Fundamentalist atheists whether Till, Salisbury, Long, or McKinsey have all made fools of themselves trying to sound authoritative about the Bible by seeking to impose their fundamentalist atheist dogma unto the Biblical text. So, they MUST BE CHALLENGED to defend their Skepticism and poor scholarship!
Do you remember Aesop's fable about a lazy grasshopper? It provides an extraordinary insight into the fundamentalist atheist mind-set. The grasshopper parties and mouths off while an industrious ant does the work needed to live over the winter. With absolute confidence the grasshopper parties hardy and sneers at the ant for doing his work. Much to his dismay the next winter he starves to death.
The grasshopper is confronted with his arrogant incompetence, a disturbing intellectual state experienced when we find ourselves faced with facts that do not match what we angrily want to believe. Cognitively, the grasshopper is forced to accept that his belief that he could have sat back and been satisified with taking minimal effort to preserve his point of view was false. He was too insensate to know that his prized belief system was in jeopardy. Reality prohibited him from what he desperately wanted to believe. To maintain his belief that he could just sit on his rump, he evaded reality without regard to cost.
Of course, the grasshopper is dead, so he has no way of overcoming this problem. And fundy atheists are much the same way. They overcome their challenges by simply deluding themselves and killing their intellect. They say, "I'm so much smarter than any Christian, so none of them could possibly answer any of my difficult questions."
Fundy atheists are very clever at avoiding credentialed scholarship and like the grasshopper, they deceive themselves by becoming experts in "pop" psychology and assuring themselves that everyone else is suffering from "cognitive dissonace" while they are the ones who are the geniuses. The more difficult the issue and the greater the difference between their beliefs and credentialed scholarship, the wackier their views become. So they uncritically accept whatever nonsense is needed. This develops into a fixed mind-set called "BEING STUPID".
The Fundamentalist Atheist Mind-Set and The Problem It Causes for Apostates
By J. P. Holding
May 18, 2005, 1:07
Enjoy this article
This being stupid has serious side effects. When faced with facts contradictory to what they thought was true, especially teachings that show the folly of relying on 19th-century freethinkers whose most representative credential was knowing how to burp loudly at church meetings, their mind automatically goes into survival mode. Their mind is shut off to objective, rational thought and instead embraces whatever rationale will avoid the embarrassment of being exposed as an incompetent.
The fundamentalist atheist mind-set, whether from Salisbury or Long has no tolerance for alternative or contradictory teaching. Their success is rooted in fear of eternal judgment and a God's righteous punishment. The psychological cost for this self-accepted intimidation is the inability to admit error or even blow their own nose without assistance. Worse, the fundy atheist's sense of courage to change course is neutralized. And it's easy to make up even more comforting excuses like these, too.
Narcissism is easy when we assure ourselves that our opponents are the way they are because we think their "identity, self-image, and peer acceptance" is jeopardized. The fundamentalist atheist "state of ignorance" engenders an acceptance of all kinds of idiotic arguments. Thoughtlessly throwing a quote from Pope Leo X or dismissing the offending party as "a fundamentalist", "religious nut", "closed-minded", "anti-humanist", is the usual response. The superficial use of a 19th century freethinker, label, or name-calling is more than just a convenient soundbite for dealing with embarrassment. This unthinking reactionary anti-religious survival act steals the fundy atheist's ability to reason. They become incarcerated in their own state of "stupid".
The State of Stupidity Anti-Scholarship Test
Following are samples of favorite fundamentalist atheist claims. When challenged by scholarship or reason, the fundamentalist atheist "stupid" mentality kicks in using its tools of ignorance and arrogance.
#1 The Bible is not infallible. The Bible is far from fallible. The fact is, fundy atheist arsenals are inundated with anachronistic, outdated, or ridiculous charges of Biblical contradictions, inconsistencies, and errors. Some simple examples of how they mess up are:
"David took from him a thousand and seven hundred horsemen" II Sam 8:4 Compared to "David took from him …seven thousand horsemen" I Chron. 18:4. It's true that both scripture verses describe the identical event, but fundy atheists have never gotten past such mindless explanations as "they are different events" that they used in their fundy days. They have never heard of such answers as that a simple scribal error in transmission in one of the texts was the cause of the difference. Of course, they have no idea that infallibility is believed only for the original writings, not copies.
