Once more Pastor Mike (aka my youngest brother Mike) is at it again with his diatribes against atheists, especially moi. However, he insists at his website, that he “welcomes” everyone, including non-believers. But I want to do here is to examine critically some more of his claims. Let us look at them in turn.
In is open letter to atheists, now on his forum, he writes:
I would LOVE to have an 'open discussion topic' board on this site , but would have to 'screen' ALL submissions (as I now do with my "Guest Book " , for fear of the 'radicals' posting their tirades (after all , I can't sit by my computer 24/7 'screening' posts ), as opposed to staying on topic - with MUTUAL RESPECT , as well as respecting my ' ground rules' of no profanity , blasphemy , personal attacks , etc . I do not think that is 'asking too much .
This is pure bunk. In fact, in my first and only “submission” to his guest book, I appended a column I’d written for a local newspaper entitled “The Savior Template”. The article explored the background and history of God-Man mythologies, such as Mithras and Horus – and noted that since these predated Christianity, the Jesus story was most likely plagiarized (by Christian scribes) from the earlier ones.
One day after my addition, “Pastor Mike” posted a rejoinder comment, saying he at first considered removing it, then decided against it. He wanted everyone to “see first hand the hold Satan had on his brother”.
A day later the article was removed and a fulminating additional comment from him materialized, to the effect he was not about to permit the “demons of deception” to have their way. So, in truth and in fact,. he wants no part of any open discussion. He is then, a coward, and not even as brave as another such I-net character who calls himself “Pastor Jim”. At least this Pastor has the nerve to post e-mails sent to him. See:
http://www.truechristian.com/favoriteemails.html
Pastor Mike then rambles on:
Some atheists think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense.
This is bare bollocks. In fact, atheists don’t interpret their position as a “stand” – heroic or otherwise- but rather a natural outcome of decades of parsing through what “evidence” is on offer from their religious, god-believing brethren At the end of the day, then, they conclude (mostly on the basis of a lack of efficacy) there is no deity that conforms to omni attributes: “all-knowing”, “all-powerful” etc.
Now, given that most god-believers have not defined what "God" is, far less put forth any necessary or sufficient conditions for it s existence (contingent on the definition) then the atheist is at liberty to say that any given believer’s "reasonable grounds" are no more compelling than my reasonable grounds for asserting that alien experiments are being conducted at Area 51, or that a 22-dimensional essence is at the root of cosmic evolution.
Another example: Many god-believers describe themselves as deists. This means they interpret the divinity as some kind of "watchmaker" who completes his cosmic fancy work then abandons the cosmos to its own devices, unfolding. The point? It clearly radically diverges from the God of Pastor Mike - which is judgmental and personally involved at multiple levels with humans, or so we are informed. The problem? How to reconcile via standardized definition, or attributes, that the “God” claimed by either deist, Catholic or fundagelical is the SAME entity?
A first start toward rational inquiry is therefore for Pastor Mike to say how and in what ways his "God" diverges from say the typical deist’s, or Einstein’s (“Spinoza’s God”) or Sir Fred Hoyle's. Then one can perhaps start getting somewhere, as opposed to forever being faced with generic "God" statements or arguments, which end up being meaningless because no clear distinctions can be made.
What I’m saying is that before one can assert one has "reasonable grounds" for accepting a proposition or claim he must understand that that claim means, or the underlying entity. A first step to understanding, is to define it. (Preferably in 50 words ors less) A second step is to articulate necessary and sufficient conditions for its existence.
Here's a start: Every manjack agrees "intelligence" is a necessary condition for a deity. (A condition such that its absence means the entity cannot exist). Now, what are some sufficient conditions? (Those conditions by their presence mean the entity MUST exist)
Let us return to the irrrepressible Pastor Mike:
No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything contrary to what he wants to believe. There are still those who insist the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter what the evidence. There are always folks, no matter if religious or atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense?
Again, the good Pastor has it all wrong. No one is “prejudging” anything to do with this issue. If anything is being “prejudged” it is the absence of compelling singular and standardized definitions for the claimed entity. If none of these mesh, or there are numerous contradictions (say between the deist’s God and the fundie’s) what are we (atheists) to think? Well, if you can’t even agree on your own basic definition, why should we even take the claim seriously? It is somewhat like two drunks in the throes of delirium tremens, each arguing about a giant spider coming after them. “Joe” asserts it’s eight feet high and has a pair of red horns, while “Jack” asserts its ten feet high and with mandibles as big thick as telephone poles.
What is the casual, rational passerby to make of their claims? Well, that they are both delusional.
Using the “earth is flat” as the basis for an argument – especially to defend an approach to an invisible entity that can’t even be measured, is just plain daft and egregious. Yes, uh…..we KNOW the Earth is not flat because from the time of Aristotle it was concluded the Earth was a sphere, based on the shape of its shadow projected on the Moon during a lunar eclipse. Later, Eratosthenes actually managed to compute the Earth’s diameter to be 13,400 kilometers – from which its circumference could be found.
