Church-Burning Video Used to Promote Atheist Event

Dr Liddle: Pardon, but -- as has repeatedly been pointed out to you -- it is not just me who says that the worldview of evolutionary materialism, however labelled has in it no foundational principle that can carry the weight of objectively grounding ought. Leading advocates for the view say much the same, though they often do not seem to be fully aware of the moral hazard thereby implied for the worldview. You will also kindly note that I have repeatedly underscored -- thread after thread, month after month, actually for years at UD -- that we ALL struggle with the challenge that we are finite, fallible, morally fallen/struggling, and too often ill-willed. As a Christian, it is a foundational teaching of my faith [Try Rom 2 for size] that all of us have an implanted candle of the Lord, the conscience, that when properly maintained, guides us towards the duty of care we all have tot he truth and to the right, whatever our worldview. That too, I have repeatedly said, but it has been repeatedly ignored or at least overlooked by those who imagine that I am singling out atheists as particularly wicked. Atheists can be wicked and nihilistic [the amorality I have highlighted is a property of the evolutionary materialist view, not even all forms of atheism, e.g. there are some highly moral and impressive forms of Buddhism that are formally atheistical], but so can just about any adherent of just about any faith, that is not the hard thing to explain. What is to be addressed is the problem that the Hawthorne clip above underscores. Namely, no warranting grounds for morality, which leads to an undermining of the moral fabric of society where such evolutionary materialism becomes a force among esp4cially the elite classes. A problem highlighted since Plato in The Laws Bk X, with Alcibiades and co very definitely in mind. As in, for 2350 years now. As to documenting my point that leading atheists do acknowledge but don't seem to be aware of the implications of what hey are saying, let me clip Provine from his well known 1998 Darwin Day address at U Tenn:

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them . . .

How about Dawkins, here, in a key 1995 Sci Am article:

Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose. We humans have purpose on the brain. We find it difficult to look at anything without wondering what it is “for,” what the motive for it or the purpose behind it might be. The desire to see purpose everywhere is natural in an animal that lives surrounded by machines, works of art, tools and other designed artifacts – an animal whose waking thoughts are dominated by its own goals and aims . . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [[ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85. This article raises the issue of the problem of evil that atheists are usually very coy about these days, now that the impact of Plantinga's work has taken full effect. Cf a response here for a 101.]

Let's put it this way, to say that here is no grounding foundation for objective morality, is to say the worldview you adhere to and believe to be true has in it no IS that can objectively ground ought. Or putting more directly, good vs evil, on your worldview, is a subjective delusion with no reality outside the subjective sense of feelings etc. Indeed, fifty or sixty years ago, the then dominant positivists would have gone further, alleging that the terms are meaningless. Amorality of the worldview, and being presented as the last word on the matter of reality, in the name of science as given by one of its leading icons, Darwin. (I suspect that Provine may be over-reading Darwin's actual atheism, but that is another matter.) Then, we have the capping off with the claim that we have no freedom of will. Which means we cannot make truly responsible choices. The immediate implicat6ions are that we have undermined the credibility of mind and reasoned thought, and moral thought as well. Much less, moral acts. That is, all is conditioning, through genes, memes and whatever emotional and social forces have shaped you. And DAWKINS (yes, the same who has blundered so badly, as the OP shows) CHIMES IN WITH THE IMPLICATION THAT MORALITY HAS NO EXISTENCE IN THE ONLY REALITY HE WILL ACCEPT, MATTER AND ENERGY IN SPACE AND TIME. He directly implies there is no good, there is no evil, just pitiless indifference. To all such I simply say, that so long as it is plain that to torture and murder innocent children is wrong, it is patent that morality is objectively real, and our awareness of it points to the need for accepting and grounding a worldview that can accommodate that basic reality. So, if a worldview has in it no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, then it is simply morally absurd and groundless. Now, people may well choose to adhere to such a view, and may indeed be "nice" and friendly people, but that has nothing to do with whether the view in question can ground OUGHT. If it cannot, if it implies that OUGHT is illusion or delusion, then it is absurd. Period. I am sorry tha this is all very painful, and in particular given that we tend to closely identify with our worldviews. But, unless evolutionary materialism, for the first time in 2350 years, can find in matter, energy, space and time, an IS that can ground OUGHT, then it is inherently and objectively AMORAL as a system of thought. Those who accept it may indeed hear the voice of conscience and try to heed it, but that is not because they are being consistent with the implications of their views. Pardon me for ruffling feathers, and for cutting, but I think this worldview is social cancer here. The cut is that of a biopsy. At the very minimum, we must find a way to manage and restrain it in our culture if it is presently inoperable. And yes, I accept that this is very painful, and may lead some to be very angry. I wish that were not so, but that is the nature of the beast when we deal with a serious moral hazard that is deeply entrenched in our civilisation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