Jesus said Abiathar was high priest when David was hungered and ate the show bread. Mk 2:26. Compared to: "Then came David to…Ahimelech the priest…the priest gave him holy bread, for there was no bread there but the show bread" I Sam 21:1-6. Fundy atheists would never read scholarly sources like Casey's Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel, which provide a simple answer. Note that the verse in Mark says that this event took place "in the time of" Abiathar the high priest, which is not the same thing as saying that he was the one involved in the episode in question. Now the description of Abiathar as "high priest" is not titular. Neither Ahimelech nor Abiathar are ever given the title in the OT, though it is clear that Abiathar served as a leading priest (along with Zadok) and Ahimelech may have ranked highly as well. The word for "high priest" is archierus, a combination of hierus, or priest, and arche, a word most often meaning "beginning" but also meaning supreme in rank or order. Casey sees behind this language an Aramaic description too literally rendered in Greek: It does not mean Abiathar was "high priest" but indicates that he was a great priest, a renowned priest. That much is obviously true. Abiathar served David for the entirety of his reign of 40 years and had the privilege, along with Zadok, of carrying the Ark of the Covenant, the most sacred Jewish religious object. As a renowned priest, it is expected that in his days, the Law would be correctly observed [Casey, 151] and his name would invoke the honoring of the law. Jesus mentions Abiathar in order to say, in effect, "In the time of Abiathar, who as a renowned priest was a real stickler for the law, and in whose days we would expect the law to be followed, David and his friends were allowed to do this; yet you say now that we can't do something similar? Are you a better judge of the law than Abiathar and his contemporaries were?" Bringing Abiathar into the mix was actually a subtle slam against the Pharisees' authority. No amount of fundy atheist rationalization can get around this answer.
After the wise men worshiped the new born Jesus, Joseph, following the angel’s instruction, immediately flees with Mary and Jesus to Egypt to avoid King Herod's death squad Mt. 2:13-15 Compared to : After Jesus' birth, Mary obediently awaits her 40 days of purification in Bethlehem and then Joseph, Mary, and baby Jesus go to Jerusalem. Fundy atheists who wonder why Herod is indifferent to the celebration in Jerusalem miss the critical point that Matthew's events are indicated as happening as much as two years after Luke. Luke and Matthew are not at all contradictory or irreconcilable accounts.
Does God want to save all? YES! the fundy atheist yells, "God our Savior will have all men to be saved." I Tim. 2:3-4 Then they yell, NO! "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. John 12:40. This is the sort of low-quality objection that inevitably creeps in when you are STUPID, for it takes little to see that John 12:40 refers to a highly temporal event; the persons referenced are not depicted as being blinded their entire lives!
For more claims of contradictions rebutted
The "STUPID" reaction calls for the permanent "now I don't see it-and I never will" intellectual sleight-of-hand learned through what is aptly called ignorance. A polite term for ignorance is "uneducated", but in essence it is just plain being stupid. Ignorance is the refusal to do competent exegesis of a text to find out what God did or did not mean with what the scripture said. The fundy atheist tactics will be to accuse the Christian of doing "mental gymnastics" or taking scripture out of context. The fundy atheist will dismiss arbitrarily the indication of genre contexts which show that there are literal and spiritual interpretations to the meaning of words according to serious contextual study. Suppose the same thought processes used in fundy atheism were used in business. Wouldn’t our fundy atheists be fired for incompetence?
#2 The Bible was written yesterday and for me personally, in my language. Fundamentalist atheists having never abandoned their ignorant literalism claim that serious contextual response is a "rationalizing" of "why many Bible verses are ignored."
