definitely recognized that we are somewhat at the handicap of our own interpretations of a sacred text. Lets take for example the original Greek translation of which I am no academic scholar of. Yet, you know, we all know that any time that we read a book or we read any kind of word, that it becomes the interpretation of our lifes experience, what we want to bring out of that.

And so, I mean, in the long run, I dont have the greatest deal of problems with it because there are other -- there are not -- Im not the only person in the universe thats ever, you know, looked at, you know, a different interpretation. We have --

(CROSSTALK)

KING: We can read things into any things.

KNAPP: Yes, doesnt make the truth any less the truth or love any less love.

Homosexuality is perfectly acceptable for a Christian because there are denominations that have been artificially built or artificially rearranged to allow it, accept it, endorse it, etc. Yet, there are denominations that are quite the opposite which leaves us in a state of absolute relativism.
After all, “we are somewhat at the handicap of our own interpretations.” So, it is not absolutely relative as she is right and those who disagree with her are wrong, she is actually claiming to possess the one infallible interpretation even whilst attempting to hide this as she attempts to claim that those who oppose her do not possess the one infallible interpretation.
Note her hermeneutic (method of interpretation), “it becomes the interpretation of our lifes experience, what we want to bring out of that.” Now we see the problem; she is applying the faulty method of misinterpretation known as eisegesis whereby we read into a text that which we presuppose, that which we want to see. The appropriate method is exegesis whereby we come to a text without preconceived notions and simply see what the text is telling us. Later she will refer to “this mysterious and sacred word…our travels and our journey in this mysterious -- (CROSS TALK)” when it may allow her to carry out her sinful and chosen lifestyle it is, conveniently, “mysterious.”

KING: The implication is that you chose this, that you had a choice and said, "Well, Im gay, straight, gay, straight, Ill choose gay."…

KING: You dont think that, do you? You dont think -- did you think you chose this?

KNAPP: I dont --

KING: You dont know why you are.

KNAPP: -- I dont know why I am. Im very comfortable with it. I recognize that love is a choice, very much. My sexuality, on the other hand, Im not so certain about.

(CROSSTALK)

KNAPP: It is what it is and I am what I am, you know?

The issue of choice will be discussed by Larry King and guest below. For the moment I will state that the issue is twofold as a homosexual may be born that way but they still choose to carry on a homosexual relationship and lifestyle. If they are engaging in a sexual act but did not choose to do so then they are being raped. Of course, they choose to engage in the act and the lifestyle. If they do not choose those actions then, perhaps, homophobes do not choose to be homophobic but are simply born that way.
Moreover, we are all born with certain tendencies that are to be oppressed and outgrown. Just because we are born a certain way does not mean that we are to remain that way and carry out those action which lead from the way we were born.
Homosexuals, rightly, argue that the difference between homosexuality and other sexual actions which are generally considered deviant—such as incest, pedophilia, etc.—is that homosexuals consent to their sexual actions. Indeed, quite true. Now, what is consent? It is giving permission, agreeing to, consensus, etc. In other words, they recognize that their actions are chosen and agreed to: homosexuality derives from a conscious decision. The way that Bob Botsford puts it during the conversation is “Jennifers same-sex decision and relationship” [emphasis added].

Now, Bob Botsford joins the conversation between Larry King and Jennifer Knapp as Larry King states

You wrote a blog about Jennifer and I want to read from it, saying, "When a well-known spokesperson of the faith stubbornly chooses to remain in their life of sin, my heartbreaks for them."…

So, why does your heart break for her?

PASTOR BOB BOTSFORD…: Well, Larry, it breaks for anyone who is caught in a sinful situation…

My heartbreaks for what the Bible tells us about this particular choice and lifestyle…

God creates this wonderful gift of marriage where a man leaves his mother and his father and cleaves unto a wife…

KING: Hes omnipotent, right?

BOTSFORD: He is omnipotent.

KING: So, he also created homosexuality.

BOTSFORD: No. I dont believe he did. Hes all knowing.

KING: You mean he did everything but that?

BOTSFORD: Well, heres the deal, Larry. Hes given to us -- back to your question of choice -- hes given to us a choice. Me -- a choice whether or not Im going to follow and abide by his word. Jennifer -- a choice as to whether or not shell abide in her relationships according to his word…

Next, Jennifer Knapp again attempts to play the role of, both, relativist and absolutist (as all relativists are absolutists in fact, they are the most exclusivistic of absolutists):

KNAPP: ^{I havent gone to seminary. I havent gone to Bible school}. Yet, Im aware of the fact -- Im deeply aware of the fact that were relying on the translations of Greek and that were translating from a language, you and I, that is not originally our own…

KNAPP: There are a lot of well-studied academics -- both believers and seekers of God and those who are just purely trying to understand what the sacred text means to all of us -- that really put question on how weve interpreted the words, what is it malikos and arsenokitai. There are two Greek words that we have substituted in our English language as homosexuality, which didnt actually exist in my understanding of a lot of Greek language experts in the manner in which we use it.

And my curiosity is how do you -- how do you respond to that knowledge knowing that perhaps maybe we dont have the full understanding of the academics --

KING: In other words, simply put, could your interpretation of a word be wrong?

Indeed, agreed, perfectly good points by Jennifer Knapp and Larry King: when we focus on “words” yes, we can turn them into whatever we want.
This is why hermeneutics and exegesis is so important; we must consider context both immediate and greater. When she picks and chooses words, removes them from their context she can very easily make them mean whatever she has now decided that they mean yet, the context will not allow her to do that—which is why she must do it.
FYI: I considered the specific terms “malaokois” and “arsenokoitai” at this link.

BOTSFORD: Absolutely. I believe Gods word is inspired. I believe that God breathes --

(CROSSTALK)

KNAPP: Am I not inspired by God because I am filled with love for you, for my partner, for my family?

Again, she seems to be taking the mere word “inspired” and making it mean whatever she wants when Bob Botsford is clearly, contextually, speaking of the inspiration of the writers of the Bible which was categorically different from whatever we may inspired to do.

KNAPP: No. Ive shared my grievances with Bob off-camera. Im not hurt by his stance and his holding to the Scripture. I highly respect that. And I think the community of believers in the church where he is at is -- are there because thats what they choose and thats their tradition of Christianity that they choose to follow. I highly respect that.

KING: Do you believe Jennifer is going to go to hell?

BOTSFORD: Larry, God is the judge. Im just here to --

KING: Youre judging her.

BOTSFORD: Well, am I?

KING: Sure.

BOTSFORD: Im here out of love. I dont have a --

KING: You said shes a sinner.

(CROSSTALK)

KNAPP: If I am a sinner and homosexuality is a sin, lets just go on that premise for a moment. But what separates that particular sin out from the fact that Im angry or mad at someone or that I cheat or maybe, you know -- what separates that out as so grievous to you that we have to sit here and have this type of conversation?

BOTSFORD: Well, its interesting. Theres -- sin is sin. Youre absolutely right. And we all have sin.

KNAPP: So, why are we -- why am I -- why arent you in this seat and Im in the other seat condemning you on national television?

BOTSFORD: Im not condemning you. Listen, Im here because I love you. And I told you that off-air, Ill say it on air. Im here because Im concerned. Im here as a family member.

Sadly, we go from parsing words to parsing verses, or half verses, which is just as problematic. “Youre judging her” and what is wrong with that? We are called to judge with a righteous judgment and to judge those who call themselves Christians (for details see the essay at this link).
Clearly, Jennifer Knapp is merely refusing to repent and seeking out those who will simply accept and endorse her chosen lifestyle.

BOTSFORD: You calling yourself a Christian still as part of the family of God saying, as I said in the blog, Jen, come home. Come back. Come out.