07:02 AM

7

07

02

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

there is simply no serious the very sobering issue of a major moral hazard in the worldview of evolutionary materialism

kf: here, and elsewhere, you affirm your view that "evolutionary materialism" is a moral hazard. This is indeed a serious accusation leveled at all of us who hold to what you refer to as "evolutionary materialism". We deny the charge. Moreover, we point out that the charge itself engenders hatred, as is evidenced by the kinds of murderous comments, by Christians, towards atheists on the site linked to by GCU. Instead of grappling with this evidence that the vilification goes both ways, you dismiss our evidence as a "red herring" and a "straw man" and, most weirdly of all, as an "ad hominem". You, kf, are accusing us of moral degeneracy. Time after time I read real "ad hominem" arguments on this site addressed to we "evolutionary materials" - allegations that we have no leg to stand on because we can't derive an is from an ought - that we have no moral authority. We are not using "ad hominem" arguments against you, which would take the form "you are a Christian therefore you your argument is invalid". We merely point out that the fear is mutual, as is, sadly, the hatred, and that what we need to do is understand each other more, not less. So we try to explain. Repeatedly, you attempt to "correct". kf, please consider the possibility that what you fear is largely imaginary, and worse, potentially self-generating. Atheists are no more nor less evil or amoral than anyone else, and ugly bigotry is found on both sides. Please let's stop.Elizabeth Liddle

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

05:21 AM

5

05

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: Onlookers, also observe that there is simply no serious grappling with the very sobering issue of a major moral hazard in the worldview of evolutionary materialism, nor any responsiveness to the pains I have taken to point out our common human moral dilemma, the problems faced by major movements and the distinction I have drawn between movements of thought and individuals. All of that is utterly revealing. And BTW, notice, all of this was occasioned by my having the temerity to point to where the interested onlooker can find some help on warranting a theistic and even a Bible-believing Christian worldview, and help in dealing with increasingly common, strident "shut up rhetoric" used to verbally lynch Christians who dare to speak up. Telling, especially in a context where the OP shows how the very New Atheism advocate whose attack against the God of the Bible is specifically addressed in one of the linked, turns out to be scheduled to have a public presentation warmed up for by an act by a band associated with calls for synagogue, church and holy book burning. Sadly revealing. Anyway, I have spoken enough for record. G'day again.kairosfocus

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

05:08 AM

5

05

08

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers: Further sadly predictable, laced with false and ungrounded turnabout tactic accusations inspired by the influence of Alinskyite propaganda techniques [and this, in an utterly telling context . . . ] , and unresponsive on the merits. I have already spoken for record and given enough evidence to show grounds for the concerns I have raised. Inadvertently, GCU has amply confirmed the validity of the concerns. Goodbye. KFkairosfocus

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

04:53 AM

4

04

53

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

GCU did not only link to the murderous comments by Muslims about atheists in Indonesia. He also linked to murderous comments by Christians about atheists in America. It is not a "red herring" and is no more an "ad hominem" as it is a "straw man". It's a reference to the climate of mutual fear in which this reciprocal hatred is generated. Let's stop now.Elizabeth Liddle

