Dear Anonymous: Part 3 - The Real Meaning of Love

This is the third part of a three part series of posts in response to a commenter at the blog post below:
A Critique of Richard Dawkins and WL Craig

Dear Anonymous,

You asked me if I knew what love is--and I believe I do. Love is honor, respect, caring, teaching, and nurturing. I have all of these in my life, and I am grateful for that. There is no reason to love anyone if you know you will not be loved in return. "Loving your enemies" as Christians claim to do, will most likely end in tragedy.   Christians may claim to love their enemies, but for most Christians, this aphorism is quite meaningless, as they have tortured and burned literally millions of their so-called "enemies"--including the innocent medicine women, vilified by the church as "witches." What would America be like if the President "loved his enemies"??--most likely it would not be the America we know today. Loving ones enemies is a trick the power mongers use in order to manipulate the masses into conforming to their will. Love the master=love the enemy. No--loving ones enemy will do nothing to make the world a better place to be.

It is the Capitalist/Christian matrix which promotes such ridiculous paradigms--this needs to change in order for humanity to survive. My goal is not to increase the hate--it is to make those who deserve to be hated take responsibility for their actions. My goal is, as you say to "rid the world of the Christian menace," as I have already explained that the Christian doctrine of salvation leads to moral laxity, and a corrupt society. People such as Harris, Dawkins, myself and others are not espousing despair and hatred, nor are we promoting it. As Shirley Phelps might say, "To what end?" To what end would someone like myself want to promote hatred and despair? Your conclusion on this point makes no logical sense. I promote living, as Jesus said, a "perfect" life. He himself said to "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect."--meaning do what is right the FIRST time, and do not choose to lie, steal, commit adultery etc, because, well, you believe you were "born bad" and can't help but be that way. This is total nonsense, and is a philosophy that yes, I want eliminated. If society was taught they are born perfect, and can choose right--the world would be a much better place for us all. There is a great deal of meaning in living a life in which you can make it better for those that follow you. This is what I do. In the near future I will be publishing a post dealing with the subject of perfection, and the Christian misconception of it.

I have no interest in humility.  As I have already mentioned, humility, like loving ones' enemies, makes one vulnerable to someone else's manipulations. I have pride in myself, and in my words and actions. Pride, after all, is not a vice--but is, according to Aristotle, the means between humble and arrogant. Pride is having the proper amount of self-respect, and if you have self -respect, you will be less likely to be led to do things that are improper and/or dangerous. There is no such thing as having too much pride if pride is having the proper amount of self-respect. Yes, I have pride, and I am proud of that...;) For more information on why pride is not a vice, but a virtue, see the following blog posts:

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice Part 2 

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice Part 3 

You go on to say:

" At the moment, you are the enemy and someone like Craig is only going to debate someone with enough listeners that it would matter for eternity. You don’t have enough of an audience to matter right now. That’s not taking a shot, it’s just that only a handful of people have big enough names to warrant attention in this realm right now. "

I would philosophize with anyone, even a homeless hobo who had no connections with anybody, as I am only concerned with the arguments. If however, WL Craig is only looking for the fame and fortune of debating well known atheists, well--that says a great deal about his character. I would debate him anonymously, as I do not care for "fame and fortune." All I care about is the arguments, and getting people to see how absurd Christian dogma truly is in order to reduce moral laxity and avoid more suffering.

Oh, and if I am your "enemy" as you say--how much do you love me?--lol. I had to laugh..... All the more reason, according to your Christian beliefs, to spend time arguing/debating with me. In philosophy, an argument is a set of premises from which a conclusion can be deduced logically. I am more than willing to spend time arguing/debating with theists--whom I do not even claim to love!

You claim I do not admit when I am wrong--and you are wrong. I put forth arguments and it is up to anyone who disagrees to offer their counter arguments and rebuttals. If they are not successful, that is not my fault. Like in this case, you have not refuted any of my arguments, but have merely tried to dissuade me via a personal attack--which is irrelevant to the arguments. I have no problem admitting when I was wrong, or if I do not know something. I have no idea how the universe was created for instance, but if all we have are theories, I will hold to the "best explanation" until proven otherwise, and the supernatural is always going to be the LEAST likely explanation for any type of phenomena. What I do know are via my experiences, and I know that I get great joy in helping people view the world in a different light. By viewing this life and the earth as being precious, and by promoting an altruistic lifestyle, the only life we may ever know becomes that much better.