KNAPP: I will say this to you again on air. I have spiritual leadership in my life.

BOTSFORD: Yes.

KNAPP: The pastoral counsel of those who are dear to me, who understand the Scripture as sacred text. You know, also, want to --

BOTSFORD: Im not sure they do, Jen.

KNAPP: Dont interrupt me. You are not that man in my life. Speak to your congregation --

BOTSFORD: I agree. Im not saying that Im youre spiritual authority.

KNAPP: You do not know me, and dont have the right to speak to me in the manner which you have publicly.

BOTSFORD: Well, I do have a role to stand up for truth.

KNAPP: In your congregation and your community.

BOTSFORD: Im --

KNAPP: But do not -- Im asking you not to do that. I ask you not say that youre doing that on my behalf.

BOTSFORD: Im here as a representative of Jesus Christ.

KNAPP: Thats good.

KING: ^{But you are judging. You are judging.}

(CROSSTALK)

You see the problem with making half an un-contextual Bible verse into a catch all concept? “But you are judging. You are judging.”

We will continue from this point in the next section.

I have previously proved that The God Delusion is a funny book.

Now, let us consider that it is equally amusing.

Indeed, Richard Dawkins states, “I put it in this rather, Id like to think, amusing way.”

What else can he say when The God Delusion was first proclaimed by him to have the power of converting the faithful.
Then to merely influence those sitting on the fence.
And, finally, a funny and amusing book that has been picked apart for the carrion that it is.

Here is the quote within context:

I suppose the most strident passage in The God Delusion is where I talk about how the God of the Old Testament is the most unpleasant character in all fiction. I had this long list of adjectives: homophobic, infanticidal.
Thats kind of using long words, long Latinate words to describe what everybody actually knows: that the God of the Old Testament is a monster. I put it in this rather, Id like to think, amusing way…

Well in that particular passage Im only talking about the God of the Old Testament, so the only people who will be offended are the people who believe in the God of the Old Testament…if they actually read the Old Testament, they could not fail to agree with what I said.
The God of the Old Testament is a monster. Its very, very hard for anybody to deny that. Hes like a hyped-up Ayatollah Khomeini.1

He referred to stridency because within the very same interview he plays the victim in stating, “I would be glad if you didnt use the word ‘strident.’ Im getting a little bit tired of it.” I would imagine that he is nowhere near as tired of being referred to as “strident” as we are of him being strident.

So, “The God of the Old Testament is a monster” come on now—that is just amusing.

So, “the God of the Old Testament is the most unpleasant character in all fiction”—that is just amusing.

But note his point, “if they actually read the Old Testament, they could not fail to agree with what I said.”

Well, I believe that I read somewhere that at least one person who lived in the past few millennia actually read the Old Testament and dared to disagree with Richard Dawkins.

In fact, note that even Richard Dawkins disagrees with Richard Dawkins as he knows that, in his view, 1) “The God of the Old Testament” merely survived as the fittest God-meme, 2) the moral zeitgeist is such that way back then those actions were not immoral and 3) in an atheistic universe there is no transcendent/ultimate/ binding ethos.
Thus, his condemnations—about anything and everything—amount to mere bio-chemically induced arguments from outrage based on his personal preferences which are premised on his personal preferences.

The fact that he makes such amusing comments from the safety, comfort and lucrativeness and freedom of the UK and USA (countries founded upon Judeo-Christian principles) while not daring to do likewise about any other culture/religion/theology is part of the reason that the New Atheist movement is dead.

1. 1. Lisa Miller, “Darwin’s Rottweiler - Richard Dawkins on his tense relations with those who believe in God,” Newsweek, Sep 26, 2009

Robert Fulford wrote:

Why is Richard Dawkins, of all people, acting like a fool? On the subject of evolution, he argues with wondrous self-assurance and a brilliant command of detail. Hes established himself as his generations finest author on the human sciences and (in many opinions) the most effective popular science writer in the world. But hes turned himself into a clown, and damaged his reputation, by supporting the grotesque scheme to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested for "crimes against humanity" when he visits Britain in September.1

This is actually a very tightly packaged statement, let us parse it:
Why is Richard Dawkins, of all people, acting like a fool?
Why “of all people,” I cannot discern as there does not seem to have been a time when Richard Dawkins did not make a public spectacle of himself. Whether he is likening any and everyone with whom he disagrees to Hitler (including a Rabbi, for details in general see this link) and Nazis in general or stating that anyone who doubts, even doubts, that human beings are related to “turnips and bananas” are to be likened to Holocaust deniers (see here). He has always begged for attention via appeals to outrage and outrageousness.

On the subject of evolution…Hes…the most effective popular science writer in the world.
Let us keep in mind that while he is certainly celebrated for his elucidations of biological functions he is just as popular for the fact that 1) he weaves his particular take on atheism, as his worldview, into these elucidations and 2) these elucidations tend to amount to the telling of tall tales about how things could have occurred or perhaps, should have occurred (“should” in accordance to his theory).
Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. Richard Lewontin, referenced Carl Sagan’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details here and here).

But hes turned himself into a clown, and damaged his reputation
But can one turn themselves into something that they already are? And what reputation? His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new.
Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles.
What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!
Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times (find the relevant quotes here).

For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns.
Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence here).

Also, Richard Dawkins downgraded his supposed magnum opus, The God Delusion from being the ultimate atheist evangelist tool,

If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down (see here).

To being merely appealing to “people who maybe were sort of vaguely sitting on the fence” to finally, as self described by him, becoming a funny book and an amusing book.

Lastly, this is not the first time, and will likely not be the last, that the antics of the New Atheists have been correlated with clownness: consider Vox Day’s article, The Clowns of Reason.

Lyrics to “Send In The Clowns” by Stephen Sondheim:

1. 1. Robert Fulford, “Richard Dawkins, evolve thyself,” National Post, April 17, 2010

In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges).

Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry) who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12-14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.

The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheist in the world, including Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, PZ Myers, et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.

Well, Jonathan Sarfati and his book were ready to go but, as if marching in lockstep, each celebrity atheist stuck their nose in the air and ran away to hide in the comfort of those who actually congratulate and defend them for their unwillingness and inability to publically debate their views with a real life opponent who is not a straw-man of their own making.

Meanwhile, the Atheist Foundation of Australia, which sponsored the atheist convention, wasted money during a time of worldwide recession and natural disaster purchasing bus ads that read, “Atheism – celebrate reason.”
Come again!?!?!
How do they celebrate reason whilst refusing to engage in reasoning?
It seems as if a more apt slogan would be “Atheism - Celibate Reason."

Thus, overall “The Rise of Atheism” has given way to the furthering fall of atheism: they should thank no God for the atheistic indoctrination of children of which many of them are so very fond.

As an aside: Jonathan Sarfati is a World Chess Federation (FIDE) Master and was the New Zealand national chess champion 1987-1988 AD. He is known for playing a dozen chess games at the same time while blindfolded.

Here is his new book:

Also with a new book challenging Richard Dawkins is John Blanchard whose, Dealing with Dawkins, is sure to be ignored as well:

Jonathan Sarfati recently moved from down under to the USA and he will surely be upsetting the Dawkinsian choir to no end. Here are some more of his books including “By Design” which is the first book on intelligent Design by a creationist:

^{MT 24:10}At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, ¹¹and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. ¹²Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, ¹³but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.” 

I bet you have some great friends, I know I do. I believe they would drop everything to be there for me just as I would for them. Local churches are full of groups that consider themselves close. Yet Jesus says in the end times that MANY of these “friends” will betray and hate each other.