The list of arguments like these goes on ad nauseam as does the ignorance of sound and reasonable answers to such objections. Fundy atheists are deluded by their own past incompetence as Christians into thinking that all that will be offered is claims that these verses are fulfilled spiritually (invisibly); that Christians should never test God; that expecting God to honor his word may not be God's will; that Christians they are in a different dispensation and that those verses were just for the early church. In reality, fundamentalist atheists look at the answers like garbage at the landfill. They pick and choose only what they themselves gave as answers when they were Christians, and have no concept of anyone doing anything else.
- Jesus said "If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out....If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off" Mt 5:29-30. The fundy atheist will childishly ask where the one-eyed, one-handed Christians are, or ask if Christians no longer sin. Better-educated minds recognize this as rhetorical hyperbole of the sort found in the Roman writer Seneca, who for example advised that one who cannot rid one's heart of vice should rip their heart out; similar words are found in Philo and the work of the rabbis, and other ancient writers offer expressions regarding willingness to undergo amputation for the sake of a greater good (see Keener, Matthew commentary, 188n) or for the sake of honor, which is the entire point. Today we even speak of giving an arm or a leg and no one takes us literally; in the East even today such expressions are used: "What I say to you is truth, and if it is not, I will cut off my right arm at the shoulder/pluck out my right eye." [Rihbany, The Syrian Christ, 118]
- Jesus said, "do not swear (oaths or pledges) at all...but let your 'Yes be Yes' and your 'No be No'" Mt 5:37. Fundy atheists think that this should forbid pledging allegiance to an earthly nation's flag, but better-educated minds realized that what is condemned is not oath-taking per se, but flippant, casual oaths. The words "at all" in Matthew come from holos, which can mean simply, "not at all," but can also mean "commonly." Let's look at ALL of the verses from Matthew: But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. Now, who makes a serious, solemn oath on heaven, the earth, a city, or their own head? The NT is condemning people who treat oaths with contempt by making them thoughtlessly. Keener's commentary on Matthew (192ff) explains the historical context of these passages. All ancient societies viewed oath-taking as dangerous, since they essentially called upon a deity to execute vengeance if the oath was not fulfilled. A flippant or false oath was in a real sense a blasphemy, a casual misuse of the name of God. Somewhat paralleling the words of Jesus, the Essenes seem to have avoided oaths altogether, other than their oath of initiation. The Greek philosopher Pythagoras and others similarly taught, "let one's word carry such conviction that one need not call deities to witness." In the context of Jesus' own day, there existed a "popular abuse" of oath-taking in which surrogate objects were introduced to swear by, so as not to profane the divine name -- things like the right hand, Jerusalem, God's throne, and the head. Jesus also addresses this practice in his directive not to swear on such objects, as some thought it easier to break an oath if they swore on something inanimate rather than God.
- Jesus said, "when you pray you will not be like the hypocrites...who love to pray in the synagogues and in the streets that they may be seen of men. But when you pray, go into your closet, shut the door and pray to your Father in secret" Mt 6: 5-6. Fundy atheists accuse Christian political leaders of wanting to be seen of men but of course this is just more of the same psychological balderdash. They have no idea what motives drive most of these people, but do find it easy to project their frustration and anger onto others.
- Jesus encouraged men to make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven Mt 19:12, so these fundy atheists say. Hardly! What is made is a statement of fact and observation: some are born this way; some have made themselves this way for men; some have made themselves that way for spiritual purposes, and those who can accept this, let them do so -- it is not saying, "Go out and castrate yourself" or giving directions to the nearest medical facility. There is no opinion rendered either way. However, looking more deeply into the context, we see that this refers not exclusively to castration, but to celibacy as well. We know that the Jews were horrified by castration (cf. Josephus, Against Apion 2.270-1; though eunuchs were well-respected, and trusted, in some Ancient Near Eastern societies). Indeed, how could someone have been "castrated" from their mother's womb? And how would a response dealing with castration relate to a question as to whether or not it is better to marry (19:10), said in relation to putting away one's wife in v. 9 -- which is the "it" to receive that Jesus refers back to? When fundy atheists make jokes about "Jerry Falwell offering castration for the real disciples of Jesus" then you'll know that you've encounted one with serious exegetical and psychological problems.
