Church-Burning Video Used to Promote Atheist Event

No we did not stumble across it as we are not the result of stochastic processes.Joe

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

05:13 AM

5

05

13

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

What do you mean, you "doubt if we would have stumbled across it"? We've "stumbled across it" repeatedly in the course of human history. It's the rule that enables us to thrive as social animals, to experience the joy of self-giving, and forms the basis of the laws that minimise the damage done by that those who put their own needs and desires above those of others. You can differ as to whether it's a good rule or not, if you like, but if you break it, and steal your neighbour's stuff, then, precisely because it is the rule that underpins human justice systems, you may find your own freedoms curtailed.Elizabeth Liddle

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

05:00 AM

5

05

00

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Yeah and I doubt we would have stumbled across it. And I don't know if it is a good rule- my neighbors are using resources that I could be using- me and my family.Joe

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

04:52 AM

4

04

52

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

OK, Joe, I'm happy to clarify. What is known as "the Golden Rule" is the rule "Treat others as you would be treated". Or, as Jesus put it, "Love your neighbour as yourself". A good rule, as I'm sure we can both agree.Elizabeth Liddle

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

04:50 AM

4

04

50

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

He who has the gold, rules? What "golden rule" are you talking about? I have a problem with your ambiguity...Joe

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

04:42 AM

4

04

42

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

We can derive the Golden Rule. Do you have a problem with that?Elizabeth Liddle

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

04:39 AM

4

04

39

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus: Aiden, far from advocating the burning of churches, are, in those lyrics, condemning the burning of churches. You seem determined to misinterpret them, even though the video makes that absolutely clear. It is not "a slander-laced invitation to the lunatic fringe to indulge in violence targetting Christians, especially ministers of the gospel". It is a perfectly justified (by history) condemnation of the violence and hatred perpetrated by religious people in the name of their religion. It ends with a powerful plea, by Christopher Hitchens, for a morality unpoisoned by the fear of an invented god. Sure, you disagree with it. But they have a point, and that point you are choosing to ignore, while at the same time accusing those who disagree with you of promoting amorality and nihilism. As long as you cling to your Divine Command Theory you will fail to understand just how appalled the rest of us are by a moral grounding that justifies genocide as long as it is perceived as Divine Command, and how angry we are made when those who hold that view choose to regard us as having no basis for our morality. Our position is that our morality is far superior to any derived from Divine Command Theory, and some young people (my son, for instance) feel very passionate about what they see as evil being done in the name of religion. They'd like to live in a world free from religious bigotry and hatred, and so would I. Perhaps they are wrong to blame all religious practitioners, but there is a charge to be answered. The right response to Aiden, if you find their charge unjustified, is to present to them a kinder, more loving, more ethically grounded version of religion to consider, instead of stalking, shocked, from their expression of righteous indignation at the evil that they see wrought in religion's name.Elizabeth Liddle

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

04:38 AM

4

04

38

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

We are perfectly capable of deriving a system of morality and ethics without reference to a Divine Creator of the Universe, and would claim that our system is certainly far superior to anything derived from “Divine Command Theory” which we regard as deeply unethical.

Nice, another bald unsupportable claim. Elizabeth "argues" via bald assertion and acts as if her bald assertions will actually convince someone. Strange, that...Joe

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

04:24 AM

4

04

24

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Dr Liddle I am now totally disappointed. perhaps it escaped you that all along I had linked the entire video? That I took time to start from its images and discuss the song in context, or that I have now provided essentially the whole song above? No, Aiden has not merely used rude words about religion. They have spewed verbal filth across the gospel in order to angrily dismiss it. They have presented specifically Christian clergy as vampires, and have in that context put the notion of loving burning of holy houses and books, as well as profiting from war and bloodshed, and protecting war criminals, even promoting genocide. That is a slander-laced invitation to the lunatic fringe to indulge in violence targetting Christians, especially ministers of the gospel. Period. These are all reckless,utterly irresponsible slanders of he worst degree of hoggishness. That you and those who support you are unable and/or unwilling to see this, is utterly, sadly revealing. AIDEN SHOULD BE SHUNNED IN ANY POLITE COMPANY, AND NO-ONE WHO HAS THE LEAST CLAIM TO DECENCY SHOULD ALLOW THEM TO WARM UP THE STAGE FOR HIS SPEECH. The caps lock clicked on accidentally but I think I will let that stand. For shame, Dr Liddle! Good bye, GEM of TKIkairosfocus