I bet you know some sweet believers, I know I do. I believe they would take a bullet rather than deny their faith. Local churches are full of believers that would not for a moment think that they were vulnerable to falling away. Yet, Jesus says that MANY of these believers will turn away from the faith.

What could cause people who love each other to betray and hate each other? What could cause people who are excited about being believers to turn away from the faith? We could contemplate the circumstances that might bring that about. What about worldwide famine, worldwide persecution, or both with people being rewarded with food to turn in the remaining christians? What that be enough to cause the great falling away? Well, those things certainly wouldn’t help the situation.  But no, the answer is Shallow Roots.

^{Mt 13: 20}The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. ²¹But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.

The man with shallow roots was unprepared for trouble and persecution. He may have been following Jesus for the bread and fish he was handing out or because he was famous. But when times got hard, he either determined that this is not what he had signed up for, or he simply chose to give up rather than continue suffering.   I suspect that you have seen an individual fall away. I know I have. Perhaps you have felt the temptation yourself in the midst of suffering circumstances. Why do some fall away but others do not?

I recall a conversation I had with my pastor, standing in a hospital corridor while my wife lay a few doors down with what had just been termed inoperable cancer. My pastor asked me how I was coping and I opined that my evangelical foundation was more useful to me in these times of trouble than my charismatic experience. You see, over the previous 7 years MANY people of faith with good intent had stood around us like cheerleaders echoing phrases that lacked root. “Everything is going to be fine!” , “Just have faith.” , “I have a good feeling about..”, “God has such good plans for you, there is no way he would cut her life short..”

Don’t get me wrong, we both believed in healing, and I still believe that God heals people today. I have participated in effective healing prayer many times.  But she died. After 7 years of anointing with oil, standing in faith, and enlisting a great crowd of believers and churches in other states and countries to pray and believe with us, she died.  But I did not fall away. Many people, especially non-believers don’t understand why I didn’t abandon the faith when in their eyes God abandoned me.

But I didn’t fall away because I didn’t come to rely on paperback theology, false assumptions, or empty rhetoric. God was faithful to me in so many ways. He spoke to me several times during her sickness. He told me that even Lazarus died again after Jesus had raised him up. He reminded me of eternity and that this life isn’t about us, its about His Kingdom and His Glory. He allowed me to be there when she went to be with Jesus and I saw the reflection of heaven in her face as she went.

¹The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 1 tim 4:1

My “friends”, I believe we are living in the end times. I believe that times will soon be upon us where those who have shallow roots will be sorely tempted to turn away from their faith in order to do what they must to survive including turning in their other “friends” for reward and recognition.

Are you satisfied with shallow responses to the quickly deteriorating circumstances all around you?

• It could never happen here..(Hurricane Katrina)
• We are a modern economy with a strong currency (Argentina)
• He is an elected leader bound by a constitution (Hitler)
• The things we worry about most rarely happen (Noah/Joseph/EndTimes)
• It will probably be fifty years or more until we see a one world government (No man knows the day)

The end times will happen. World trade will cease. Famine will be widespread.  A one world government will arise and will persecute and kill Christians. MANY believers will abandon their faith. MANY believers will turn on and betray one another.  The love of MOST will grow cold in the midst of tough choices and widespread extreme suffering.

Dig some roots, trade in shallow and empty rhetoric for an honest risk assessment, focus on timeless principles and timely actions.  You are going to need a durable faith for the times ahead so you can refuse to participate in the great falling away, so you can continue to provide and protect for your family, so you can have something to share with those in need, so you can stand firm to the end.

In his book Breaking the Spell – Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Daniel Dennett promulgates belief of “belief in belief’ in which he believes—believe me.

The basic concept behind “belief in belief’ is that beyond, for example, “belief in God” there is “belief in belief’ which is a position which considers “religious” beliefs to be essential for a healthy society and so attempts to protect such beliefs from philosophic, logical, scientific or criticisms of any sort.

Basically, the point is that what is believed is no longer as relevant as that someone would believe in something, anything, that equates to some form of transcendence. As long as you believe in something which purports to offer guidance and solace—that is good enough. Yet, belief in belief is not good enough for Daniel Dennett who, for example:

rules out deism, the view that God acts through natural laws, and incidentally Charles Darwins credo for much of his later life.
“If what you hold sacred is not any kind of Person you could pray to, or consider to be an appropriate recipient of gratitude (or anger, when a loved one is senselessly killed), youre an atheist in my book,” writes Dennett.
“If, for reasons of loyalty to tradition, diplomacy, or self-protective camouflage (very important today, especially for politicians), you want to deny what you are, thats your business, but dont kid yourself.”1

On this much I can agree, as did the ex-atheist C. S. Lewis decades prior as he referred to Life-Force philosophy, Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution:

One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences.
When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest.
If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children.
The Life-Force is a sort of tame God. You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you.
All the thrills of religion and none of the cost.
Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?2

Based on his concept of belief in belief one would have to conclude that Daniel Dennett seems unaware of religious polemics—by religious and unreligious people—throughout the millennia, or the Bible’s praise of honest skepticism (Acts 17:11 for example).

In any regard, Daniel Dennett has become one of the leading voices (as one of the discredited quadripartite New Atheists) of a movement of atheists who hold to belief in unbelief and unbelief in belief.

It would certainly be as fallacious as Dennett’s claim to lack of polemics in religious matter to assert that atheists, even the most militant activist sorts, do not accept and engage upon polemics regarding atheism. Yet, their belief in unbelief and unbelief in belief comes through in their shock at the fact that they have to bother responding, that they actually have to bother defending a conclusion as obvious as atheism.

This is part of the reason that their talks and books are so heavy on emotion and so light on well, anything else. They are quick to condemn, quick to assert arguments from personal preference, arguments from outrage, arguments to ridicule, arguments to embarrassment, etc. Yet, slow to provide premises that go beyond that which they personally prefer in general and slow to go anywhere beyond well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think-talking-points.

Consider mere examples from Sam Harris:
Sam Harris writes that “atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society,” they find religious claims “to be ridiculous.” Religious people possess “encyclopedic ignorance.”3 He looks forward to the day when raising one’s children according to ones religious faith will “be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is.”4 He makes reference to “scary religious imbeciles”5 and no, this was not in reference to extremist terrorists, for example, but to Intelligent Design theorists.
His ultimate goal is expressed in his looking forward to a time when “making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we’ll start laughing at people who believe…We’ll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power.”6

And then he wonders why people are concerned that he wrote, “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them”7—capital punishment for thought crime.
Such sentiments could be multiplied ad infinitum - ad nauseam.

Belief in unbelief is often expressed in terms of considering atheism to be the default position. However, it is not. Rather, supernaturalism is the default position. Until such time as absolute materialism can and does account for all natural phenomena—from consciousness, to life in general, not to mention the whole universe and everything in it—supernaturalism can account for these phenomena (at the philosophic level of what, and perhaps why but not the scientific level of how—a level which is not at all advantageous to materialism). This is because, let us say partly scientifically and partly philosophically, materialism cannot account for said phenomena while supernaturalism can (hint of how this is so are found in the parsed essay On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.).

Belief in unbelief, when it is considered the default position, is held to via “faith”-like adherence (here I am employing the fallacious atheist redefinition of faith as “belief without evidence” as opposed to the biblical definition of faith as trust aka: the conclusion of a syllogism). That is to say that this position asserts that there is nothing that is not, both epistemically and ontologically, accounted for under absolute materialism.
The assertion is that everything has a purely materialistic explanation and even if we do not know what the explanation is; some day—thy materialism come—it will be explained thusly. And even if it is not explained materialistically this view demands that one restrict their thinking and simply believe by “faith” that the explanation is materialistic—this is anti-freethought. Meanwhile, it may be of import to note; the theist can consider material explanations, ever mounting material causes for material effects, by noting that yes indeed; God created the material realm wherein there functions a system of material causes and material effects.