What my brother is asserting or proposing, is that there is a perfect analogy between what was done (by measurement) to conclude the Earth’s sphericity, to the existence of an entity that can’t be remotely measured. Thus, he is guilty of false analogy.
Thus, asserting that “there are still those who insist the Earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise” is NOT the same as saying that a reasonable, rational man is not convinced by an empty claim for an invisible entity that can’t even be measured the way the Earth can for “flatness”. Chalk and cheese. Oh, and an entity that can’t even be given a uniform, standardized definition.
It is hilarious that he uses the example of someone who says “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up” – when he hasn’t even provided any base facts! ALl he gives are sundry dozens of biblical quotations, which do not qualify as facts. Indeed, as biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman notes (“Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”) it is essentially impossible to obtain one consistent narrative between all the synoptic gospels – because competing interests, or scribes had different agendas at different times, resulting in numerous serious mistranslations, retranslations and plain script butchery to force a perception.
What we need from the likes of Pastor Mike are prima facie, independent facts of the world that unequivocally point to a deity. Without the need to cite endless bible bunkum.
The true narrow-mindedness inheres with him, for not being able to parse or consider more than one narrow, anthropomorphized version of a deity. At least my good Christian friend John (yes I do have them) has embraced the nuance of the Sociinian deity – since he now recognizes an “omni” attribute one is a fantasy.
Let’s explore this in more detail to see why.
In reply to my contention this “infinite” deity is useless and impotent, one commentator on the AARP message forum (“Life After Death”) retorted:
Are you sure you want the Almighty to be stepping in and interfering in our affairs every time we're about to screw it up? A little reflection might indicate that perhaps that might not be such a good thing
However, he misses the whole point. It isn’t that we are asking for active intervention, but rather PASSIVE, minimalist response to pleas and prayers from its own followers. Is that asking too much? No one expects the omnipotent thingie to come out and take care of everything. And certainly not to take "marching orders" from an itty bitty atheist It could turn into brainless protoplasm if it so desired.
But how about just minimal passive manifestation to protect innocents that never did him anything and are praying, begging for deliverance? Is that a huge stretch?
Those two young girls killed by a crazed lone gunman at the New Life Church a month ago in Colorado Springs were pleading for mercy, where was Pastor Mike’s great God to deliver it? All they got was mortally-wounding lead shots (one in the chest, the other in the back) for their trouble. Was it expecting too much we at least ask Pastor Mike’s great God to cause the gun to misfire? Or the safety to freeze? Not to actually cause the killer to disintegrate, mind you, but …you know….a little minimal passive mischief here and there to stop what it had to know would cause hurt, and yes, lack of faith to many.
And how about all those six million Jews gassed horribly - packed by the hundreds in 200 square meter rooms, naked and assaulted in the most vile and abhorrent way. Too much to at least ask Pastor Mike’s God to make the gas chambers fizzle out? Or the Zyklon B not to work for once? Or render all Zyklon B useless? Or ...;.how about simply causing the Jews to have insight into what would befall them so they could at least fight back as opposed to going like lambs to the slaughter?
THIS is where the bear sits with his buckwheat, and where the chip-on-his shoulder “pastor” – who has the nerve to compare unbelievers to flat-Earthers can make his stand. Give a defensible argument to support even minimal inaction!
Re: the analogy to human parents and “allowing a kid to screw up” – one needs to be more discriminating here. Yeah, parents ought to let a kid grow and learn. Thus, if little Joey keeps goofing off in school,. he’ll eventually learn the hard way he may have to flip burgers for most of his life.
BUT - if little Joey is playing with a loaded .44 Magnum (from daddy's drawer) and little sister Suzie is playing with her Barbie nearby, it would be a useless excuse for a parent, indeed, who didn't step in and take the gun away! What exactly would a parent prove by standing by like some imbecile while Johnnie took the safety off and commenced play firing?
This is all I am expecting the deity of the god-mongers like Pastor Mike to do, by analogy. At least ACT like a decent human parent would in a comparative situation. If it won't, why should we respect it? What makes it useful to retain as a concept or belief meme in the absence of efficacy? Why the hell should we put it anywhere the near the same epistemological level of a spherical Earth obtained by geometrical measurement?
In the end, all of Pastor Mike’s complaints are basically frivolous, useless, and to no avail, unless he can elucidate necessary and sufficient conditions for the operations, existence of whatever god he proclaims or posit. If he can't he’s merely wasting time retorting or posting more codswallop about the “atheist cult”.
What we have then, is a pastor who is actually a premier example of a cultist like Jim Jones of Jonestown. Never let his flock think (censor every bit of knowledge passed between them), never question and always find some bunkum in his “good book” to advance his agenda.
Is Pastor Mike another Rev. Jim Jones? I don’t know – but in the next instalment, I will examine closely more of his claims about atheists (from the same tract on his website), with a view toward exposing what they say about him.
For those who want to see the details of how all Pastor Mike's claims of biblical truth are shattered, please go to:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury
No comments:
Post a Comment