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

03:45 AM

3

03

45

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

It is quotemining to extract lines that imply that they are advocating church-burning when in fact their lyrics clearly condemn it. In fact it's the very paradigm of quote-mining - to take a quotation out of context to make it appear that the author meant the actual opposite of what s/he intended. I don't blame you or Gil, because the source seems to be Fox News, but now that the actual meaning has been pointed out, it should be corrected. Sure they use rude words about religion. But that is a whole different issue.Elizabeth Liddle

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

03:27 AM

3

03

27

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I am warning, instead that evolutionary materialism — something that, even after it has been explained to you with 2350 years worth of clear documentation, you cannot bear to acknowledge exists, much less that it is the dominant worldview in the intellectual milieu of our civilisation’s elites, often dressed up in the holy lab coat — is inescapably amoral, having no IS that can ground OUGHT.

And as I have said, you can "explain" this to me all you want, it doesn't make you correct. I think you are wrong. And I think you are dangerously wrong, because, however much you protest that you are not accusing good people of amorality and nihilism, you are simultaneously laying at the door of those very people responsibility for propagating a view that you claim promotes amorality and nihilism. It's a distinction without a difference, and it is a charge I reject. Of course science is "amoral" methodologically. It claims to be nothing else. You cannot, obviously, derive a system of ethics from the laws of gravity any more than you can derive a system of ethics from evolutionary theory. This is a straw man of your own making. That does not mean that the philosophical view that the world can be described in terms of its own intrinsic natural laws (or whatever you mean by "evolutionary materialism") gives rise to amorality and nihilism. It doesn't. We are perfectly capable of deriving a system of morality and ethics without reference to a Divine Creator of the Universe, and would claim that our system is certainly far superior to anything derived from "Divine Command Theory" which we regard as deeply unethical. The argument that because the universe was not created by an agent with a purpose therefore human lives have no purpose is a non sequitur. It simply doesn't follow. Nor does the argument that because the universe per se is pitiless and uncaring therefore there is no pity nor care in the universe. There patently is. We think it evolved, at least once, on earth. What is so dangerous about that idea? (BTW: you and Gil really need to retract the implied claim in the OP that Aiden is advocating church-burning, now that it is abundantly clear that the are, in fact, condemning it. It's an enough easy mistake to put right.)Elizabeth Liddle

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

03:23 AM

3

03

23

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers: the irresponsibility in the teeth of sufficient evidence is increasingly plain. Aiden's hoggishness is inexcusable, and it is not quote-mining or worse to point it out. Good day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

03:21 AM

3

03

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Dr Liddle: Sorry, but this is pushing words into my mouth that you know or should know do not belong there. I now speak, FOR RECORD. I have explicitly, repeatedly, stated to you and others that the fundamental moral problem we all face is that we are finite, fallible, fallen and too often ill-willed. As I have explicitly pointed out to you yet again in recent days, as a believer in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, I hold that all men -- including atheists -- have implanted in them conscience as the voice and candle of God. Since you seem unwilling to accept this from me, let me cite again John Locke at Section 5 of the intro to his essay on human understanding, where he lays this premise out, taking this followig clip from a discussion in my longstanding, often referenced, note on selective hyperskepticism; where you may find onward links:

On this last issue of what we ought to know, John Locke in the introduction to his famous Essay on Human Understanding, makes a stunning -- but often overlooked -- point, in Section 5:

Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 - 21, Eph 4:17 - 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 - 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 - 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. [Text references added to document the sources of Locke's allusions and citations.]