Belief in unbelief is also one of the consoling delusion aspect of atheism. Atheism consists of various consoling delusions which atheists generally seem to accept as psychological band-aids placed upon their reasons (or excuses) for rejecting God. They seem to think that something, or someone, does not exist because they do not believe it. They rejects God’s ethos, His prescription of certain actions and condemnation of others, and thus, they console themselves by thinking that they are absolutely autonomous and lack ultimate accountability.

Unbelief in belief is generally peppered, if not saturated with, confusion and misunderstandings of every sort. For example, responding to the question of whether “all faith claims are in some sense equivalent” Christopher Hitchens stated, “theyre all equally rotten, false, dishonest, corrupt, humourless and dangerous.”
In this regard, note the words of C. S. Lewis, one time atheist and later Christian scholar, who wrote:

If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake.
If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race has always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.8

That is to say that the unbelief believers paint with a broom and generically generalize anything which they consider in any way supernatural or superstitious into the same category: every “religion,” theology, ritual, etc.

Consider this criticism of Daniel Dennett:

like other evangelists of unbelief, he views the world through the conceptual grid of western monotheism. His view of religion itself proves this; he defines it as a social system "whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought". This may be commonplace as a perception of religion, but it is also highly parochial…[and] not found in most of the worlds religions…
it is a mistake to assume that belief is the core of religion. This may seem self-evident to many philosophers, but in fact belief is not very important in most religions. Even within Christianity there are traditions, such as Eastern Orthodoxy, in which it has never been central. For the majority of humankind, religion has always been about practice rather than belief. In fixating on the belief-content of religion, Dennett emulates Christianity at its most rationalistic and dogmatic….
Dennett mocks those who say that life without faith has no meaning as "believers in belief". Yet he displays a zealous faith in unbelief that is far more inimical to doubt, and there is more scepticism in a single line of the [Blaise Pascal’s] Pensees than in the whole of Dennetts leaden tome.
Breaking the Spell approaches its subject with a relentless, simple-minded cleverness that precludes anything like profundity, and much of it seems designed to demonstrate the authors intellectual ingenuity rather than to advance the readers understanding…
When Dennett delivers on the promise of the book - a naturalistic explanation of religion - the result is embarrassingly naive.9

Even Sam Harris, the Buddhist/mystic/atheist who does not like the term “Buddhist,” “mystic” or “atheist,” whose pursuit of Buddhist atheist mysticism is not approved of by other New Atheist, such as Richard Dawkins, promulgates just that: a strictly materialistic form of meditation (which is actually more in keeping with Buddhism’s atheistic roots).
Unbelief in belief even leads some atheists to prefer an answer which only leaves one asking more questions than to an answer which is philosophically more fulfilling. Such is that case with those who, for example, prefer to appeal to aliens as being the creators of our universe and or life. This does not answer the question of how they came about but merely pushed the question of origins further back in time. Meanwhile, a supernatural/theistic creator who is, as is logically and scientifically viable, outside/beyond time, space and matter is rejected (again, see On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.). Anything to maintain unbelief in belief.

Let us end with some food for thought, some makings of a brain storming session:

Generally when atheists ask for evidence of God’s existence they do not seem to consider upon which premise the request such evidence.
They generally do not define what they mean by “evidence.”
When they do they are merely expressing their own theological views and demanding that we adhere to them—dogmatheistically.
If they specify “scientific” and or “empirical” evidence they do not seem to consider that science/empiricism are a narrow fields which deals with a narrow bandwidth, as it where, of reality and thus, functions within parameters.
Moreover, since there is no scientific/empirical evidence supporting the request for scientific evidence the request is self defeating.
Do we look for wet evidence of a dry object? Do we look for physical evidence of something/someone who is not non-physical.
Such as, and others, are the ways of those who hold to belief in unbelief and unbelief in belief.

1. . a. b.
2. . a. b.
3. . a. b.
4. . a. b.
5. . a. b.
6. . a. b.
7. . a. b.
8. . a. b.
9. . a. b.

If youthful rebellion did not exist atheist would have to invent it.
Ok, so Ricky Gervais certainly did not invention atheism with Christian values as any sane atheist before him has done the same.
Such as Richard Dawkins who is left so very empty by atheism that he considers himself a “cultural Christian.”
Yet, Friedrich Nietzsche laid it out in stating:

When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together.
By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God has truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.1

Is it any wonder that Nietzsche went on to virtually predict the most secular and bloodies century in human history: see From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist.

Now, let us consider an interview with Ricky Gervais:2

I was about 8 and I was… I was doing something from the Bible and my brother came in, he was older than me, his name is Bob, still is, and he was about 19, and he said, “What are you doing?” I said, “I’m doing this for Jesus, God.” He said, “Why do you believe in God?” And my mom went, “Bob,” and I knew you. I knew then that she was hiding something from me and he was… he was telling the truth. And I thought about it.
And I was a bit of a scientist even then. You know, I could read really well by the time I was 3. I suppose I was a bit of an experiment ‘cause I was the youngest by 11 years, you know. And I was into science and nature and I suppose I was a logical person. And I thought… Yeah.
But I learn it through body language. I learn it through that human [interplay] between this two people. The one was worried about what the other one was going to tell me so I assume that my brother had something big to tell me and my mom, protecting me, didn’t want me to hear it. So I just made the conclusion that he was right. [ellipses in original]

At least from this telling, this is yet another case of atheism via rebellion against parental units.
“Why do you believe in God?” concluded in “Yeah” but yeah what, yeah why do I and I do not? But why not?
What if his mother was worried about what the brother was implying? What is logical and scientific about this?
In the essays Natural Born Atheist and Why Atheism is chosen I provide various examples of people who became atheists for reasons of rebellion against parents, particularly fathers, for emotional reasons, or for no reason at all.

Well, he does further elucidate the matter,

I mean, I… I can’t see that there could be a God, you know. I mean, spiritually and religion is two different things, don’t forget, you know. I can’t make myself believe something I don’t believe. I wish there was a God, you know. And I wish he was all the things people said he was, all powerful and kind and… and all that. By definition, the impossibility is overwhelming, to me. [ellipses in original]

What is logical and scientific about this? What Ricky Gervais can or cannot “see that there could be” is irrelevant to reality as is what is or is not “overwhelming” to him; this is an argument from personal incredulity.

Now, he does have a point about “spiritually and religion” being “two different things” and went on to state:

Then, there’s religion, which use that truth for the… for their own personal gain. And that’s something else. And that’s [barren] and disgusting. Religious fascism is the only thing, apart from animal quarry, that gets my blood boiling. But people who believe in God doesn’t worry at all. [ellipses in original]

I find the term “spirituality” to be too generic and vague but the point is well taken and I take it to the point of arguing that the bible is the Most anti-religion book ever written and note that he is right, right after the Bible stated it, in criticizing those “who think that godliness is a means to financial gain” (1st Timothy 6:3-5) see False Teachers Reveal Truth.

Ricky Gervais continues:

You know, I live by… I live by Christian values, I suppose. You know, I live by… or any religious values that preaches forgiveness and, you know, do as you would be done by and… you know. I just do it for different reasons. I do it because I think this is my only time on Earth and I should… I should enjoy it and be part of it and celebrate it and be nice to everyone ‘cause we’re… we’re animals, we need to be loved and lead a decent life. So, yeah. If you believe in God and that gets you through and it makes you a nicer person, then… then so be it. But I just… I just… I don’t believe. And I feel sometimes that atheists, and I’m an atheist, not agnostic, one of the few things I’m sure of in life, I think they get a bad [press] that we take the art out of beauty in the world, which is not true. [ellipses in original]

Why elevate the “religious values that preaches forgiveness”? I suspect that it is because his soul knows that which he dismisses as that which he cannot “see” and is “overwhelming.”
It is also because atheism offers no such thing. In fact, if he is much like the average bear then he has wronged very many people; some whom he has surely forgotten, some whom he could never hope to find, some who may refuse to forgive him, some who have died, etc. Thus, seeks transcendent forgiveness because on atheism will remain unforgiven.