- They may say, tithing is an Old Testament principle meaning to give 10% of one's income to God. That is true. Then they will say "Jesus gave a New Testament principle for giving by telling the rich young ruler that if he'd be perfect, he should sell what he owned and give it to the poor. Jesus then declared that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God Mt 19:16-24." This commits a common error of supposing that advice given to one man (the rich young ruler) is universal. It is not -- it is given to him alone. Zaccheus was a tax collector, wealthy by the standard of the time, but was recognized for doing as much only as refunding several times over any person that had been cheated by him. Nicodemus was wealthy as a member of the Sanhedrin, but was not told to give up his riches. Abraham was a wealthy tribal chieftain, but was depicted by Jesus as being in paradise. Clearly the matter is not so simple as rich = hell, poor = heaven. But even so the matter is not so simple. Let's look at a few relevant social factors, courtesy of Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values, a book you will never see a fundy atheist read, since it has not yet come out in comic book form.
The first factor is altruism [8-9]. In the social world of the Bible it was normal to share one's surplus with others in order to support your social group. It was considered an obligation and a point of honor to give of your surplus. This leads to the second factor, the concept of limited good [122-3]. In the ancient world, the world was seen as a "zero-sum" game. Resources were not inexhaustible, as we tend to believe today ("there's always more where that came from"), but were seen as limited. Practically speaking this was true, since there was no industry to unlock the resources we today take for granted. Mineral resources for example could only be painfully extracted from the earth using manual labor. Finally, there is the factor of the client-patron relationship in which the wealthy sort of "adopted" the poor and provides basic necessities for them, in exchange for favors.
The reader will note that all three of these factors are not in existence in modern America. It will moreover be noted how things have changed in the interim. Governments today take taxes from us to support the poor and infirm; in the ancient world there were few if any such social services and their scope was limited ("bread and circuses" to keep the city of Rome happy). A client-patron relationship is unusual; if Billy Graham crusades could be supported by the favor of one or two people, and if their work could be supported by hospitality, that would be very nice, but it just doesn't happen. We live, moreover, in a society where capital can be put to work for us. In the ancient world there were no investment industries. In the long run, is Bill Gates better off giving away all his wealth now, or letting it work for him so he can provide sustenance for others in the long term -- or doing a mix of both?
The fundy atheist does not err in condemning personal indulgences such as gold Rolls Royces or Christians who do not live up to a righteous standard. However, they do err in seeing the matter of poverty in the Bible as offering lessons that can be readily and devoid of context be applied today. It is not valid to generalize from these particulars.
- If you have a really STUPID fundy atheist on hand, they will appeal to Mk 16:17-18 and then ask if you ever drink cyanide. They have never heard that Mark 16:17-18 is part of a non-original portion of text.
#3 God didn't give a thing when He gave His only begotten Son Jn3:16. Fundy atheists are under the impression that when someone has truly given, the giver does not take the gift back, and say that is precisely what God did, for all He did was "loan his Son for a brief stint on earth." An answer like this shows a profound ignorance of what exactly was given and what the rules at hand were. They do not know that sacrifice, in the OT background for the NT understandings of Christ’s death, focused more on the giving element than on the death element, and was essentially transfer of property from the offerer to God. The victim of the sacrifice became God’s possession, and God could do with it whatever He chose. The nature of sacrifice did not depend in any way on the sacrifice “staying dead” — it just had to be transferred to God’s ownership. Then the offerer could expect some later recompense or blessing from God, to "make up for" the current loss to the offerer, and this expectation was an expression of real faith. So this complaint is in error from the start.
It is foolish to compare Jesus to a military leader deserting his troops for protected surroundings. Military leaders are seldom if ever on the field of battle; they are considered of such value that they usually direct matters from a safe vantage point. It is ridiculous to demand that Jesus himself ought to wait "until every last sinner was saved" (as if he OR his followers could be blamed for the type of excuses fundy atheists give for not believing). And of course, fundy atheists will appeal to the "rapture" as an example of "escapist mentality dreams" but what are they going to say about Christians who don't think such an event is in the cards?