And, again, let me cite from Hooker, as Locke also cites, on the subject of the specific principles of core morality that are so implanted and known to all men of sufficient capacity to be responsible, in Ch 2 sect 5 of his 2nd essay on civil govt, here taking the clip from my IOSE section that remarks on the roots of morality (and in so doing lays out the inherent amorality of the worldview of evolutionary materialism, much as I have already laid out above in this thread, that you were unable to confute; instead playing evasive tangential talking point games on what "evolutionary materialism" means, then going on to addressing the common talking point taken from the so-called Euthyphro dilemma):

. . . the fatal defect of the dilemma argument lies in its pagan roots: the Greek gods in view in Socrates' original argument were not the true root of being; so, they could not ground reality. But the God of theism is the ground of reality, so it is a classic theistic answer that the inherently good Creator of the cosmos made a world that -- in accordance with his unchangeably good character -- not only is replete with reliable, compelling signs pointing to his eternal power and Deity as the root of our being, but also builds in a real, reasonable, intelligible moral principle into that world. That intelligible moral principle is implanted inextricably in our very nature as human beings, so that for instance by our nature as creatures made in God's image with ability to know, reason and choose, we have a known duty of mutual respect. [--> Is that clear enough, Dr Liddle?] And, when this inherently good Creator-God and Lord commands us on moral matters, what he says will be decisively shaped by that goodness on the one hand -- commandments are "for our good" -- and will also reflect a responsiveness to human beings who are morally governed creatures, in a relevant situation. (A subtlety in this, is that there will be cases where there is ameliorative regulation of behaviour too deeply rooted in a culture shaped by "the hardness of our hearts" to be pulled up at once without unacceptable harm [cf. here the classic "I hate divorce" case of the Judaeo-Christian tradition], but there will also be provision onwards for reformation of the culture [cf. here for a similar case, on slavery].) As a result, objective morality is grounded in the roots of our nature and in the moral Creator behind those roots. Richard Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity sums this view up in a key passage cited by Locke in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5, to justify liberty and justice in government:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]

That in the teeth of such easily accessible information tot he contrary, you insist on pushing words into my mouth that do not belong there, in an attempt to set me up as the strawman you wish you had to deal with, is sadly revealing. Dr Liddle, that is not good enough. Not by a long shot. A NOTICE: Beyond this point, if you use it again, you will understand why I will draw the conclusion that you have resorted to willful false accusation; enabling the lunatic fringe like the operator of the hate site, who will say far worse. Please, do not go there. I do have some very strong things to say about evolutionary materialism as a worldview, as onlookers can see by scrolling up. That worldview -- notice, I here sharply distinguish systems of thought and agendas from individuals that may be caught up in the system, after all, as a Christian I believe in reddeemability of people and the power of the gentle persistent probing of conscience enlightened by the Spirit of God, calling us to known duty [why else do you think I am able to highlight someone like Plato?] -- that worldview, as I say yet again, patently has in it no foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT; yet, we -- human beings made in God's image and implanted with consciences -- are undeniably under moral government. This is of course one of the strongest, most direct, in-built, inescapable indicators that we live in a cosmos that is Morally Governed, by an IS who can indeed ground OUGHT: the inherently good Creator God. This insight can however, be benumbed and endarkened by the entertainment of worldviews and cultural agendas that are amoral or distorting of morality, leading to promoting addiction to evil, or even nihilism. Nihilism like Aiden, sadly, so hoggishly exhibits for us all to see. So, madam, let me be direct, I explicitly deny -- having warranted it yet again -- that I am:

promoting the libel that atheists (or “evolutionary materialists) are dangerous amoral nihilists . . . [taken from Dr Liddle, just above]

