left biblioblography: Walker, Texas Deranger, Has Revealed The Nefarious Plot At Last!

Monday, May 21, 2007

Walker, Texas Deranger, Has Revealed The Nefarious Plot At Last!

More Norris nonsense:

C.S. Lewis, the former atheist and famous Oxford scholar, once said "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...."

I find Yogi Berra's tautologies much more amusing.

There are a myriad of eminent scholars (like Lewis) who understand the folly of atheism. I will list a few others in this second part of my treatise to expose atheists' agenda to ban Christianity from the courts of culture. In my last article I discussed "step 1" of their plan. In this discourse I will address steps 2 & 3.

The evil atheist conspiracy (again! - GROAN). These people see the devil under every rock, behind every tree, lurking behind every strand of grass. Paranoia sure is a fun way to live, ain't it?

Step two: target younger generations with atheism

Atheists are making a concerted effort to win the youth of America and the world. Hundreds of web sites and blogs on the Internet seek to convince and convert adolescents, endeavoring to remove any residue of theism from their minds and hearts by packaging atheism as the choice of a new generation. While you think your kids are innocently surfing the Web, secular progressives are intentionally preying on their innocence and naivete.

Christlation: Them thar nefarious secular humanists are hatching plots to pollute the precious bodily fluids of your children! Oh, the humanity! I read between the lines here, and come up with a comparison to online predators.
Gee, thanks chuckles.

What's preposterous is that atheists are now advertising and soliciting on websites particularly created for teens. The London Telegraph noted that, "Groups including Atheists for Human Rights and Atheist Alliance International – ‘Call 1-866-HERETIC' - are setting up summer camps and an internet recruiting campaign."

Herr brownshirt would most likely like to have this sort of advertising outlawed, cowboy style.

YouTube, the most popular video site on the Net for young people, is one of their primary avenues for passing off their secularist propaganda. Another antagonistic and self-proclaimed "blasphemous" site even beckons youth to record their anti-Christian beliefs on it.

Welcome to America, chuckles.

Even Oxford scientist Richard Dawkins is on personal campaign and militant quest to spread his name, books, and atheism all over the Internet by hoping young people will post his graphics on their MySpace page. Rather than question or critique his methods as slick marketing, young atheists are proud to post his links, follow and defend him like a religious sage, and cite his texts as infallible truth.

Say what? Talk about poisoning the well. Young atheists? What about us middle-aged folk? Or elderly? Appealing to the 'kiddie culture' is the root of any advertising methodology. Infallible truth? Geez, these people project too much.

Of course, it's all right if they do it.

Step three: package and promote atheism as reasonable and scientific

Presenting atheism as scientific fact might be secularists' greatest plan and others point of greatest gullibility, in hope of winning the battle for the ultimate view of reality. And hailed as their chief advocates are men like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, Oxford University's ethologist and evolutionary biologist, with his book, "The God Delusion," atheists' newest "bible" or authoritative text.

Bad news: there's quite a few 'authoritative texts' out there, dating back to a time when the religious stopped being able to put the torch to them.

So what credentials does a man like Dawkins have to discuss the presence or absence of God? Answer: He's "a scientist." And the fact is anyone in our age who is a naturalist professor or wears a white lab coat can virtually speak upon any issue (even God) and their words are received as gospel – unless of course they are a theist!

Oh, goodie - this again. 'Don't have an opinion unless you have sheepskin to back it up'. That is, unless you're religious, that's sacrosanct (of course).

What's interesting is that atheists like Dawkins fall into the same snare they accuse of theists. While he might condemn Christians like me for not being educated enough to speak about theism or creation, his own expertise remains outside the realm of antagonism that defines his world crusade. To make dogmatic assertions about the absence of God and not possess expertise in cosmology, astrophysics, or even theology gives him no more of a credible platform than you and me, except to his devoted followers of course. He is an ethologist and evolutionary biologist – since when does that make one an expert on God? (Similarly, Sam Harris has a bachelor's in philosophy – since when does that make one an expert on the universe?)

Problem is, there ain't no such critter. Prove it, or piss off. This is really quite pathetic. Requiring the child have a degree in the fashion industry is unnecessary to pronounce the emperor naked.

Dawkins condemns Christians for being narrow minded and non-adaptive to other cultures which believed in Thor or Zeus, yet he is unwavering in disrespecting any other creation authority except Western science. What about the wisdom of African, Middle-Eastern or Far-Eastern sages, shamans, or religious figures? Just because science can explain many things in the natural realm, does that mean it owns the corner market on metaphysics and God?

Presuppositionalism at its finest. What about all those other alternative wisdoms? Lending them credence, are we, Herr Norris?

As they say in Missouri, "Show me."

Is it possible that the scientific worldview is inferior to reveal the truths behind the curtain of creation?

Seeing as the supernatural can't even seem to pull the curtain, or provide a peek, and seeing also that science has pulled its weight (whereas theology has not), looks that way.

Even Paul Davies, the renown British-born physicist, agnostic, professor of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology, said to Time, "Science, God, and Man," that no one can rightfully say there is no God. "Agnosticism – reserving judgment about divine purpose – remains as defensible as ever, but atheism – the confident denial of divine purpose – becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?"

Negative proof fallacy.