Also, whence comes the imperatives, “I should… I should”? Such sentiments are very common atheist talking points but they are non-sequiturs.
For example,
“this is my only time on Earth and I should… I should enjoy it and be part of it and celebrate it and be nice to everyone ‘cause we’re… we’re animals.”
Could just as easily read,
“this is my only time on Earth and I should… I should enjoy it by doing whatever I want to whomever I want anytime, anyplace ‘cause we’re… we’re animals.”
And atheism has not one thing to say about it either way.

Also, what is logical and scientific about, “I just… I just… I don’t believe”?

He further states,

The fact the, you know, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and, you know, the 4 million species of animal and… and they’ve evolved by accident is, I think, more beautiful than any intelligent design [that could claim].

Again, what is logical and scientific about beautiful (a subjective standard) accident?

He was also asked “Do your beliefs affect your comedy?” and he responded, “No, I’m just being honest, you know.”
Yet, from his children’s books to his movies and TV shows; his atheism comes through loud and clear.
Consider Flanimals: Atheists Continue Attempting to Propagandize Kids—Theirs and Yours.
Or, consider that his movie The Invention of Lying has been termed, “‘Bruce Almighty’ for atheists.”
Or, consider the blatant and exclusive anti-Christian prejudice in the show The Office: Atheism and Christianity at the office, part 1 of 2.

Consider what Ricky Gervais had to say about The Invention of Lying:

I think the reason why critics and websites didn’t like it was obviously the religious element. I think some people felt cheated that they weren’t warned. But I don’t know what you do with that. Whether I should put a warning ‘contains atheist material’. I don’t know. Strange, really…
this is one film that dares to presume the lack of God…I don’t think it is atheist propaganda…as an atheist, to suggest I believe that religion was started by man. And I put that in a film. I’d be a hypocrite to say anything else…
I make this for me and like minded people…do it for yourself and like minded people [here, he is referencing all of his work in general].3

See? The movie merely “dares to presume the lack of God.” As for “religion” being “started by man,” I, and God, could not agree more.

But is this just an innocent movie that merely “dares to presume the lack of God”?
Consider the review by New York Post film critic Kyle Smith from his article, Ricky Gervais Takes on Christianity, September 28, 2009:

The movie is a full-on attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular. It might be the most blatantly, one-sidedly atheist movie ever released by a major studio, in this case Warner Bros.

Gervais delights in what a faith-based society would call blasphemy, setting up an imaginary world in which no one ever lies. Except his character, who spreads what Gervais obviously sees as the biggest lie of all: Belief in God.

Gervais’s character is the first man ever to think of lying. In order to comfort the dying, he randomly hits on the idea of telling them that they will go to a better place and enjoy an afterlife. Citizens who automatically believe what they’re told (since no one, even advertisers, has ever told an untruth) start to spread the word, and soon Gervais is doing a gruesomely unfunny parody of Moses and the Ten Commandments. Except his rules are ten lies written on pizza boxes.

Gervais sighs and winces as he spins his absurd made-up stories to the ignorant peoples of the world: There is a “Man in the Sky,” he says, who is looking down at all of us and is responsible for everything that happens. Yes, he explains to one woman, he gave your mom cancer — but he’s also responsible for curing her. The people aren’t happy that “The Man in the Sky” is behind all human suffering. “F— The Man in the Sky!” cries one citizen, and the crowd begins to get angry. A magazine cover exclaims, “Man in the Sky Kills 40,000 in Tsunami!”

But Gervais’s character insists that whatever damage the Man in the Sky causes, he eventually makes up for it all in the end by providing a beautiful mansion for everyone after they die, at least for those who don’t commit three or more immoral acts, and by making it so that everyone can reunite with their loved ones in the next life. Later in the movie, Gervais will be outfitted like Jesus.

The movie doesn’t have a joke to offer at this point; it just thinks it’s funny to show Gervais in long hair and a bedsheet. At the end, in a church, a minister is seen wearing a cross, so apparently somehow the Gervais character also came up with the Crucifixion story.

Gervais is an atheist, which is fine, but his mean-spiritedness (even before the atheism theme enters the movie, it’s sour and misanthropic) and the film’s reduction of all religion to an episode of crowd hysteria are not going to be warmly received. Except maybe by critics.

Merely “dares to presume the lack of God”? No.
Do his beliefs affect his comedy? Yes.

1. 1. Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufman (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 515–516
2. 2. “Jesus Was My Invisible Babysitter,” Big Think, February 26, 2009
3. 3. Simon Brew, “Ricky Gervais interview, Feb 1, 2010

Indeed, as the Bible records King Solomon’s words, “There is nothing new under the Sun.”

Satan has not had an original idea in millennia—and sadly, he had not had to since we keep falling for the same old tricks nay, we want to fall for them.

Likewise, atheists have not had an original idea in…well, perhaps ever—and sadly, they are falling for the wiles of the Father of Un-Originality.

One example of this is when they take advantage of and manipulate those who have lost limbs which is why it is an ubiquitously promulgated well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think-talking-point to ask “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” and/or “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”

Now, I do not know if any amputees have become atheists due to not being healed. But the atheists who are pushing this idea are fulfilling that which the Bible has stated for 4,000 years. Indeed, four millennia ago the Book of Job records that Satan said to God, “Skin for skin!...stretch out your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!” (Job 2:4b-5)—this referred to a physical affliction.

Sadly, the atheists who push this idea are attempting to get people to do just that. They want people who have had their bone and flesh touched to curse God (though Job was not subject to amputation, the concept still relates).

Sadly, they are promulgating a Satanic idea.

Since atheists believe that our bone and flesh, the material, is all that we have they cannot bear the thought of having their bone and flesh touched. Now, the deeper point is that on this sort of materialistic view they know very, very well that the pain and suffering that would come about if their bone and flesh were touched would be for utterly nothing.
This is what atheism guarantees them; suffering is for nothing at all (and I do not here mean that we do not learn to not touch something hot after having been burned; I am referencing something transcendent, something to do with ultimate meaning or purpose)—see: Meaning and Purpose and Four Succinct Statements on Suffering.

Their non-sequitur is to expect, or demand, that God be as singularly interested in that which is of ultimate concern to them as are they. God must “care” about our physical bodies and heal them on demand or else God is not “love” and if God is not love then God is not—see: "Love" and "Hate" - Defining Terminology.

And yet, as with Job their idea fails again and again and for various reasons.

One such reason is explored in Fundamentalist Theologian Asks: “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” and “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”

------------------------

The illustration above is by Philip James de Loutherbourg (1740-1812); a French painter and scenographer

And another snipped of the atheist game plan is revealed or, rather, reiterated.

The contents of “The Wedgie” Document continues to grow as atheists reveal their ongoing attempts to push their particular concepts of atheism into culture, politics and the public school classroom in the guise of “science.”

This time PZ Myers reveals quite a bit of his own thought processes and conclusions about “religion” (whatever that means). Meanwhile he alerts us to his vision of a future in which “religion” is “completely out of the way” and in which he and his fellow atheists become the arbiters of evolution premised upon their “secular motives.”[1] In writing a response to an article by Karen Armstrong PZ Myers notes,

she thinks it is a new and brilliant idea to just keep going to church and accepting Jesus into your heart. Its not.