I am warning, instead that evolutionary materialism -- something that, even after it has been explained to you with 2350 years worth of clear documentation, you cannot bear to acknowledge exists, much less that it is the dominant worldview in the intellectual milieu of our civilisation's elites, often dressed up in the holy lab coat -- is inescapably amoral, having no IS that can ground OUGHT. I am warning, further, with antecedents as far back as Plato, and on cases in point as far back as Alcibiades, that such an amoral worldview is inherently highly dangerous, and has in it moral hazards that we had better attend to before they yet again do serious damage. In particular, I have identified the so-called New Atheists, as cases in point of the playing out of implications of the underlying radical relativism and amorality of this worldview, for benumbing consciences and endarkening consciences, so that nihilism yet again stalks our civilisation. if you doubt me, kindly look at the lyrics I have presented, and look again at the video that has been discussed. think about what it means to present the "typical" clergyman as a vampire, then surround him with those lyrics and images. Then, ask yourself, just whose name means Accuser. And, what that being is notoriously the father of. So, as I have repeatedly issued the challenge, I do so yet again, to adherents of evolutionary materialism dressed up in the holy lab coat and calling itself science: provide a sufficient objective warrant from moral principles, and for the sake of the 100 million ghosts of the century just past, at least, address and contain the moral hazards of such scientism. Especially, in our halls of science education. In so doing, I am obviously appealing to my confident knowledge that, despite the implications of what I believe to be an utterly flawed and patently self-refuting worldview, the implanted conscience is enough to restrain a critical mass of even adherents, so that the course of the amorality can at least be checked from full force. That is the very opposite of the recklessly false and arguably defamatory statements that you have cast in my teeth by falsely accusing me of libel. I think you owe me an apology, with explanation, for that false accusation in the teeth of explicit and detailed comments and explanations, over and over again, to the contrary. If you do not provide such, it leaves me no alternative, but to conclude that you are indulging in willful strawman tactic scapegoating and turnabout tactic accusations, the better to polarise the atmosphere rather than deal with a serious matter -- a mortal danger to our civilisation, on its merits. PLEASE, do not go down that road, Dr Liddle. Good day, madam. For record. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

03:08 AM

3

03

08

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

It is completely irrelevant, kf. You seem not to understand that the indignation you feel at Aiden's lyrics is echoed in those lyrics themselves - indignation at the evil that is done in the name of religion, including the burning of churches and synagogues, but also including the smearing of atheists as amoral nihilists, and of gays as "intrinsically disordered" people who do not have the rights the rest of us enjoy of legally marrying and raising families. Aiden's lyrics specifically quote Christopher Hitchens on this, and with justice. At its worst, religion subverts morality, replacing it with "Divine Command Theory" in which Might is by definition Right, and the motivation to behave well is not love but fear. Yes, you are, understandably, angry at the insult to your religion. But do not underestimate the anger that religion engenders in those whom religious views insult. Dawkins was absolutely within his rights to condemn Craig's "Divine Command Theory". It was not a "smear", it was a link to the man's actual words. I myself was appalled, as you know. Religious people do not have a lock on morality, and those of us who disagree with religious morality have as much right to express our righteous indignation as you do.Elizabeth Liddle

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

02:49 AM

2

02

49

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

GilDodgen you've been silent since the slanderous quote mining was revealed. So far, you haven't lied. You were snookered by Tod Starnes and Fox News and passed on their slander. Starnes himself apparently passed on a slander from "Christianfighterpilot". Whether "Christianfighterpilot" outright lied or was just "careless beyond belief", I don't know. The important thing is that you were fooled, so you haven't told a lie - yet. But now that the truth is revealed to everyone, including yourself, you owe your readers a quick and sincere apology for your actions. You were careless and you passed on Starnes' slander and a lot of readers have certainly believed it and others have certainly been hurt by it. Now please tell your ID readers that the OP is not correct, that the band is actually criticizing religious fanatics who burn other religious people's houses of worship and that they were not celebrating this destruction, approving it or urging others to do it. If you confess your sins now, you will alleviate some of the harm you've done. If you don't - well, then your mistake becomes a lie and you bear full responsibility for it. I don't make this offer to kairosfocus because I know he will never admit making an error, he will just flood the blog with multi-thousand word denials of the obvious laced with invective, slander and strawmen and burning with the flames of ad hominem. There's still hope for you.dmullenix

