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.

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice

Christianity has it all wrong, pride in oneself is NOT a vice...it is a virtue.  To use Aristotle's definition: Pride is the mean between two vices. For example: Courage is the mean between cowardice and foolhardy.

Pride is defined as the proper amount of self respect. The christian definition has been added as a definition which makes no sense. You can never have too much pride if pride is the proper amount of self respect--the christians misuse the word.

Pride is between humble and arrogant/boastful, and therefore, pride is a virtue.  I consider pride to be the highest virtue because if you have pride, then you will not disrespect yourself, and you will uphold all of the virtues.  

So why do Christians believe pride is a vice, as Ray Comfort made known in his blog post? It is because it is easier for the powers that be to control and manipulate meek and humble "sheeple" than it is to control and manipulate prideful people who will not belittle themselves or stoop to believing someone else can take responsibility for their actions, because they respect themselves enough to do it themselves.

The confusion comes about because christians have been taught that humble a virtue instead of a vice. Humble is defined as:

1.  having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very humble.

2.  low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin; a humble home. 

Therefore, Christians believe those who feel inferior, and lowly, and are subservient are more "godly" than those who are prideful and have self-respect.  Again, this is for a reason, which is why Christians "invented" the fallen angel story, who defied god due to his excessive pride.  But note, there is no such story in the Torah/Tanakh, and there is no such thing as excessive pride (the proper amount of self-respect).  The church, governments, and anyone who has control does not want to relinquish that control, so they take measures to maintain control.  The church did this by promoting "meekness and humbleness," so believers would follow like sheep and never question. 

Knowledge encourages self respect as when one becomes aware, they are less likely to believe anything without question.  Knowledge is power.  Question everything.  Have pride.  

Addendum:  Please see photos of the rebuttal to this post made by David Rodriguez of the now defunct "Rational Gang" (as of June 2012)  and my rebuttal here and here.


David Rodriguez can now be found at "walking christian"

CS Lewis' False Dilemma: Ray Comfort Unintentionally Offered Another Potential Alternative Disjunct to CS Lewis' "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord" Argument.

In it for the cash!

Religion was invented when the first con artist met the first fool. ~ Mark Twain

 Assume what Ray Comfort says is true on his blog:

"Few people know that Jesus had a donor-based ministry. It costs money to feed and lodge 13 itinerant preachers. Many people knew that, and gladly supported the cause."

If Jesus' ministry was "money based," then it is possible that Jesus was a swindler, and con artist.

Now, let us consider CS Lewis' argument:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." (Lewis, C.S,.Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, p54-56. (In all editions, this is Bk. II, Ch. 3, "The Shocking Alternative.")

C.S. Lewis' argument is often recast as:

P1.  Either, Jesus was a Lunatic, or  Liar, or Lord, (or sometimes  as "Mad, or Bad, or God")

P2. Jesus was obviously not a  Lunatic and not a liar.
C.   Therefore, Jesus was Lord

C.S. Lewis thinks that P2 is obviously true.  Is this the case? P2 is not obviously true, and Ray Comfort has provided us, indirectly, with a plausible motive and  reason why P2 is not obviously true, thereby proving that C.S. Lewis' "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord " argument is not sound, and therefore fails.

Let us reconsider P1. CS Lewis' main premise in his argument, "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" leaves out the disjunct that Jesus might have been a swindler and a con artist.  As pointed out above, If Jesus' ministry was "money based," then it is possible that Jesus was a swindler, and con artist. Thus, in the case of P1 we can add "or a swindler and con artist".

Therefore, P1 ought to read:

:
Either Jesus was a liar, or a lunatic,or a swindler and con artist, or a lord,  

As Ray Comfort points out, the gospels claim that Judas was the treasurer. We know that if you have a treasurer, you must also have a treasury. In this case, the treasury consisted of silver. Now, we know from modern day evangelists, that they often times use the poor, starving, and oppressed to get "donations" that they then use on/for themselves. Now here, in the bible, we have an EYEWITNESS account that Jesus was doing the same thing!! Jesus had been given some expensive oil that he was going to use on his.feet, and from what Judas said, we can infer that such donations were supposed to be used to feed, clothe, and house the disciples and the poor. Judas, our eyewitness, points out that this very expensive oil, that was DONATED, ought to have been sold, and the money used to FEED THE POOR. (John 12:4-6 )We can infer from this that Judas felt deceived by Jesus, and called him out on it. Judas was a whistleblower. Again, like in modern times, the whistleblower is often attacked, and made into a scapegoat by those who have committed the indiscretions. Note, that according to the gospels, Judas was attacked after he called out Jesus for using the expensive oil on himself, instead of selling it and using the money to feed the poor. Lastly, the gospels have Judas exclaim "I have betrayed innocent blood" (Matt 27:4) and then he killed himself, as if he was guilt ridden. However, given what we know about what happens when a person blows the whistle, that is, how the company belittles them, lies on them, and so forth--another possible alternative we can infer is that the other disciples began to lie and spread bad rumors against Judas, and that the disillusioned Judas committed suicide because he was duped by Jesus, and everything he believed in was a sham, and turned out to be false.

Whether my explanation is correct or not, is not the point. The fact of the matter is, it is a PLAUSIBLE, AND VIABLE explanation, given our EYEWITNESS account, according to the gospel, and what we experience with many modern day evangelicals, and church leaders in general, where they misappropriate funds for their own selfish use. Note, I gave a plausible explanation already for the EYEWITNESS accounts against Judas.

CS Lewis' P1 in his argument, "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord" leaves out the disjunct that Jesus might have been a swindler and a con artist. Furthermore, P2 is not obviously true, thereby proving that C.S. Lewis' "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord " argument is not sound, and therefore fails.

As a side note, Judas' calling out of Jesus calls into question Jesus' character, and points out another inconsistency in the bible. Part of the Bible paints Jesus as being totally selfless, and only concerned with the plight of the poor. But here we have Jesus selfishly using oil that as Judas points out, ought to have been sold, and the money used to feed the poor. Jesus' reply to Judas is very telling. Jesus said:

"The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have ME." ( Matt 26:11)

This shows his egotistical side. (A common characteristic of many of the charismatic swindlers and con artist types of our day.) This would further support the disjunct that Jesus was a swindler and a con artist.  If Jesus was a swindler and a con artist, then he was also a liar. If Jesus was a liar, then he was also a swindler and a con artist. At the same time as both of these disjuncts, he might also have been a lunatic!  Of course, as unlikely as it is, he might also have been a lord......but given the explanations above, and what we know from experience, the other explanations are more plausible.

Addendum:  Someone who read this post recently asked me what the difference was between a liar and swindler.  Here is my explanation of those differences:

A person can lie just for the heck of it, and not for money or power or anything else, except for the sake of lying. A swindler and con artist MAY tell a lie, or may not. Sometimes they deceive by other methods. Either way, a swindler is doing it to gain something to gain something such as money or power, as opposed to just a liar, because there are liars who lie for the heck of it and not to gain money or power.  There are some swindlers who swindle just for the heck of it–i.e. they get a rush out of lying, and/or conning  and swindling people--At any rate, it still involves the act of deceiving for money and/or power, for as the definition of swindle is to deceive, cheat or defraud of money or property.  A con artist is just another synonym for a swindler.  Now, with reference to Jesus, he could have been a liar just for the heck of it--without any other ulterior motive. On the other hand, since as Ray Comfort pointed out, his ministry was “donation based,” it provides us with the possibility that Jesus was a swindler /con artist, as his motive may have been “donations.”

Therefore, as unlikely as it is, he might also have been a lord......but given the explanations above, and what we know from experience, the other explanations are more plausible that Jesus might have been a liar, and/or a swindler/con artist.

Ray Comfort's Red Ring of Enlightenment

I read Ray's blog today, and could not help but to laugh. It seems a kind atheist sent him just what he needed, and Ray was getting all gushy over the miracles of god! When I read the blog, I really could not tell if he was being serious or not (especially since it was written on April 1).  But then again......he is the "Banana Man."

Before he received this marvelous gift, Ray was not looking forward to an upcoming 30 hour flight to Israel where he will be filming season five of his program.  In fact, he went to the drug store looking for "nasal strips" recently, saw the bright red donut cushion, and contemplated buying it himself--but he didn't.   God does work in mysterious ways--because at the same time he was contemplating buying this marvelous invention, a godless atheist decided to send one to him, free of charge!  But the atheist called it a "Red Ring of Enlightenment," --not an inflatable cushion.  Most of the Christians who made comments did not seem to get the humor in it all--but it certainly made me laugh.