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

04:26 AM

4

04

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF, you seem totally blind to your own radical hypocrisy (and to the irony inherent in your own position) You are complaining that you (your worldview) is being attacked and demonized, and in the same breath you attack and demonize those holding a different worldview. All your posts that discuss Hitler, atheism etc are doing exactly the kind of thing you perceive and then complain about in others. This is rank hypocrisy. I notice as well that you have deployed your usual atmosphere poisoning tactic of declaring 'I can criticize others but no one is permitted to say anything against me(tm)' aka 'turnabout rhetorical attack' accusation. For the record, I'm not defending the subject in the OP, just pointing out what a hateful hypocrite you are.GCUGreyArea

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

04:18 AM

4

04

18

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Dr Liddle, please don't omit who they are the warm up act for, proposed. I trust they will now be dropped. KFkairosfocus

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

04:17 AM

4

04

17

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Dr Liddle, with all due respect when in reply to an issue over an upcoming festival of music and speech in which we see the sort of items highlighed in the OP -- synagogue and church burnings, remember, we hear in rely an accusation based on what IslamISTs are doing in Indonesia, that is a red herring distractor led away to an ad hominem laced strawman stratagem if there ever was one. G'day, KFkairosfocus

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

04:12 AM

4

04

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

GCU: Sadly predictable again. Has it not struck you as strange that THERE IS NO CRITICISM SECTION in this wiki article [there was one, but instead of putting in well founded concerns, it was deleted on a flimsy excuse . . . ], for a band that advocates what Gil has highlighted, whilst when we turn to the pages for those associated with design thought, we see all sorts of accusations and insinuations, right from the introductory remarks, never mind Wikis NPOV rule? What is this telling us about what is going on, GCU? KFkairosfocus

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

03:58 AM

3

03

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kf, GCUGreyArea is not attempting to distract anyone. That you should think so is indicative of a real problem. Yes, you, and Gil, and others, see Christians as being vilified by atheists, and clearly they sometimes are. But atheists are also vilified by Christians. Neither attitude is defensible, but attempting to paint one side as victim and the other as oppressor is not only, literally, "one-sided" but also encourages the kind of mutual vilification we would all like to see ended. Seriously, kf - be the change you want to see. Right now you are part of the problem.Elizabeth Liddle

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

03:54 AM

3

03

54

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers: Predictable atmosphere-poisoning turnabout accusation to distract attention from the indefensible. Let me speak, for record. In particular, observe how GCU "cleverly" speaks of an atheist attacked by "theists," neatly pushing all who believe in God into the same boat with radical IslamISTS in Indonesia who have indeed acted out their own rage, hostility and anger management problems. Somehow it escapes GCU et al that IslamISTS are not even to be conflated with the vast majority of Muslims, much less equated with Jews or Christians or generic theists. (And BTW, if you and your ilk were to take a moment to look at the page on worldviews foundations I linked above at (b) GCU, you would find that it leads with a diagram relating to my region, which points to three major sets of people with some serious issues to deal with: dechristianisers from the North, Islamists from the east, and Christians and a partly christianised culture at home who have some serious reformation to go through. As in, the toxic talking point on blaming "all the world's ills" on atheists and darwinists is an irresponsible slanderous false accusation that should be known to be such. [But then, on experience, sadly, New Atheists seem to be a little careless of doing due diligence to fairness, accuracy etc. before trotting out favourite false accusations] FYI: I have plainly and frequently highlighted that the basic problem we all have is that we are finite, fallible, morally fallen, and too often ill willed. In highlighting the issue of the morally tinged socio-cultural and historical impacts of evolutionary materialism and associated ideas since the triumph of darwinism made such a worldview a mass phenomenon for the first time in human history, I am doing what I have done since I was five or six years old: insist that we must learn the lessons of history, so that we avoid repeating its worst chapters. Nazism and Marxism were not INEVITABLE consequences of the triumph of Darwin, BUT IF YOUR "SCIENCE" (ACTUALLY, THE UNDERLYING A PRIORI MATERIALISM) HAS IN IT A DEMONSTRABLE MAJOR MORAL HAZARD, YOU HAD BETTER FOCUS BIGTIME ATTENTION ON FIXING THE PROBLEM, AND IF IT CANNOT BE FIXED, THEN SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE WORLDVIEW THAT UNDERGIRDS THE SCIENCE. I trust that has made my point very, very clear. ) Onlookers, pardon, I need to be fairly direct. What follows is doubtless painful, which I regret, but we need to lance the boil before it poisons the blood. What the resort to toxic new atheist rhetorical turnabout talking points we have seen and are seeing again most directly reveals [especially the "Blood-thirsty IslamISTS in Indonesia = Christians etc" we just saw], is that the rage-driven hostility GCU and others seem to have conceived for the God and Father in whose house [creation] they have lived and reaped benefits from, to any and all who seek to serve him. So, if they find any extremist associated in any way with theism, they would cast it at the feet of any theist they have to deal with. That is the same sort of bigotry that would take say the behaviour of a mafioso and then project this as an accusation against all Italians. (Do I need to make the matter a little more explicit on racist bigotry as a parallel, or is that hint close enough?) I suggest that such need to take a look again, at the parable of the Prodigal Son, through new eyes. Namely, asking themselves seriously, whether a lot of the rage-driven atheism they seem to advocate is little more than overgrown teenager rebellion gone well past its sell-by date. Next, GCU et al need to do some serious thinking about just what is being advocated by Aiden, as noted in the OP, remember, as the proposed warmup act for Mr Dawkins:

The band Aiden has announced it will be playing the atheist festival “Rock Beyond Belief” at Fort Bragg in March 2012, as the lead-in act to Richard Dawkins, the main attraction at the “concert.”

Where also:

…the lineup includes atheist speakers, a rapper who raps about evolution and a “kiddy pool” where boys and girls will be able to scientifically walk on water. There will also be a number of bands performing – the most famous of which is Aiden. They are featured in a video on the “Rocky Beyond Belief” website that includes images of burning churches and bloody crosses. Among the lyrics: “Love how the [sic] burn your synagogues, love how they torch your holy books. [--> remember the rage and hot talking points when I pointed out the implications of antisemitism in some of Dawkins' infamous rhetoric on bronze age sky gods?] The group is no stranger to strong lyrics. Another of their songs says, “F*** your God, F*** your faith in the end. There’s no religion.

It seems whenever morally tinged issues and concerns regarding the new atheist movement are raised, they angrily lash out and attack the messenger. In reality, the just above clips show how they are in serious need of cleaning up their act. GCU et al also need to take time to actually watch and respond to the evidence presented here by Weikart, on what was going on historically in Germany as social darwinism got embedded into power centres under the false name of well grounded science, with Haeckel, the leading darwinist in Germany, at the head of the charge. This was the toxic atmosphere in which Hitler rose to power, and the clip of his infamous book discussed here makes it utterly plain that he appealed to just that sort of allegedly firm and consensus science to advance his cause, leading to horrors predictable from someone who would take seriously the following clip:

Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature [--> notice, the capitalisation; (u/d Jul 27: this is not the pivot of the argument, but note the personalisation of Nature as having a will, in context)] for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings [--> i.e. evolution viewed as progress] would be unthinkable. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance,etc., of the individual specimens. [ --> survival of the fittest, with a focus on the predators] But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . .

Jewish and Polish "mice" reading those fulminations of an ill-educated and deeply propagandised rage-driven demagogue who was allowed to get away with treason by foolishly lenient courts in Germany, in 1925 or 1926, may have thought this a bit of overblown rhetoric, as I suspect did most of the elites of the world. But the demented, demonised Hitler meant this very, very literally. To our shame as a world, we did not then respond in good time to stop the madness when it could have been stopped at relatively little cost, but then when the cancer had gone to the point where its end was obvious, it would cost 40 + million lives and a devastated continent. And the story of Jewish refugees with nowhere to go is a stain on the history of our civilisation. At least, there was a Caribbean nation that had the gumption to grant refuge to some of these, the Dominican Republic. Again: the problem is that we ALL are finite, fallible, morally fallen and too often ill-willed. I should perhaps, add, we are also far too prone to forget the relevant past that is inconvenient. Thirty years ago, if you had told me we would be standing to one side and doing little or nothing (other than making the usual tut-tut noises) while another dictator sitting on the world's oil jugular vein arms himself with nuke weapons, I would have said, you cannot be right; the world MUST have learned the lesson of the 1930's. But, lo and behold, that is exactly what is happening as we speak. Okay, back to the example GCU so unwisely thought could be dragged out as a turnabout toxic talking point . . . In short, there is no reasonable doubt -- just a lot of angry dismissals and turnabouts -- that Hitler's thought (that of evidently an occultic neopagan who did not shun to use blasphemously twisted messianic themes to promote himself as a political saviour) was deeply shaped by social darwinism perceived as science [applications of darwin's theory], and took the ideas promoted in the eugenics movement -- self-understood and widely promoted by elites as: "the self-direction of human evolution" -- to nihilistic extremes. GCU has also chosen to twist -- in the teeth of many explanations -- the point that is properly laid at the feet of evolutionary materialists ever since Plato in the Laws, Bk X: Evolutionary materialism -- a worldview, not individuals associated with it; we must always distinguish systems and individuals -- has in it no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT (often, presented with a pretty face as "the naturalistic fallacy"). But, that major moral hazard is easily shown, say courtesy Hawthorne, as I have had occasion to cite ever so many times (i.e. the New Atheists know or should know this point of concern and need to deal with it on the merits instead of distracting attention through toxic talking points):

Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [[a material] 'is'.

Okay, FOR RECORD GEM of TKIkairosfocus

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

03:47 AM

3

03

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I agree, how appalling to insist that personal opinions which lack any citations, references or other supporting evidence be excluded from an encyclopedia entry until such references can be supplied, or indeed that the editorial rules should be followed. Terrible!GCUGreyArea

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

02:44 AM

2

02

44

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Talk page, clips on the criticisms paragraph that was formerly there:

I deleted much of the criticisms paragraph because it was personal opinion turned into "some say", which violates WP:WEASEL. In addition, saying that Aiden got bottled does not describe criticism, it describes hooliganism.--Wehwalt 12:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC) . . . . For everyone's edification, I requested feedback from others on the Criticism section, which I tend to delete, in full or part. Krator's response relates to that.--Wehwalt 19:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC) I am not sure where to write my third opinion, so I just made a new section. Long paragraphs should be here on attribution, no original research, and NPOV, but WP:XXXXXX just covers everything I want to say, so I just link there. --User:Krator (t c) 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC) . . . . As a response to the request for comment over the inclusion or exclusion of this, I would say to leave it out. It is unreferenced, and quite trivial. -- Reaper X 03:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC) It's been added again. So until there's a proper majority of whether or not it stays, I'm deleting it from the page. It appears to be original research and has no citations, even though I'm not keen on this band myself. OldSongsNewStereo 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Here via RfC. I would disagree with the assertion that a criticism section is trivial, but there are no references and the section appears to be original research. Delete until some valid sources are found. Orphic 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I vote to include it--Slogankid 17:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC) It needs to stay out unless you put in some citations. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:TRIV.--Wehwalt 18:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So now you have an insight on what is going on inside the sausage factory over at the Wiki site.kairosfocus

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

02:26 AM

2

02

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF is sadly revealing and perpetrating what is going on behind the cleverly toxic talking points and accusations that are so often pushed by the very same ID Creationist circles and spokesmen. Let me list, (a ) the open calls by Christians to kill atheists, and (b ) the atheist hate themed video game encouraging genocide against christ deniers (and crafted for the purpose of indoctrination to drive closed-mindedness and hatred), and (c ) the response on issues of the real and imagined sins of Atheists by KF also (which includes the twisted attempt to lay the one generally acknowledged case of unmitigated evil in our civilization at the feet of the Atheists and Darwin). I trust these will help inquiring onlookers, and I trust that the expose of the nurturing of that sort of asp in one’s bosom will draw attention to what is really going on in the Christian Fundamentalist anger-driven fever swamps. Cf here as well for another example of hate driven persecution of atheists by theists. ttfn.GCUGreyArea

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

02:25 AM

2

02

25

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: Just out of curiosity, I checked out the Wikipedia page on Aiden. The introduction has nothing like the warnings and accusations that are common for design theory theme Wiki pages, there is no controversy section as of this morning, and this is how the same event is announced in the Wikipedia article, as at 10:05 hrs CUT, Jan 28, 2012: "In December 2011, the band announced, via their official web page, that they will be headlining the "Rock Beyond Belief[14]" festival in March."kairosfocus