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

02:49 AM

2

02

49

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: It is appropriate to not only point to a 101 on the warrant for the Christian worldview and one on the gospel that Aiden have tried to dismisss by smearing it with verbal filth, but also to point out the empty chair debate lecture/panel of Oct 25, 2011, where Professor Dawkins ducked the opportunity to defend his assertions in The God Delusion by making an attempt to smear and dismiss professor Craig (cf here on in general response), and a current public debate on the resurrection.kairosfocus

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

02:19 AM

2

02

19

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Kairosfocus, you spend a great deal of time on this site promoting the libel that atheists (or "evolutionary materialists) are dangerous amoral nihilists. Please consider the beam in your own eye.Elizabeth Liddle

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

01:09 AM

1

01

09

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers (and participants): This thread, though quite painful all around, has been very important for the progress of discussion at UD. This is the thread that shows that the sort of concerned analysis of the socio-cultural implications of evolutionary materialism -- due to its evidently unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap -- first put on serious record by Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is still a highly relevant point. (Do you notice, for instance, that for all the high dudgeon we see above, all the projection of hypocrisy, all the blood-libel laced accusation of fraud against Christian leaders, all the sense of how "faith" ought to be overturned, we never see anywhere an objective grounding of moral principles -- OUGHT -- on foundational ISes of evolutionary materialism? That should put us on alert that we are here dealing with a worldview that has in it no IS that can ground OUGHT, and is thus inherently amoral, leading its adherents down a path to a radical relativism that can easily benumb the voice of implanted conscience and lead to the nihilism of might and manipulation make 'right' . . . ) You will notice, that, for the second time in recent days, I have taken an overnight timeout, to allow myself and others the chance to cool down and be objective. This is because I understand that we are all finite, fallible, morally fallen/struggling, and too often ill-willed. So, I am very aware that we can blind ourselves even as we become angry at the other party to a contentious disagreement. But, having taken time out, I need to speak for record, to help move our overall discussion froward. Please understand, and if necessary, forgive, some painful things that I believe need to be said; not least, for record. Because, our civilisation is again treading a very dangerous path, having yet again forgotten the lessons of the past, within living memory. In some aspects, lessons taught just 20 - 25 years ago, as the Iron Curtain fell and we saw what had been going on behind it. So, there is and can be no excuse for this forgetting. Let us begin with Aiden, and the way they respond to the Christian gospel: spewing verbal filth across it, and thinking they have a right to do that, and expecting to be welcome in civil society having acted like that. (Notice, onlookers, no-one has been able to justify this, just as, no-one is able to cogently explain how smearing and dismissing the God of the OT/Tanakh as a bronze-age moral monster, with invited inference that those who take such seriously are threats, is not implicitly blood libel-laced anti- semitism as well as the overt anti-Christian bigotry.) Sorry, if you go up to where all this began, you will see in effect an open invitation to examine the warrant for a theistic worldview, and for the Christian tradition, on the merits, coming from BA and the undersigned. Just scroll up to 1, 1.1 and 1.1.1. The path not taken by the new atheists, who have now built up a track record of rage-driven slander, stereotyping, scapegoating and now, verbal filth and blood libel. Such hoggishness betrays an animating spirit that is utterly uncivil and destructive. And, sadly, points to him whose name means "accuser." That is hard to face, very hard. But, face it we now must, especially given the sort of imagery and lyrics Aiden has put on the table; and which should be acknowledged and turned from. There is, and can be, no excuse for such filth as the following from Crusifiction, which I cite under right of fair comment:

My name is Roman, Not king nor emperor. Just the voice of a ghost, the past son of a whore. I transcend to dispatch this letter. Where the rich bought rape the poor. You can astound this human race. You can embrace lies built on faith. You can manipulate a simple story. For fear!, panic!, glory! F- your God. F- your faith in the end, There's no religion. Would you open your eyes already. Christ died for s- and was a f- c-. We were brothers born to build an army . . . . Standing on the edge of insanity, Wishing there was more time to explain. We were brothers born a prostitute. A thief of a beggar, There is a new God. I am the devil. F- your God. F- your faith in the end, There's no religion. F- my God, There is no God.