Say what you will about Myers yet, one thing is for certain; he is refreshingly open and makes it so that there are no lines between which to read.

As Karen Armstrong’s article was parsed into section so is PZ Myers’. In the response to the “God Is Dead” section Myers notes that Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that,

There is no central defining source of absolute truth, and we human beings have to rebuild our values around something new, other than this notion of a celestial monarch (he personally thought the new value was a “will to power”, individual ambition and aspiration). Thats still true.

Indeed, Friedrich Nietzsche understood that the death of God would lead to the deification of man as we shrug off the “celestial monarch” and replace Him with terrestrial monarchs; as the Bible states it:

Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us” (Psalm 2:1-3).

As Nietzsche stated it, “Must we ourselves not become gods…?” in that we would concoct, by necessity secular, “festivals of atonement…what sacred games shall we have to invent?” In this regard it may be of interest to note that professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett claims that the atheist Joseph Stalin was, in reality, a theist because he believed in “a god whose will determined what right and wrong was. And he was sure of the existence of this god, and the god’s name was Stalin.”
Thus, not only can atrocities committed by atheists on the premise of atheism not be charged to “atheism” but they are the fault of theism. Also, by this “logic” all atheists are theists. Since in the most secular and bloodiest century in human history we replaced the celestial monarch with the terrestrial monarchs atheists became theists and “religion” is still to blame what that which was committed by atheist with atheism as their premise.

As almost a side note I would like to note that PZ Myers wrote, as per the manner in which Karen Armstrong made her case,

God is inadequate. To defend religion, people have to borrow the authority of science

This is in reference to Armstrong’s statement,

Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions. We are meaning-seeking creatures…Theological ideas come and go, but the quest for meaning continues.

Ok, so God is inadequate because people have to borrow the authority of science. So, how should people defend “religion”? Perhaps via philosophical discourse. But then we would be told that God is inadequate since to defend religion, people have to borrow the authority of philosophy. Perhaps via history. But then we would be told that God is inadequate since to defend religion, people have to borrow the authority of historical research. Perhaps via sense perception. But then we would be told that God is inadequate since to defend religion, people have to borrow the authority of the senses. Obviously, Myers has a definition in mind of science as atheism and so any appeal to science with regards to theism is verboden. In fact, when asked “What’s most important to you: advancing atheism or advancing the public understanding of science – or are they kind of one in the same for you?” He answered, “They are inseparable.”

In this light note that Myers had occasion to debate Dr. Angus Menuge (Ph.D in Philosophy with internal minor in logic and external minor in computer science and cognitive psychology) at Concordia University Wisconsin, on the topic “Does Neuroscience Leave Room for God?” Part of Dr. Menuge’s review of the debate states (his slides are found here):

Wishing to expose the way Methodological Materialism can be held indefinitely, no matter what the evidence, I challenged Myers to define what could convince him that materialism was false, pointing out that if all materialist explanations were working or very promising, I could be persuaded that theism was false. He dodged the question saying it was too hypothetical. I did not get the impression that he has seriously considered the question of what it would be like to learn materialism is false. How, then, can he claim that the materialism of science is purely methodological, which implies it could be dropped if it fails to work in some areas?

As per Armstrong, Myers goes on to write,

Im always flattered by this argument that we need to define humans as a species by their religious beliefs, because I dont have them…which means I get to claim that I, and my fellow atheists, are a new species. Let us go forth, my fellow Homo smartiepantsius, and take over the hominid niche. [ellipses in original]

Keep this we versus they and particularly this we are superior to them—more evolvedier than thou—mentality in mind as it will come into play below. As for the statement about “Homo religiosus” PZ Myers notes,

This is, of course, complete nonsense…The difference between us isnt at all biological, but simply that some of us recognize that “god” is a piss-poor answer to any meaningful question, and weve moved on to looking for that meaning and pattern in more productive ways.

This is stunning coming from an atheist for whom the answer to any meaningful question is, ultimately, “It’s just there and that’s all!...it just is…it just happened…it just happened to have happened…what a coincidence…by chance…by luck…time, space and matter can do anything…given enough time…” Etc., etc., etc.

As regards “The Wedgie” Document; we now come to the most relevant portion of PZ Myers remarks:

We often get labeled “militant atheists”. Its a joke. Militant atheists would be the type who argue that we should charge in and deconvert populations at the point of a sword — we dont (well, maybe Hitchens leans that way, a little bit). We need modern societies to evolve away from religion, and that means education, local adoption and integration of secular motives into existing institutions, and gradually shift to a rational foundation in a way that doesnt destroy the existing, essential superstructure.

No, PZ and his fellows are not “militant atheists”; they ONLY want to establish themselves as arbiters of evolution via unnatural selection in order to “evolve away from religion” premised upon their “secular motives”—that is all. Now, when did Myers have bequeathed upon him the dogmatically infallible authority to speak for all atheists? Particularly, all “militant atheists,” in order to declare that 1) militant atheism does not amount to charging in and deconverting populations at the point of a sword and that 2) “we dont” want to do that. How does he know and why does he define militant atheism as such?

What we find is that PZ Myers concept of defeating “religion” is tantamount to a traditional Communist tactic: not a full frontal attack but a push and backing away, another push and a backing away, etc. In this way the push is not perceived as such a danger that it insights increased religious zealotry but since the push is followed by backing away it is all but ignored. In this way the tactic is like waves that eat away at a beach front little by little: not a tsunami which comes in and sweeps the beach away at once but one little wave followed by the next which each, in turn, eat away a little piece, a little part, ever advancing yet, virtually imperceptible. From this comes the ridicule, both inside and outside of the church, which states, “You are just paranoid…Oh yeah, Christians in America are persecuted, please!” Etc., etc., etc. In 1945 AD the Trotskyite, Denzil Dean Harber aka Paul Dixon, wrote “Religion in the Soviet Union” which was first published in The Workers International News (see here). Therein he noted the “The Left zig-zag of the bureaucracy was inevitably followed by a turn to the right”—push and back away, push and back away…

I thought to note that while surely stated in a tongue in cheek manner, he is mistaken about Christopher Hitchens. During the Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens meme swapping session known as “The Four Horsemen” (which I reviewed here) there came a point at which the adult beverages were taking their expected effects and Dawkins, Dennett and Harris were basically left attempting to figure out what on Earth Hitchens was talking about. With regards to the doing away of religion and religious belief, Hitchens stated,

No, I wouldnt say in such a case that one didnt wish to be without it, that wed have lost something interesting to argue with.

Reading through the triple negative “wouldnt…didnt…without” he does not want it done away with since it would rob him of “something interesting to argue with”—and, of course, the source of his financial income. Richard Dawkins states,

…it sounds as though you dont want it to be eradicated, because you want something to argue against, and something to sharpen your wits on.

Consider three separate responses together, as Hitchens states:

Yes, I think that is, in fact, what I …

Well, look, you dont accept my - or you dont like my - answer, but I think the question should be, is going to be, asked of us. It was asked of me today actually, again on the TV: "Do you wish no one was going to church this morning in the United States?"

Well, Ive given mine, Richards disagreed. Well, the answer I gave this morning was "I think people would be much better off without false consolation, and I dont want them trying to inflict their beliefs on me. Theyd be doing themselves and me a favour if they gave it up. So, perhaps in that sense, I contradict myself, I mean I wish they would stop it, but then I would be left with no one to argue with. [ellipses in original]

This leads Dawkins and Harris to state,

Dawkins: (laughs) Well, I just dont …!