John Horgan, a former senior staff writer for Scientific American and the Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, wrote a book titled, "The End of Science." In it he discusses the futility of men like Oxford's Dawkins, Cambridge's Hawking, and others pursuit to discover a "theory of everything." He agrees with Paul Davies in purporting that we must face the limits of science in the twilight of the scientific age, opting that the discovery of ultimate answers about the universe will not rely in rationale and empirical examination but possibly a metaphysical practice. (A striking similarity to the words in the Bible, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command...")

That's nice. Christlation: "Let's surround our ignorance with flowery rhetoric."

Of course for men like Harris, Dawkins, and other atheists, the thought that science cannot provide these ultimate answers must be a horrifying reality to face, as their whole lives depend upon the western-scientific paradigm of reality. Their predicament reminds me of the words of Robert Jastrow, American astronomer, physicist, and cosmologist, from his work, "God and the Astronomers"

'Ultimate answers'? Is he kidding? Only madmen or neurotics cry for 100 percent certitude.

The universe has a beginning.This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth.For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Oh, please. Did anyone ever say otherwise? No. The onus is on the believer to provide a human face behind the somewhat mysterious processes of the universe. One that doesn't appear on a tortilla, that is.

Once again the Bible is proven correct, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no god.'"

And the wise man posts it on his website.

That, dear readers, is my nickel's worth: spend it wisely, and well.

Till the next post, then.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

8 comments:

remy said...

Well. Perhaps if we keep being accused of having a cotrolled agenda we ought to get together and really conspire. Alas, I am not a joiner.

It is amusing to read the accusation Dawkins is a militant in light of Hitchens' recent book. Dawkins seems a little tame in comparison.

By the way, I heard a justification for genocide on my local xian station regarding King Saul's order to kill "everything", and then disobeying.

About killing the children: "Imagine if they grew up, they would be without god. It was a merciful thing to kill them." He went on to suggest that we, like Saul, have our minds too much in this earthly life, not in the the goddly one. This explains why we feel revulsion at the order to kill all! Truly frightening. He said nothing as to why the oxen and camels had to be killed.

karen said...

Someone is definitely ghostwriting for chuckles. He should stick to his Mountain Dew commercials.

An atheist conspiracy? We're going after them while they're young? Gosh, that sounds...awfully familiar.

I do believe chucky has found something he is vewy afwaid of.

John Horgan writes of the limits of science in the twilight of the scientific age
? WTF? What science is he studying?

Ah, Remy, don't you know, the camels and oxen were part of the atheist conspiracy. Definitely.

Chris Bradley said...

What grabbed me was the phrase "twilight of the scientific age". It is sort of boggling, given that science and technology's influence continue to grow into all fields. I can't buy a Pepsi down at 7-11 without a computer and laser beam coming into it!

But, yeah, uh, we're in the "twilight of the scientific age".

Oh, no, Chucky. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Krystalline Apostate said...

I think you're right, Karen: someone's 'ghosting' for the guy.
Another religious schill. Gee, whadda surprise.
Yeah, the 'twilight of scientific age' is just some garbage pulled out for rhetorical impact.

Mesoforte said...

"The God Delusion," atheists' newest "bible" or authoritative text.

I don't think I've read it. I started "The Blind Watchmaker, but have yet to get the effort up to finish it.

To make dogmatic assertions about the absence of God and not possess expertise in cosmology, astrophysics, or even theology gives him no more of a credible platform than you and me, except to his devoted followers of course

I'm pretty sure that you have to take a lot of courses on physics in college if you choose a major in science. I'm not sure of the distiction between physics and 'astrophysics.'

And to say that to speak on theism, one must be a theist doesn't seem right. Considering that most theists posit an unknowable god, it doesn't make sense for them to have any expertise on it.

(Similarly, Sam Harris has a bachelor's in philosophy – since when does that make one an expert on the universe?)

Metaphysics, epistemology, and logic... They all deal with the universe in one way or another.

Just because science can explain many things in the natural realm, does that mean it owns the corner market on metaphysics and God?

Yes.

Presuppositionalism at its finest. What about all those other alternative wisdoms? Lending them credence, are we, Herr Norris?


Yet, when you bring that up to discredit them, they drop them like a full pair of diapers.

Is it possible that the scientific worldview is inferior to reveal the truths behind the curtain of creation?

Science isn't a worldview, its a method of categorizing and making generalizations about observations made of the universe. Even grade schoolers know this.

atheism – the confident denial of divine purpose –

Misdefinition.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason

Should I even point out the error in thought that brought about this phrase?

By Nathaniel Branden:
One of the most grotesque instances of the stolen concept fallacy may be observed in the prevalent claim—made by neo-mystics and old-fashioned mystics alike—that the acceptance of reason rests ultimately on "an act of faith."

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. "Faith in reason" is a contradiction in terms. "Faith" is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of "faith" cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason.


Candle in the Dark

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF - nice fisk.
Yet, when you bring that up to discredit them, they drop them like a full pair of diapers.
Hehehehe.
That WAS a lame analogy, was it not?

Mesoforte said...

That WAS a lame analogy, was it not?

Not so much lame as rightfully disgusting. ^_^

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF - yeah, the straws these people clutch at are quite...astonishing, are they not?