No band that has this in its repertoire is suitable for consideration as a warm up act for any public event, period. If they wish to peddle such filth behind closed doors to those who are addicted, let hem do so behind closed doors to those of age to know what they are buying into. On the strength of this alone, the sponsors of the event are utterly out of order. For further instance, it is not "child abuse" to raise children in a decent Christian home or church. Professor Dawkins and those who have allowed him to get away with such outrageous slanders have some serious explaining to do on just this point alone. Now, let us turn to Hysteria (notice, onlookers, who is giving links to the lyrics and who is not), advertised as the atheist's anthem, and put on a music video that leads with an image of Christian-cleric-as-vampire, leading straight into images of burning churches etc; again by right of fair comment in response to an outrageous offence:

Love how they burn your synagogues Love how they torch your holy books Filling coffers with your grief Filling coffins with your misery Faith holding outright criminals safe This is just the world we live in Can you justify the pain The death of fiction will save us all Hysteria We live We die I wont give up In a world worth saving goodbye I don't have anything to fear I live, I live hysteria Wait supporting outright genocide Hate let us all disseminate A message to your herd Our voices will be heard Now faith is a question you can choose Faith whether Christian, Muslim, Jew Still you all distort the truth The death of fiction will save us all Searching for the answers are you asking all the questions Will the evidence suffice your fear Human evolution is the only real solution All the truth you gotta hear Would you stand and fight

To all who would try to make such seem innocent, I am sorry, I was not born yesterday. Portraying Christian clerics as vampires, is vicious, scapegoating stereotyping patently driven by hostility and bigotry. Yes, there have always been wolves who sneak in and hide in shepherd's robes, but in fact, the tradition of genuine shepherds has been long and distinguished, indeed it is a 2,000 year long trail marked by martyr's blood, the first being the Chief Shepherd himself, who laid down his life for the sheep; having first declared to those who would take the other path, of the sword, that "those who live by the sword will die by it," a direct allusion tot he history of the Macabbean period, where six of seven brothers who led the uprising perished in it; it even prophetically hints on the futility of the three Jewish uprisings against Rome that would happen in the following century. But, equally -- as is well understood, it points to the corrupting and self-destructive nature of terrorism and nihilistic violence. Next, whether you see the imagery and words on burning places of worship and holy books as a caricature or as a direct invitation, makes but little difference. The first view, makes it part of a vicious stereotype; the latter is a directly nihilistic call, and indeed the first implies the second, in "retaliation." One of the grimmest lessons of the century past, is that ideologically mass murder, democide and genocide have to be prepared for by dehumanising and demonising the intended victims, making those who embark on murder imagine they are doing justice. I doubt that the likes of the singers of Aiden fully understand the matches they are playing with, but that is what they are playing with. The next cluster of lines is of course more scapegoating and stereotyping. Blood money, unjust wars and protection of war criminals are plainly laid at the feet of the stereotypical vampire clergy -- don't forget who is the singer in the video, in what guise. And, right after this has been done, we see: "supporting outright genocide." This is blood libel, and turnabout false accusation. The rest is more of the same, sneering dismissal and pushing all into the same boat with IslamIST terrorists. There is no excuse for this. Those who thought it reasonable to have this as a warm up act for an atheist event obviously meant to be a counter-point for having a Christian spokesman present to those who would come to listen, at Ft Bragg, have a lot of explaining to do. (Especially in a context where Mr Franklyn Graham has taken a lot of grief for trying to point out the dangers of IslamISM (note the emphatic distinction from those who respond to God as they understand him in light of Islamic tradition); which should be common knowledge on 1,400 years of historical record of the jihad wars. Even the much despised crusades -- which indeed were indefensibly awful in execution and in many respects in conception (as in a capital example about being finite, fallible, fallen and too often ill-willed . . . ) -- were, strategically speaking, limited and partly successful counter-offensives to the jihad wars, in a context where Rome had been sacked and Christian pilgrims in the Holy land attacked, massacred and enslaved in the thousands. Yes, in the 1060's, there was the equivalent of a 9/11; did you ever wonder why German, French and English people cared enough about what was going on in the Middle East to fight sustained wars there a thousand years ago? And, are you surprised that the major media have not adequately and objectively explained just what has been going on over these 1400 years? Even, why the very date of the 9/11 attacks was historically symbolic? (As in, of what event was 9/11 the eve of the 318th anniversary of? as in, who was Jan Sobieski, and what did he do on Sept 12, 1683 just outside the gates of Vienna? Why?) But, that is somewhat tangential. The key matter on the table, here, is that we are dealing with the new atheist movement, and the serious problems with basic civility that too often crop up in the writings, speech and performances of its spokesmen and their followers. Reflecting the basic problems with the underlying evolutionary materialistic worldview, as highlighted by Plato in The Laws Bk X, 2350 years ago (onward links are at the IOSE page I am again clipping from):