Harris: But, you have many other subjects! [ellipses in original]

And so Hitchens responds,

And I certainly didnt say that I thought if theyd only listen to me, they would stop going. Okay, so there are two questions here. So that was my very experimental answer, but Id love to hear … would you like to say that you look forward to a world where no one had any faith in the supernatural? [ellipses in original]

At this point they, wisely, change the subject in an yeah, alrighty then, have another drink there buddy sort of way.

That was more of an amusing aside than anything else. Of more substance is that Karen Armstrong wrote,

In claiming that God is the source of all human cruelty, Hitchens and Dawkins…

Let us stop here as PZ Myers took exception to this point and offers a challenge,

Look at that first clause. Has either Dawkins or Hitchens, or any other prominent atheist, ever claimed that? Its so exhausting to watch yet another apologist beating a dead strawman. Dismissed.

I would imagine that the qualifier which is being challenged is “all.” While Armstrong’s is a fallacious overstatement let us go on and consider whether Dawkins, in particular, ever claimed that:

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.

This is about as close to “all” as you can get.

When PZ Myers states that “we New Atheists” (speaking dogmatically for all New Atheists) want religion to get completely out of our way it was actually premised on a faulty allusion. Armstrong wrote,

The Bible and the Koran may have prohibited usury, but over the centuries Jews, Christians, and Muslims all found ways of getting around this restriction and produced thriving economies.

Thus, since error begets error; Myers accepts this premise and writes,

What she is describing is the fact that Christianity has willingly retreated and rationalized to tolerate economic realities…All we New Atheists want is for religion to bend some more and get completely out of our way.

That “we New Atheists” want religion to get completely out of our way is a statement which still stands. Yet, I wanted to note that both Armstrong and Myers are in error in that they are not considering historical or grammatical context. The prohibition against usury, as a litigious point, is found within the law of the nation of Israel of millennia ago; relevant to the Jews of that time and place according to the, note the chronological language, “Old” Testament. Thus, Jews of later times and places as well as Christians did not have to “getting around” a law which no longer pertained to them. Lacking to make this most simple distinction between “Old” and “New” leads very many people, atheists and theists, to commit very many hermeneutical and doctrinal errors.

From the I’m sure that was supposed to mean something files comes this statement by Myers,

Ive always been impressed, myself, at the incredible amount of work people put into religion — its like watching hamsters in a wheel, running, running, running and getting absolutely nowhere. I would not accuse the devout of being lazy…I might argue that productive hard work and religion are mutually exclusive.

That this is poppycock is evidenced by the history of “religion” which is the history of humankind, the history which brought PZ Myers to live in a country which has always been overwhelmingly religious and prosperous, a world power, freedom loving (premised upon our “Creator…nature’s God” giving us that freedom—as per the Declaration of Independence), etc.

Myers writes that “Armstrong and I agree on something. She says yes, I say yes. Well, except for some nuances…” in reference to a segment entitled, “God Is Bad for Women” in which Armstrong writes,

It is unfortunately true that none of the major world religions has been good for women. Even when a tradition began positively for women (as in Christianity and Islam), within a few generations men dragged it back to the old patriarchy. But this is changing…

Note the disconnect; the fallacious charge to which Armstrong is responding is that it is “God” who “Is Bad for Women” yet, she (with Myers following along) respond to whether “the major world religions” have been “good for women.” Thus, while “a tradition” may have began positively for women it was “men” who “dragged it back.”
Is God bad for women? No, not the true God. Genesis 1: 27-28 states that God created both males and females in His image and blessed them (Biblical Women may be of interest).
Is religion bad for women? This is simply too generic but if we want to consider the suppression of women under the guise of “religion” then yes, sure—add this to the very many faults which make “religion” the corruption of a relationship with God that it is. By the way, I keep quoting “religion” as according to the Bible the New Testament the only “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).

Now we come to the point I told you to keep in mind with regards to we versus they and we are superior to them as PZ Myers writes,

…almost all religions rely on a separation of the world into “us”, the tribe, the chosen, the people of the one true god, and the “other”, the enemy, the servants of the dark ones…

In that case, Myers and his New Atheists are religious. Recall, his reference to Homo smartiepantsius this is in opposition of religious people of whom he states that “most are fuzzy thinkers” and that “another reason why religion is bad for people and for nations: it turns good brains to mush.” PZ Myers relies on a separation of the world into “us”, the advanced, the evolved, the enlightened people of “science,” and the “other”, the enemy, the fuzzy thinkers, the mush brained, the “religious.” This is why he as his, the “we” to whom he refers, are the arbiters of evolution and will bring about a new atheist world order.

Following on his “us” versus “other” mentality, Myers more directly identified the players in the conflict. Again, it is “I” versus “religion”:

I consider religion the enemy of science because it short-circuits critical thought and gives believers an escape hatch to superstition. As long as religion teaches that the answers to real world issues can be found in revelation and authority and the interpretation of holy texts, belief is inimical to scientific thinking.

Of course, this is an ahistorical myth if for no other reason, of which there are many, that the “science” upon which he claims to rely on his particular, and peculiar, worldview (which includes something coming from nothing, life from non-life, etc.) was intelligently designed by theists who established methods and scientific fields of study in order to 1) ascertain how God created and 2) how the rational creation of a rational God functioned.

Overall and as per usual, PZ Myers in exiting, emotive, taunting and displays his super-superiority complex quite proudly yet his substance is lacking and only appealing to well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think.

[1] PZ Myers, “Karen Armstrong Weaves Bizarre Defense of Religion,” AlterNet, October 25, 2009

This is a very interesting debate and a case study in presuppositional apologetics/debate.
What this means is that, for example, Erik Dickerson condemns the God of the Bible for committing and allowing immorality yet, when challenged to provide a premise for his condemnation he simply has nothing to offer but further baseless condemnations. This alone discredits about 5 cubit tons of atheist literature.

Now, be on the lookout for a favorite atheist debater’s tactic: peppered through Erik Dickerson’s statement is a very, very powerful lesson: since his statements are so very, very unfounded—by his own admission—he constantly seeks to prop them up by making emotive statements: rape, the Holocaust, murder, you name it.
That is to say; a debater will do this when they seek to get the audience on their side by bypassing their reasoning faculties and appealing directly to their emotions. Since emotions are actually felt and ideas are abstract, a debater can get the feelers in the audience on their side merely by pushing their buttons.
If you are not sidetracked by this tactic you will see that there is nothing upon which he bases his statements.
Kerrigan Skelly actually notes, “I wonder why Erik keeps give up time, because he really has nothing else to say…”

It is particularly at t=52:58 that Erik Dickerson falls apart when his assertions are challenged and he is forced to admit that there is nothing supporting his claims.

On the issue of morality he ultimately states —when back into a corner by his own statements—that it is all about survival of the fittest. Yet, for example, he referred to that which is moral being based on whatever causes the longevity of society. But this is problematic since we know what was thought by Nazi society to provide for its longevity. Also, why is the longevity of society the standard? Well, because it is all about survival of the fittest. Fine but what if my society can survive as the fittest by exterminating other societies? See the problem?

Based on his baseless moral condemnations and survival of the fittest assertion he is asked about a particularly case in which a society is in dire shortage of women and whether it would be moral for (the majority) men to commit rape in such a case: at t=1:21:33 he affirms that in such a case he does not know if rape would be immoral thus, making rape only relatively immoral and also devastating his arguments about the God of the Bible allowing rape (even though the penalty for rape in the Bible is capital punishment Deuteronomy 22:25-27).
The point is that he knows that he can imagine a circumstance in which an immoral act could be moral. Now, if God is allowed the same standards the “problem of evil” is not problematic and shown to be an illogical assertion—see:
Was “the Problem of Evil” Solved Before it was Ever Proposed?