And I will never "knock it off" as you so desperately want me to. I will continue to inform as many people as I can of the arguments, contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible, and how Christian dogma leads to moral laxity, and how it promotes suffering in the world.

Again, my thanks for the great fodder. Please feel free to comment anytime, and I will respond in kind.

In defense of Atheism--A Critique of Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig

Many know Richard Dawkins as an outspoken advocate of atheism and author of "The God Delusion." He is a well known speaker and has debated the subject of Christianity with many learned theists, including the Archbishop of Canterbury--but he refuses to debate the Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig. Because of this, Dawkins has been labelled by Craig and others, as a coward for not stepping up to take that challenge.

Now, in my view the debates are moot anyway, since the arguments have already been refuted long ago, and I too have offered refutations to WL Craig's arguments on this blog. In his defense, Dawkins claims he does not want to debate anyone who is willing to defend the slaughter of the Canaanites as being necessary --yet he has already debated others who have these same beliefs, including two archbishops of Canturbury--so this excuse makes no sense.  It makes no sense because as Christians, they cannot "disown" as Dawkins puts it, the parts of the bible that reveal the god ordained slaughtering of the innocents. (Deuteronomy 20: 13-15,) To do so would be to negate the authority of the bible--and it would become meaningless. Many scholars however, acknowledge that much of what is written about in war, and in other circumstances, is exaggerated hyperbole--and especially in the case of the slaughter of the Canaanites, the language used is full of bravado, is exaggerated, and is said to be hypberbolic.  Why, as the authors of "The Bible Unearthed" have shown, using  archeological evidence, the battles probably never even happened in the first place.   Jesus however, never "disowned" any part of the Old Testament, and did not claim the OT to be anything but the word of God.  He did not "disown" the so called word of God--and neither can Christians, or they would not be Christains.   Christians seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place concerning this issue, because if we consider some of the bible to be hyperbole, then all of it comes into question and can be considered as such. We have no way of knowing what is hyperbole and what is not. But if they take it literally, then their bible reveals a god who is not at all "all-loving" as he orders the slaughter of innocent women and children. Hmmm.... If Christians disown the slaughter of the innocent Canaanites, they might as well disown the torture and murder of the innocent Jesus as well--perhaps that is hyperbole too. That is, if Christians claim the story of the slaughter of the Canaanites is merely "hyperbole"--then we can say the same thing about the supposed torture and death of Jesus on the cross, and his so-called "resurrection." Perhaps it is just hyperbole too--it never really happened.

Furthermore, according to Christians, Jesus used hyperbole many times, such as when he said "prayer moves mountains." We know that doesn't happen either. Perhaps it is also his use of hyperbole when he claims to be the son of god.  When Jesus said that "me and the father are one"--that too could just be hyperbole--as when I say that "me and my grandmother are one. "  I say this because my grandmother and I share the same philosophy--just as Jesus claimed that he shares the same philosophy with his father. But, it would not mean that I am my grandmother, nor that Jesus is God.

Nevertheless, WL Craig, whom I now label as the "king of strawmen, " (as that is his favorite fallacy) offers weak arguments that can easily be taken apart; but what sets him apart from other apologists is his rhetorical skills. He does not win debates on whether what he is arguing for is the truth or not--it is purely by rhetoric. Now, if Dawkins can be criticized for not being willing to defend his position--so can the apologists. To illustrate how hypocritical many so-called apologists for Jesus are, note what the Christian blogger "Wintery Knight" --the blogger that does not take critical comments on his blog--mentioned in a recent post:

"I don't mind that atheists think atheism is true, and that theism is irrational. That's their view, and they are entitled to hold it and speak it and teach it. But I think that Came is right to say that they should also be willing to defend it in public. Dawkins is clearly not willing to defend his views, and that tells me that he has no reasons to believe them."