[[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [--> notice, the summary of the core of evolutionary materialism, all that needs to be updated is the current scientific theories] . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . .

Plainly, these grim words and warnings on misled youth are still all too patently, sadly relevant. I have written for record. G'day, GEM of TKI PS: of course, in the aftermath of Plantinga's devastating responses decades ago [now you know some of why they are trying to trash the eminent philosopher Plantinga currently], atheists are now rather coy about their formerly favourite argument, from evil. An implied appeal to this is made in Hysteria. Those troubled by it may find here a helpful first level response.kairosfocus

January 31, 2012

January

01

Jan

31

31

2012

12:55 AM

12

12

55

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus wrote:

Gil: a serious and sobering point, given the above. I note that we see no serious response on your expose of promotion of synagogue and church burning. KF

Gil, kairosfocus, You have falsely accused Aiden of promoting synagogue and church burning. When will you retract your irresponsible accusation?champignon

January 30, 2012

January

01

Jan

30

30

2012

10:07 PM

10

10

07

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"the US military did not fund a “Christian musical event” when it hosted Rock the Fort" Freedom of Information act requests suggest otherwise: http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2011/01/27/army-spiritual-fitness-concert-cost-100k-foia-docs-released/ Ironic that a song titled "Hysteria"is provoking exactly that. Especially since it denounces sectarian beliefs as the cause of those things listed, with "The death of fiction will save us all" ending the stanza you are fond of quoting) I suppose you can read the lyrics as negatively as your imagination allows, but how you get to this band advocating anti-religious violence baffles me.DrREC

January 30, 2012

January

01

Jan

30

30

2012

04:13 PM

4

04

13

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Well, let's stop personifying isms and have some clarity. Scientists, whose methodology is "methodological naturalism" work on the assumption that phenomena have natural, and therefore discernable, explanations. They neither conclude nor test it, it is simply the working assumption. No scientific study ever attempts to answer the question "is nature all there is?" We simply do not have the methodology to do that. So it is neither conclusion nor hypothesis. It is simply a practical working assumption that enables us to keep looking when we might otherwise give up.Elizabeth Liddle

January 30, 2012

January

01

Jan

30

30

2012

03:53 PM

3

03

53

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Naturalism starts with the conclusion- that nature is all there is- and says forget about any hpothesis.Joe

January 30, 2012

January

01

Jan

30

30

2012

03:46 PM

3

03

46

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

No, it doesn't. You start with a hypothesis, and you finish with a conclusion.Elizabeth Liddle

January 30, 2012

January

01

Jan

30

30

2012

03:45 PM

3

03

45

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Of course it does as it starts with a conclusion.Joe

January 30, 2012

January

01

Jan

30

30

2012

03:39 PM

3

03

39

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

No, it doesn't.Elizabeth Liddle

January 30, 2012

January

01

Jan

30

30

2012

03:36 PM

3

03

36

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

What sort of “scientific research” is it that lays out its conclusions and cultural implications before it actually has the findings?