My Evil Thoughts

Does God Command You to Beat Your Slaves

Does the Bible and its God Condone Slavery?

Erik Dickerson made various references to supposed atrocities in the Bible. These mount to well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think-talking-points which I have responded to variously in essays such as Positive Atheism - Cliff Walker : Relative Ethics and Absolute Condemnations and within the section on rape and evilbible.com

As a side note: somehow Erik Dickerson concludes that in the Bible God causes 2.5 million deaths. The Bible covers a span of time reaching into the millennia (various millennia) and so it is interesting to think what a lightweight God is when we consider the fact that within the most secular and bloodiest century in human history atheists murdered millions upon millions and millions more people in a couple of years—see Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism.

For another atheist vs. Christian debate see Atheist vs. Christian debate - Morality: Natural or Supernatural?

Michael Shermer goes on to write:

Most people (scientists included) treat the God question separate from all these other claims. They are right to do so as long as the particular claim in question cannot—even in principle—be examined by science. But what might that include?
Most religious claims are testable, such as prayer positively influencing healing. In this case, controlled experiments to date show no difference between prayed-for and not-prayed-for patients.
And beyond such controlled research, why does God only seem to heal illnesses that often go away on their own?
What would compel me to believe would be something unequivocal, such as if an amputee grew a new limb. Amphibians can do it. Surely an omnipotent deity could do it.
Many Iraqi War vets eagerly await divine action.

Note the emotive nature of his request this time: Iraqi war; bad, injured soldiers; bad, God not healing them; bad. Moreover, and again, he is presupposing a theology and imposing his theology upon us. See Fundamentalist Theologian Asks: “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” and “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”

As for there being “no difference between prayed-for and not-prayed-for patients”; this is not so, see
here, here, here and here.

Now to the point about fine tuning and the multiverse:

There is one mystery I will concede that science may not be able to answer, and that is the question of what existed before our universe began. One answer is the multiverse. According to the theory, multiple universes each had their own genesis, and some of these universes gave birth (perhaps through collapsing black holes) to baby universes, one of which was ours.
There is no positive evidence for this conjecture, but neither is there positive evidence for the traditional answer to the question—God. And in both cases, we are left with the reductio ad absurdum question of what came before the multiverse or God. If God is defined as that which does not need to be created, then why can’t the universe (or multiverse) be defined as that which does not need to be created?
In both cases, we have only negative evidence along the lines of “I can’t think of any other explanation,” which is no evidence at all.

Actually, not only is appealing to an un-evidenced concept such as the multiverse not “One answer”; the multiverse proves that God exists even while it is, itself, a self-defeating concept. See In the Beginning...Cosmology, Part II - Book, Chapter and Multi-Verse and Five Finger Death Punch the Multiverse.

Note that in order to answer “the question of what existed before our universe began” scientifically he appeals to a mythological realm of his own making—the multiverse. Also, he seeks to answer “the question of what existed before our universe began” by referencing “multiple universes” each of which “had their own genesis” which, obviously, answers nothing but merely not only moves the question backwards in time but multiplies it as the question must be asked on each of the multi/universes.

Obviously, he is employing the multiverse for the reason that atheist are so taken with it as a supernatural realm of their own mythos: 1) to escape the scientific evidence of a fine turned universe and 2) to answer “what existed before our universe began” with a non-answer (which he, at least, admits, “There is no positive evidence for this conjecture”).

Is it true that “in both cases, we are left with the reductio ad absurdum question”?
After all, “If God is defined as that which does not need to be created, then why can’t the universe (or multiverse) be defined as that which does not need to be created?”
Well, firstly, because we know that the universe had a beginning in a finite past.
God, in essence, may not be an operational science explanation but God is a philosophical and/or logical explanation. Moreover, what the universe implies about its origins and that which he infer via the very best that science and philosophy have to offer concludes that the universe was created, was created by a theistic God and even makes us privy to certain of that creator God’s characteristics: see On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.

In both cases, we have only negative evidence along the lines of “I can’t think of any other explanation,” which is no evidence at all

Note that he ends up adhering to absolute agnosticism—a consoling delusion which affirms to him that he can simply keep saying, “I don’t know and you don’t either” and be satisfied:

God, multiverse or Unknown. Which one you choose depends on your tolerance for ambiguity and how much you want to believe. For me, I remain in sublime awe of the great Unknown.

Well, God, multiverse or Unknown. Which one you choose depends on your tolerance for ambiguity and how much you believe in logic/philosophy and evidence. For me, I remain in sublime awe of the great Revelation of natural theology/general revelation as well as special revelation.

Note that Michael Shermer’s article was originally titled, “I Want to Believe” but ends up asserting that which he does not want to believe—the evidence which leads towards a conclusion that clashes with his chosen “faith” based worldview.

This is a great video from back in the day when you could post more than 10 minutes at a time on YouTube :o)

As Bart Ehrman is mentioned it may be of interest to consider my essays about his various errors: see this section

1 Corinthians 7:21
21Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
There are times when it is tempting to give up, to accept that things are the way they are and there is nothing we can do about it.

There are also prophecies that declare that undesirable outcomes will one day come to pass. Consider the example of Jesus explaining to his disciples that he was headed for the cross. Peter responded ‘Never Lord’ (an interesting combination of words). Ultimately, he was rebuked by Jesus for having in mind the things of men instead of the things of God.

Jesus himself predicted that his followers would encounter wars, rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, and persecution. Should we take note fof Peter’s rebuke and do nothing to prevent the descent into the end times? Or should we cling to our role as salt and light and as Paul said, secure our freedom if we can?

What if we are the ones to witness a steady march towards a tyrannical one world government? What if we begin to witness the loss of cherished religious freedoms? What if our government is quietly co-opted by forces that intend to revolutionize our country and toss out its constitution and trample the concepts of human rights, private property, and equal opportunity?

Are we to accept all these developments because prophecy states that in the end times such and worse will occur? Should we just take solace in the hope that (as some believe) we will be raptured before things get really bad so it doesnt really matter anyway?

Paul’s advice: “if you can gain your freedom, do so” contains great wisdom and a balanced approach that we would do well to consider.

In Paul’s day, not everyone had the opportunity to gain their freedom. Slaves in the Eastern regions could gain their freedom, where in the Western regions they were treated more harshly. Similarly, in our times not everyone has the opportunity to gain their freedom. There are oppressive governments where the people have few rights and where even speaking out against injustice can have severe ramifications.

But..in the USA we have a constitution that gives us the right, the responsibility to preserve our freedom for us, for our children, and for future generations (be they few or many).

Creating a sense of Inevitability is a stated goal and known tactic of the enemies of freedom. For example, Saul Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals states “Always remember the first rule of power tactics; power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”

It may seem at times that the enemy has a foothold in so many places, more than you can hope to dislodge. Be careful to validate the strength of the enemy as you decide if it is possible to gain your freedom. Do the enemies of freedom have control of the minds of the masses thru media, the government officials by bribes and corruption, the world’s largest banks through concentrated ownership in the hand of the few? Perhaps they do..

But in the USA (as I write this) we do still have some freedoms. We should take our opportunity to regain and secure our freedom seriously. We still have a legally binding constitution, the freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to assemble, and the right to dissent. We still have the power to vote, and the opportunity to ensure that our friends and family are aware of the risks to freedom in our time. Plato said “The price good men pay for indifference to political affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” It is time for believers to rediscover their civic duty to “select capable men and let them serve”. It is time to reject the cocktail party mentality that we should check our spiritual and political worldview at the door, that religion and politics are off-limits for polite conversation. It is not time to surrender or stick our heads in the sand, it is time to take Paul’s advice..

“If you can gain your freedom, do so!”