#4 God hates women. Hates them. Hates them. This standard canard claims that there is no book more responsible for legitimizing blame, inferiority, insult, disrespect, accusation and brutality toward women than the Bible. Of course this kind of argument is just plain STUPID. The sin of the world is Adam as well as Eve's fault. and Adam looks the worse of the two. Abraham, the father of the faithful, makes use of a means of "diplomatic marriage" custom to gain the protection of the king, along with water and grazing rights, as a way of protecting his family. Lot is not righteous "because he offers his daughters to a lust ravished crowd" (who, in such a pressure situation, would not do something stupid!). God's Tenth Commandment is read as equating women to property, merely because it lists them with items called property; but this is a STUPID remark, as if saying "I need to go out and pick up my wife, and some milk, and some bread" turns the wife into an item of food. The Tenth commandment offers a category of "what cannot be coveted" and nothing more. They glibly point out that Proverbs warns, its the women who seduce men and suggests finding a good woman is rare, never the opposite; but it never occurs to them that Proverbs is advice from a father to his son, and of course no father is going to tell his son that "a good husband is hard to find". They claims Jesus "speaks rudely to his own mother" because they don't know that parallel phrases in Greek literature show that what is said in John 2:4 this is not a phrase of derision or rudeness but of loving respect; the term used was "Jesus' normal, public way of addressing women" (John 4:21, 8:10, 19:26, 20:31; Mt. 15:28; Lk. 13:12), and also a common address in Greek literature, and never has the intent of disrespect or hostility. The same term is used in Josephus' Antiquities 17.17 by Pheroras to summon his beloved wife. As for the second part of the response, it reads literally: "What to me and to you?" This is a Semitic phrase that indicates that the speaker is being unjustly bothered or is being asked to get involved in a matter that is not their business. It can be impolite, but not always. (cf. 2 Kings 3:13, Hos. 14:8) The intent must be determined by the context, and the first part of Jesus' saying does point to the latter intent. Malina and Rohrbaugh [Social-Science commentary, 299] add that such implication of distance was in fact quite proper in a society where men were expected to break the maternal bonds by a certain age. Jesus' reaction is entirely respectful and appropriate in this context. The fundy atheist says that Paul "orders woman to shut up in church" but is ignorant of the fact that Paul is quoting mistaken opponents, which he then answers, when he does this; the fundy atheist says Paul "tells women they are inferior to men" (but doesn't say where); he says that Paul "tells women they are to be in submission to man" but are too ignorant to know that the word used merely means "respect and be civil to" in the bounds of a covenant relationship; they make the inane claim that Paul says "that women's salvation comes through bearing children" but are too uneducated to know that Paul is answering a Gnostic heresy that claims that childbirth would somehow cause a loss of salvation. They point irrelevantly to the book of Revelation, where "John speaks of men losing their reward by being defiled by woman" -- as if this somehow endorses the whole complex of "blame the woman for tempting the poor helpless guy" (it would not occur to them that the reference would be to those who had sex outside of a covenant bond, with a prostitute).
What has been the fundy atheist's "STUPID" response? Sadly, they've been taught to accept this slander about the Bible from apostasy. Like good little fundy atheists, they submit to this pathetic ignorance. Fundy atheists say, "It's easier to just swallow this crap whole than think about it and get educated."
#5 For no one has sinned and come short of the glory of God Rom 3:23. Fundy atheists will resort inevitably to the sound bite tactic of calling God a mass murderer, who condones stealing, lies, instigates gang rape, endorses slavery, and incites intolerance and ethnic cleansing, but they will either avoid giving citations for these (and thereby force you to guess what they are talking about, or else, allowing them to convince themselves you have no answer), or else merely "argue by outrage" without any effort to explain why God is in the wrong. Then, like spoiled children, they will blame God for tsunami floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and human infirmities and suffering, even though it was humans who built their lives in areas prone to such catastrophes, and/or supplied cheap labor and materials that did not enable a better survival rate; or who spent money on nuclear test programs instead of a tsunami warning system for their area; or smoked themselves to death with 10 packs of cigarettes a day that cost several dollars each. The fundy atheist acts like the lung cancer victim just sat around peacefully when God came along and crammed dozens of ciagrettes in their mouths, lit them all, and then forced them to inhale. Fundy atheists have no conception that the vast majority of human grief is self-inflicted.