That is what naturalism does.Joe

January 30, 2012

January

01

Jan

30

30

2012

03:35 PM

3

03

35

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The Wedge Document lays out a "Strategy" for "the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies". Its first step in that strategy is "scientific research". What sort of "scientific research" is it that lays out its conclusions and cultural implications before it actually has the findings? That isn't "follow[ing] the evidence where it leads" - it's the opposite: deciding where you are going then finding the evidence to support it. I'm not accusing you of that Gil, but that's what the Wedge Document lays out. In contrast, I know of know equivalent document indicates that "Philosophically committed Darwinists are not interested in science or evidence. They are interested in converting others, and others’ children, to their nihilistic, materialistic worldview." If there are such people, they certainly do not form a "consensus" of scientists. And there is nothing inherently "nihilist" in atheism anyway. Atheists include some of the most visionary and optimistic people I know.Elizabeth Liddle

January 30, 2012

January

01

Jan

30

30

2012

03:12 PM

3

03

12

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: It seems Ch has decided to just double the volume. What I will say is that this Aiden video starts with the imagery of the Christian cleric as vampire [which works on two levels, immediate and as a stand in for demon, i.e. it is a vicious smear in itself], which properly controls understanding of all else that follows. Taking in the wider context of vulgarity-filled dismissal of the gospel message, it is plain that we are seeing a toxic hit piece, meant only to stir hostility and in that context the use of videos and lyrics about burning synagogues and churches at minimum is a largely unwarranted accusation inviting of retaliation. The presentation of stateme3nts about filling coffers and coffins, in the context of the vampire image is also plain: blood money and war mongering, again largely unwarranted accusations. Going on tot he "fundies joined at the hip" words, this is a patently familiar attempt to push Bible believing Christians into the same boat of immoral equivalency with the IslamIST terrorists. And so forth. In short, the "quote mining" and "lying/dishonesty for Jesus" smears, simply are attempts to evade dealing with a serious problem of the New Atheist movement -- one that BTW is brimming over in my inbox from the hate site operator [so I know this is not a weird misreading of the sentiment that is controlling what is going on] -- by way of the common tactic of project5ing a turnabout accusation. Ch, wake up and face the cold light of day. Goodbye. KFkairosfocus

January 30, 2012

January

01

Jan

30

30

2012

02:27 AM

2

02

27

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kf, my point in drawing attention to the rest of the lyrics you quoted from, is that, taken in that context (and in the context of the album, and of the video) it is perfectly clear that far from advocating the burning of churches, the song-writers are condemning that kind of "hysteria". In other words, you have, although no doubt inadvertently, completely, and by 180 degrees, misinterpreted those lyrics, and the accusation made in the OP therefore fails. You have several times in this thread noted that we have failed to respond to specific challenge in the OP. I now have, and I call on you to retract the allegation. You may not agree with those lyrics, but you must, now, surely agree that they do not, as you had originally thought, advocate violence against believers, but condemn violence perpetrated by believers and other ideologues. Hence the title of that track "Hysteria". Can I also ask you to stop taking the words of a few individuals, and ascribing the view you think they express to all people who you assume to conform to your category "evolutionary materialist"? I do not agree with Provine; I often disagree with Dawkins; I do not think Lewontin meant what you think he means. I nonetheless share their view that the world can be described in terms of equations. That does not make me a danger to you, or to anyone else. It just makes me a scientist.Elizabeth Liddle

January 30, 2012

January

01

Jan

30

30

2012

02:13 AM

2

02

13

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers, Imagine the outcry from kairosfocus if an atheist had quotemined a Christian song in order to smear Christianity. We'd get 500+ indignant lines talking about how "evo mat" amorality was leading to the destruction of civilization. What hypocrisy.champignon

January 30, 2012

January

01

Jan

30

30

2012

12:22 AM

12

12

22

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link