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

02:15 AM

2

02

15

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: Also, on the general issues on origins science linked to debates on the scientific-epistemological warrant for the inference to design, cf here on.kairosfocus

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

02:06 AM

2

02

06

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BA: Sadly revealing as to what is going on behind the cleverly toxic talking points and accusations that are so often pushed by the very same New Atheist circles and spokesmen. Let me add to your list, (a) the 101 survey here on the underlying historically grounded credibility of the gospel, and (b) the similarly introductory survey here on warrant for a specifically orthodox Christian theistic view in a selectively hyperskeptical (and too often indoctrination and closed-mindedness-driven) age, with (c ) the response on issues of the real and imagined sins of Christendom here also (which includes exposing the twisted attempt to lay the one generally acknowledged case of unmitigated evil in our civilisation at the feet of the Christian Faith). I trust these will help inquiring onlookers, and I trust that the expose of the nurturing of that sort of asp in one's bosom as seen in the original post will draw attention to what is really going on in the New Atheist anger-driven fever swamps. Cf here as well for the online version of an expose of the new atheists (also available from Amazon). KFkairosfocus

January 28, 2012

January

01

Jan

28

28

2012

02:03 AM

2

02

03

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Just out of morbid curiosity I decided to go on YouTube and check out Aiden. I quickly discovered the following uplifting and edifying musical compositions, apparently inspired by their atheistic proclivities: Scavengers of the Damned http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAersib_JHM&feature=endscreen&NR=1 I Set My Friends On Fire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc59B7q4OrM&NR=1&feature=endscreen Does Richard Dawkins really want to be associated with this kind of thing, and these kinds of people? Check it out. (WARNING: Aiden music videos might not be appropriate for young children, and could cause brain damage in adults.) These music videos glorify outright degenerate debauchery, and include satanic imagery and themes. On the other hand, Christianity has produced the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYMLMj-SibU&ob=av2e I'm still trying to decide: Should I go with Scavengers of the Damned or Amazing Grace? That's a really tough one.GilDodgen

January 27, 2012

January

01

Jan

27

27

2012

06:38 PM

6

06

38

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

HMMM???, Hating something you don't even believe exists???

When Atheists Are Angry at God - 2011 Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/when-atheists-are-angry-at-god

Myself, I was raised a Christian, and indeed confessed that I was a Christian many times, though we rarely attended Church as I grew up. I was not particularly concerned with walking the 'straight and narrow walk', and indeed found myself avoiding Christians and drinking, and using, more and more as I got older, until eventually I started losing everything near and dear to me in my life. It was during a particularly painful loss, during this time, that I turned to my old dusty Bible and finally opened it up sensing that perhaps God would have some guidance for me during this dark period of my life. It was in that moment that I opened that dusty Bible that I realized, full force, the meaning of this scripture:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Here is another 'small miracle' along the same lines:

Strange But True - Miracle Testimony https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNTNocmRjZGtkdg&hl=en

One further comment, there is more than enough evidence to substantiate the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, and indeed volumes, upon volumes, upon volumes, have been written on the subject of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection.,,, but personally I feel that,,,

What we need is a living encounter with God! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnlTIODfbhY

,,,to make Christ real for each of us personally,,, further notes:

Experiencing Jesus Christ – Francis Chan – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4928919 A Study From The Second Epistle of Peter, Chapter One by Lambert Dolphin Knowing God Personally and Intimately Excerpt: Can a person embark on a journey that leads to knowing God? The overwhelming claim of the Bible is yes! Not only can anyone of us know the Lord and the Creator of everything that exists, we are invited—even urged—each one of us, to know him intimately, personally and deeply. http://ldolphin.org/Eightfld.html John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” http://www.christian-marriage-today.com/support-files/hearinggodspeakbiblestudy.pdf

Music:

Casting Crowns - The Word Is Alive http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438/

bornagain77

January 27, 2012

January

01

Jan

27

27

2012

04:58 PM

4

04

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link