Wintery Knight is a blogger who will NOT take comments against his own views, and edits comments to suit his fancy. In other words, he too does not defend his views against criticism. Talk about hypocrisy--but he is not the only one. There are quite a few Christian bloggers out there that are unwilling to post comments from people such as myself because I know how to take apart their arguments and make them look ridiculous. Some of them are Tom Gilson at "Thinking Christian", "Wintery Knight"--and my favorite, JW Wartick, at "Always Have a Reason." Now, there are a few, such as Bill Pratt at "Tough Questions Answered" and Ray Comfort at "Atheist Central" that still do take my comments, and I commend them for that, but for those that do not--they are no different than Dawkins and WL Craig. You see, Craig has also refused to debate certain scholars, as he will not take up the challenge of debating his former student, John Loftus over at "Debunking Christianity", because Craig knows that Loftus knows what he knows!!  Craig has no problem debating people he feels have less knowledge than he does, or weaker rhetorical skills, but Craig refuses to debate Loftus--why? Because he knows Loftus would make a fool out of him.  Craig claims he does not want to debate a former student--which, like his arguments, is just a weak excuse. Craig et al. are hypocrites and cowards, and have no business "defending" their faith against criticism--when they cannot take criticism.

As my mother said long ago--if the theists can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. I would debate Craig anytime, and I know I would make him look ridiculous. And to show I am not interested in the publicity, I would do it over the internet as a podcast--anonymously. Would Craig take up the challenge? If he has read my blog--he knows that it would be in his best interest not to take up the challenge because his weak arguments would be defeated.

Theists need to step up their game if they wish to keep up with scholars such as myself--because the cracks in their armor are showing, and I see feathers peeking through.

Answering "Tough Questions" Why Should We Be Good?

I found another interesting Christian apologetic blog recently called "Tough Questions Answered" and felt compelled to make a few comments of my own on their blog post titled, "If There Is no God, Why Be Good?" Unfortunately, I failed to take a photo of my comments before they were deleted. I did however, find it amusing that the moderators/writers of this blog felt it necessary to delete my comment in the first place, as it illustrated to me once again how weak their position is, and how pathetic their attempts are at upholding their nonsensical beliefs.

The post itself was a critique of Richard Dawkins arguments in which he contends that Christians are only good due to the fear of "divine wrath," and the writer goes on to say that he is unaware of any Christian scholar who makes these types of arguments. He obviously does not get out much, as I have heard this argument from scholars and lay Christians alike. Lay Christians actually LEARN this belief from other supposedly learned Christians and even from unlearned Christians.  Why, it is one of the basic messages taught to little children in Sunday School.

A person also learns right and wrong by experience, and the laws and morality of his particular group or society dictates what is accepted as right and what is wrong. Some societies for instance, accepted cannibalism as being right, whereas most would not. Why, even the early Christians believed cannibalism to be "right" as they routinely sacrificed living babies by rolling them in flour, dismembering them, and drinking their blood as a sacrifice to their god! The Romans who witnessed this practice however, thought of it as "immoral" and made note of this in court records. The view of a Roman Christian apologist who disagreed with this practice can be found in the Octavius, chapter 9. Dawkins was indeed right when he claimed that morality based on the bible is outdated and obnoxious. It is also totally unnecessary, as we, as societies, develop our own morals and ethics via Normative Ethical Theories such as Utilitarianism--which means doing what is right for the overall good--no gods or goddesses required.

This is how morals and ethics develop in society. They are relative, and they change accordingly. Another instance would be slavery. At one time, it was considered ethical to keep slaves, whereas today it is not. As a pragmatist, I am willing to change my views and beliefs if a "better explanation" is developed, and unfortunately for Christians, the supernatural is ALWAYS going to be the LEAST likely explanation for any phenomenon--including ethical behaviors.  Christians may claim that the belief in Jesus as their lord and savior improves their morality, but the state of Christian society in general proves otherwise. In fact, the belief of Christians that they are born sinners, and cannot help but do bad things, has led to what the Christian philosopher Pelagius called "moral laxity" in which Christians commit rape, murder, incest, etc. believing they cannot help themselves, but that is ok according to them, because they can repent to jesus and still go to heaven. There is no eternal justice for the victims of Christian crime. The only real justice can be found in secular courts.

Bill Pratt, the writer of the blog post claims that god writes the "basic moral law on every person’s conscience," and in my deleted comment to him, I made mention of Gandhi, and if what Bill said was true, then it would be grossly unfair for Bill's god to write the laws in the heart of one of civilizations greatest humanitarians, but then fail to give him "grace" in order to save him from the fires of eternal hell. As the Christian god decides who receives grace and who does not, as it is "not of themselves" (Ephesians 2:8) it is grossly unfair, and unethical to banish such a great humanitarian to eternal punishment for not believing in god--when according to the bible that would be god's fault to begin with, as he is responsible for meting out grace to whomever he pleases. It is again, "not of themselves"--grace is a "gift" from god.