They may also say that sin is purely a religious construct, but chances are, if you were to corner a fundy atheist in a dark alley, beat them up, and take their money, they would still call the police, and they would still say that God sinned against men with things like tsunamis. Since they are inconsistent, fundy atheists absorb and project their obsession with sin on God. The most STUPID people on this earth are those blaming God for human failure. Fundamentalist atheism's constant preaching against sin achieves the same result as telling a child blaming its mother for not hiding the cookie jar better. Fundamentalist atheism stimulates stupidity as verified some of the arguments we have answered here today.
#6 Morality is not found though religion. Fundamentalist atheists no doubt found some solace in a Christianity Today article "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience" ,although the author, Ronald Sider, is famous for making broad and unsubstatiated statements about Christian behavior and falsely baptizing it with his anachronistic abuses of the Bible. This is not to say that there are no problems at all with evangelical Christian immorality, especially in America (where the problem is individualism, not religion) but only a deluded fundy atheist could say that "the morals of Christians are no better than the morals of the secular non-religious" in light of books like Rodney Stark's For the Glory of God.
The "STUPID" strategy here is tied to the tired claim of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Fundy atheists will say that this fallacy is being used every time their arguments about Christian morality are pummelled, but it's just as well to say that it is a "fallacy" to claim that "no true computer" does not have a disc drive. They will also haul up the standard canards about the Crusades, the Inquisition, or witch burning, with no effort to understand those events in their context. Finally, beaten to the ground, they will whine about churches would "freeloading" by not paying a "fair share of real estate taxes for police and fire protection," even though atheist organizations like Dan Barker's Freedom from Religion Foundation, as well as secular non-profits, enjoy the same allowances. Fundy atheist morals are conveniently blind.
#7 The historicity of Jesus and all he said and did are debunked by non-experts. Especially STUPID fundy atheists will make use of a list made by John Remsberg, a 19th century freethinker who was not a scholar but rather a self-educated school teacher and superintendent of public education in Kansas. Fundy atheists who ask why "surviving documents of some 35 to 40 First Century Jewish, Greek, and Roman theologians, historians, poets, moralists, and scientists make no mention of a Jesus of Nazareth" are ignorant of the fact that there is no reason for nearly all of these to have mentioned someone like Jesus. They are at a loss to explain, for example, why Quintilian -- a writer on oratory and rhetoric, who wrote what amounted to a how-to manual of public speaking -- ought to have mentioned Jesus. If they are especially STUPID they will claim that the testimony offered by writers like Josephus is forged, using such specious reasoning as, "no church father ever once referred to this Jesus testimony until the 4th Century". But they offer no reason to believe that the early Christians would have found Josephus' words of use. Indeed, taking all of the references to Josephus by the early Church fathers, there are only around a dozen prior to Eusebius, which shows that Josephus "was not well known or often used by the early Church fathers." As the Jesus-history scholar John Meier puts it, the testimomy of Josephus, as deemed original by Josephan scholars, hardly supports the mainline Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God who rose from the dead....[it] simply testified, in Christian eyes, to Josephus' unbelief -- not exactly a useful apologetical tool in addressing pagans or a useful polemical tool in christological controversies among Christians. Note that this means that they would have had no use for it because it only reported what no pagan disputed: That Jesus existed, taught, did miracles, was crucified, and was reported to have risen from the dead. Even the atheist Jeffrey Lowder has said: Assuming that contemporary reconstructions of the passage are accurate, it is difficult to imagine why the early church fathers would have cited such a passage. The original text probably did nothing more than establish the historical Jesus. Since we have no evidence that the historicity of Jesus was questioned in the first centuries, we should not be surprised that the passage was never quoted until the fourth century.