But seriously folks, what kind of a sick god would send Ray a "Red Ring of Enlightenment" to make his trip to Israel more comfortable, but at the same time, allow good Christian children in Africa to starve to death; or good Christian women in America to be raped; or.......I could go on and on.  If we are all created "equal," why would Ray's god bless him, when so many others who are as fervent in their beliefs as he is suffer needlessly day after day?

Those little Christian children who die of starvation every day certainly have nothing to learn from it, which makes me wonder. But what about Ray?  Will he learn anything from the "Red Ring of Enlightenment"?  He certainly does seem to talk out of his A$$ often enough, so it can't hurt to try.

Death of the "Banana Man"

For those that may be unaware, the "Banana Man" aka Ray Comfort, is an evangelical Christian, who also happens to be a popular foil for many atheists on the web.  He recently participated in an on air interview with Matt Dillahunty on "The Atheist Experience," and I had difficulty restraining my laughter, but please watch and judge for yourself. http://www.atheist-experience.com/

This blog post is not so much about that interview, but about Ray's blog post on "Atheist Central."  He seems to be expressing his dying wish for us heathens to "come to the lord" before it is too late, and we end up in the--as he says--"a very real and terrible Hell."  Oh Ray......again, you made me chuckle.  If Ray was aware of the history of his religion, he would know that "Hell" is a construct based on a conception the Zoroastrians thought up first.  Like almost everything else Ray claims to believe in, Hell was COPIED from beliefs of another group. He would also know the early Jews were wandering nomads who were either enslaved or ruled over by other groups, so quite naturally, they adopted the customs and behaviors of these groups as well.  Think of the African slaves, or the Native Americans who were forced to adopt Christianity or be tortured and killed.  Much the same thing happened to the Jews.  Hence, Christianity is a mish mash of beliefs from the Egyptians, Romans, Babylonians, Zoroastrians, etc.  Hell does not exist, except of course, in Ray's mind.

Now, onto one of my favorite quotes in Ray's diatribe:

"So, to be saved from death and Hell, you must have "knowledge of sin." Do you have it? Did the Law of God get through to you, or did your pride stop it from doing its incredible work? I trust you have been humbled by the Commandments, so that you can appropriate the further knowledge that the gospel brings, knowledge that can save you from death."

"Sin" again, is a Christian construct. I do not believe in sin.  I do however, believe in right and wrong, and I also believe that what we do is nothing but CHOICE--and we have the ability to choose to either do the right thing, or do the wrong thing.  We use Normative Ethical Theories to make ethical choices in our lives, but I will address this in a later posting.

 If we were created perfectly, by a perfect god, then how would we even have the ability to  make a mistake?  We cannot be "born sinners" as that would mean a perfect god created imperfect beings, which makes no logical sense, unless he planned it that way. Pelagius, a contemporary of Augustine, claimed we DO have the ability to choose, as he believed "responsibility implies ability."  The belief in original sin as set out by Augustine however,  implies that humans have no "free will" to make the correct choices. i.e. We DO NOT have the ability to choose right.  Augustine believed we are born in sin; but to believe that Jesus washed away our sins is to absolve ourselves from taking responsibility for our own actions--which has resulted in a society filled with people who continue to make poor choices, believing of course, that they can't help it--they were born that way.  Oh, how wrong Augustine was!!  Christians, what you do is nothing but CHOICE--and you CAN make the right choices!  I dare you. Go ahead.

The definition of pride has also be skewed by Christian dogma.  According to Aristotle, pride is nothing but self respect, and is the mean between being humble and arrogant.  One can never have too much pride, if pride is the proper amount of self respect.  I consider pride to be the highest virtue because if you have pride, then you will not disrespect yourself, and you will uphold all of the virtues.The confusion comes about because christians want to make humble a virtue instead of a vice. Humble is defined as:

1. having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very humble.

2. low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin; a humble home. 

So Ray, if you are listening, I just want you to know that I am not afraid of death.  Death is a part of life, and my energy when I die will, according to the First Law of Conservation of Energy, become something else, as energy cannot be created or destroyed.  What that is, I will never know, but I won't waste precious life worrying about it.

See Ray's blog here:  http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2011/03/ray-comfort-dead-at-61.html