So why be good?  One quick answer to this question is that we are good because it increases the overall good of society.  It is in our best interests to be good.  Our survival depends on cooperation. 

This is why my comment was deleted. They have no argument that stands up to scrutiny. Their efforts are pathetically futile.

Addendum:  Bill Pratt did eventually post my comment, claiming it was not deleted intentionally.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but that does not take away from the fact that his religious beliefs and his arguments are flawed, as I have demonstrated.

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Rebecca Watson---and Why We Still Have a Long Road Ahead

In the last week or so, there has been many articles and blog posts circulating the web in regards to the incident that occurred between the feminist, Rebecca Watson, and the infamous "man on the elevator." My original post regarding this incident can be found here.

I have spent some time reading views that support Rebecca, and those that do not, which is the subject of this post. I agree that the behavior of the "man on the elevator" was inappropriate, but the reaction to this incident by one of the so-called "enlightened" men of this age was also rather disappointing. It saddened me to read how Richard Dawkins trivialized the experience of Rebecca Watson in a rather sarcastic comment he made on PZ Myers' blog:

"Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so …
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard"

Although I find Professor Dawkins remark disheartening, I understand why he made it. Notice how Professor Dawkins highlights the "chick" part of "Skepchick." This was the subject of my previous post, and in a response to the comments against his comment, Professor Dawkins claimed  that all the man in the elevator did was that:

"He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that."

What he implies by the above statement is that words don't really matter--which is silly.  Words DO matter.  As Foucault would say, "Everything is political."  This is illustrated when claiming that "All MEN are created equal"--when in the times of slavery, this only applied to white property owners, which meant that they had an image of a white man who owned property--excluding women, children, African slaves, and everyone else as being part of humanity.   Even today, when a boss uses the phrase, "I am going to hire the best man for the job," he already has a bias, as he has an image in his mind as to what kind of "man" he is going to hire.   

Words DO matter, and Professor Dawkins seems to contradict himself when he highlights the word "chick" (as if the word mattered) and then says what the man in the elevator said was "just words." (i.e., they DON'T matter)  Regardless, a woman who labels herself as a "chick" (it makes no difference how she views it) is going to be viewed and treated as a "chick" (i.e. brainless and fluffy) by men in elevators, and men such as Professor Dawkins. This is how the matrix works, and how it works against women.

Men such as Dawkins, and Mr. Hitchens are said to be more "enlightened" than most, which is why so many were taken aback by his remarks--but I have my doubts as to how "enlightened" they really are. They may claim to support the rights of women, and may stand up for the rights of women--but the insidiousness of the Abrahamic doctrine that women are "sexual objects" is still in their thoughts, even if they don't think so. This was illustrated by Professor Dawkins' sarcasm, and also by Mr. Hitchens in his book,"God is Not Great."

In his book, Mr. Hitchens spoke about the late professor A.J. Ayer,* whom he viewed as upstanding moral man, when in fact, he had broken "every sexual commandment" there is to break. Mr. Hitchens swept aside Professor Ayer's acts of "disrespecting the sexual code," i.e. disrespecting women, as he qualified the man as an outstanding moral figure by listing his virtues as a loving parent, an excellent teacher, and a man who fought for human rights and free speech--as if disrespecting women (especially his own wife) in this regard was meaningless. Mr. Hitchens said nothing about the rights and feelings of the women Ayer had used and abused during his life, but I do not believe Mr. Hitchens meant to disrespect women intentionally. What his statements do illustrate however, is how insidious and pervasive this patriarchal view of women is in society, as even men such as Mr. Hitchens, and now Professor Dawkins, see nothing wrong with men objectifying women, and say nothing in defense of the women who are hurt and abused (such as Professor Ayer's wife, and Rebecca Watson) in this manner. If this were a world where women were as valued as men, even Mr. Hitchens, and Professor Dawkins would see Professor Ayer's behavior, and the behavior of the "man in the elevator" as inappropriate. It is when women are objectified, that such behavior is seen as "acceptable" by society --and this, it seems, is still how Professor Dawkins, and Mr. Hitchens view women as well. 

 

It certainly illustrates that society as a whole (as Rebecca herself labels herself as a "chick") has a long way to go.....

* God Is Not Great, p. 186