Fundy atheists may also ask about why the Jewish theologian Philo doesn't mention Jesus. They are oblivious to the point that Philo may not have lived long enough to see Christianity become a threat, and make Jesus worthy of note; and that as Hellenist, he would reject the idea of the incarnation of the Logos as fraudulent. The reality is that there are many credible non-Christian evidences for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
What is the "STUPID" response? The usual response is to retreat into even more certified-wacko writings by non-historians and non-scholars like Acharya S.
#8 Archaeology disproves the events of the Bible. Here fundy atheists will appeal to the works of Israel Finkelstein, and his book "The Bible Unearthed." Of course, since fundy atheists only read whatever materials support their point of view, they believe that it is a mere "denial" to point out that Finkelstein is wrong and is regarded as a fringe scholar even by his moderate peers. Above all, fundy atheists wish to avoid dealing in specific arguments that show Finkelstein to be in error.
#9 Evolution is just a fact, not theory. While it may be true that scientists "give equal credibility to the theories of evolution, heliocentricity, and gravity" it remains that fundy atheists are themselves non-scientists no more informed than the average Christian, and they are no more capable of showing 1) every exact step in any given transition; and 2) explaining why each step ought to be favored by natural selection, the very basis for evolution. They will also do all they can to distract to claims such as that "Denial" rejected Galileo (when it was, but it was "denial" for the sake of Aristotle, not the Bible).
#10 The fulfillment of Bible prophecy does not prove the Bible is from God. Fundy atheists will claim that the Bible has "many nonexistent, unfulfilled and false prophecies," and their errors will come of one of two places: They will either claim that Jesus was wrong about his return or else make the mistake of claiming that the NT authors took "cut and paste" bits of miscellaneous information from the OT and super-imposed them on the Jesus story. In so doing they merely display their fundamental ignorance of Jewish exegetical methods of the first century, in which the OT was appealed to the very same way, but not as a way of saying that the OT was "fulfilled" in the sense of "something was predicted, and it happened" but rather, "something said here in the OT was re-enacted in the NT times, and so is in line with what is proper."
Jesus did not fail at prophecy when he told his disciples that some would not taste death until they saw the Son of Man coming in his kingdom Mt 16:27-28, for the Son of Man did come in his kingdom in 70 AD. Jesus prophesied truthfully, for some of Jesus' disciples were still alive in 70. We are not waiting for his return.
Another book covering many of these points just as badly, if not worse, is Biblical Nonsense by another fundy atheist, Dr. Jason "Doom" Long, a pharmacist who thinks he is a Bible scholar, which we give the business to here.
"Denial" of reality or at a minimum "denial" of valid counterarguments prevent objective thought. Fundamentalist atheists are determined to accept only their version of truth. They say, "you have to use reason" as if reason were what they were actually using. Ignorance is not a virtue. Faith however, properly understood in its Biblical sense is a sense of loyalty which observes and takes into account evidence, reason, and common sense before committing. Fundamentalist atheist reason says, "here is a Bible verse that anyone can plainly see says what I say it does". This "I'm right, everybody else is wrong" mind-set exposes the foolishness of fundamental atheism and explains why fundamentalist atheists end up promoting such idiotic ideas as the Christ myth.
Religion and faith are everyone's prerogative, but the fundamentalist atheist mindset has produced dozens of apostate crybabies who wish to deny Christians their legimate right to influence our political life and legislative processes the same as any other citizen of a representative demoncracy is allowed to do. Their methods are contrary to American precepts and so fundamentalist atheism must be called to task. Fundamentalist atheists whether Till, McKinsey, Salisbury, or Long have all done their best to undermine the democratic process, and having failed this, now wish to distract from the issues by stepping out of their fields of expertise and making fools of themselves. The time has come when every dimension of fundamentalist atheist beliefs must be openly questioned as well as the tactics they use. Otherwise, their self-deluded atheistic agenda will overrule all that democracy has contributed to making America great.
© Copied right 2005 by tektoonics.com
Top of Head