₦airaland Forum

jayriginal:
He is a lawyer/lecturer  .

Yep, I'm a lawyer. A well trained and proper lawyer  ---- not the type of confused shockingly ignorant puff puff lawyer who says "Kaufman won under the establishment clause but not the first amendment"! https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.320.html#msg9246609


Yep, I also deploy my ability to teach and lecture others even very charitably --- as with the various free lessons that I've given to the thick evangelical atheists here on subjects ranging from the law to even basic comprehension. 

Hmmm

Psalm 2

1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4He that sits in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

Anyway let me return to showing the fool atheists up for the dishonest ignoramuses that they are. Pity our local evangelical atheists are sooo thick that they may not digest and learn from all the information on this thread. Anyway, the thread is not meant for them alone. 

Here an interesting piece on militant (evangelical) atheism and "Scientism" by a respectable enough scientist: http://biologos.org/blog/engaging-todays-militant-atheist-arguments-part-1

Extracts:

Militant atheists is a factual description of those who are active and aggressive in support of their atheist cause. If they wish to return the compliment by referring to militant Christians, they will have some historical precedent and I shall not complain, but I am personally less aggressive, even if perhaps not less vigorous, than the likes of those who are often called New Atheists!

The designation “New Atheists” has been gaining ground as a name given to this century's best-selling authors, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and company, who attack religion. I greatly prefer the designation “Militant Atheists". It is far more accurate. There is very little new in their critiques. Their militancy is the distinctive feature of their writings. Calling them “Hysterical Atheists” is funny and makes the same point, but it is a bit too provocative to be useful.

Engaging their arguments has been undertaken already by a very respectable variety of commentators, including both Christians and unbelievers.1 It is not altogether a rewarding task, because while the militants' writings are fluid and stylish, the arguments are often silly. David Bentley Hart's tone is more disdainful than charitable when he refers to their “embarrassing incapacity for philosophical reasoning ,  that raises the wild non-sequitur almost to the level of a dialectical method”2, but his criticism's content is right on target. Terry Eagleton, no Evangelical apologist, begins his blistering critique in the London Review of Books “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology”.3 {{I really like this line!  }} There is plenty in the militant atheist writings to criticize.

What I want to do here is not to recap the philosophical ideas in the rebuttals that have already been published. Nor am I really qualified to propose a winning public relations strategy for Christian apologetics in response to militant atheist popularity, important though that might be. I am conscious that my own sensitivity to popular culture is filtered through too many years as an academic for me know what will or won't find a resonance in twenty-first century media, or individual hearts. Instead, I want to explain what I take to be the most important idea that enables us to understand the true relationship between science and the Christian faith;4 and then to examine the extent to which this idea answers the militant atheists.

. . . . . .

It is true that the common simplistic descriptions of the scientific method are largely mythological. But, nevertheless, there are identifiable characteristics in science as it has been practiced since the scientific revolution, and these constitute substantial limitations of the scope of science's ability to describe the world. I identify the two key characteristics as reproducibility and Clarity. Science describes the world in so far as it is describable in terms that are reproducible. An experiment done here, and now, by me, if it is part of science will give the same result when done somewhere else, sometime else, by someone else. Or if we are discussing something inaccessible to manipulation, for example the stars in astronomy, then multiple consistent observations at different places and times, by different observers must be possible, providing reproducibility in practice even if not necessarily at will. Moreover science requires that its descriptions have a specialized Clarity (capitalized to indicate my use as a technical term), so that they are unambiguously understood by the trained scientist. This often (but not always) involves quantitative measurement and mathematical theory. Such mathematical forms of expression most abundantly possess Clarity but other forms such as systematic description or classification also provide it in ways that would not normally be described as mathematical. In any case Clarity is required even to know whether reproducibility has been attained, and these requirements place limitations on science.

^^ Mumu

Still on "atheist fundamentalism" and evangelical atheism

From http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/harris_hitchens_dawkins_dennett_evangelical_atheists.html

There is, as has often been noted, something peculiarly evangelistic about what has been termed the new atheist movement. The new atheists have their own special interest groups and ad campaigns. They even have their own holiday (International Blasphemy Day). It is no exaggeration to describe the movement popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism--an atheist fundamentalism. The parallels with religious fundamentalism are obvious and startling: the conviction that they are in sole possession of truth (scientific or otherwise), the troubling lack of tolerance for the views of their critics (Dawkins has compared creationists to Holocaust deniers), the insistence on a literalist reading of scripture (more literalist, in fact, than one finds among most religious fundamentalists), the simplistic reductionism of the religious phenomenon, and, perhaps most bizarrely, their overwhelming sense of siege: the belief that they have been oppressed and marginalized by Western societies and are just not going to take it anymore.This is not the philosophical atheism of Feuerbach or Marx, Schopenhauer or Nietzsche (I am not the first to think that the new atheists give atheism a bad name). Neither is it the scientific agnosticism of Thomas Huxley or Herbert Spencer. This is, rather, a caricature of atheism: shallow scholarship mixed with evangelical fervor.

and

Indeed, the most prominent characteristic of the new atheism--and what most differentiates it from traditional atheism--is its utter lack of literacy in the subject (religion) it is so desperate to refute. After all, religion is as much a discipline to be studied as it is an expression of faith.

5 Hallmarks of Fundamentalist Atheism*

1. Angry
2. Anti-Intellectual
3. Unloving
4. Judgmental
5. Weak


*Swiped from here: http://www.rpmministries.org/2011/11/the-fundamentalist-atheists/

One atheist's view of militant atheism.

Says Julian Baggini (an atheist)

. . . there are, of course some atheists who are hostile to religion, and not just fundamentalist religions. . . . Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that it is usually or always harmful.

Now as long as evangelical atheists maintain the attitude bolded, especially the red bit:

- they are liars when they say they support "free thinking"
- they are fundamentalists
- they do not believe in freedom of religion
- they accept only one religion --- the (evangelical) atheism religion!
- they are intolerant of others' viewpoints
- they are dogmatic and dogmatists
- they are hardly better than those who say "our religion is a religion of peace, but we kill those who deconvert"

^^ It's all good --- though a spade will always be called a spade.

^^^ Nne, my inlaw, as you can see I'm really having quite a bit of fun on this thread.

An interesting observation: apart from the now fairly established "evangelical atheism" many are now also starting to refer to the so called "new" atheism as atheist fundamentalism. Interesting that we can now also begin to speak of "fundagelical" atheists. 

Ah, interjection time! Time for some light amusement.

"Freethinker" as understood by Nairaland evangelical atheists is a person whose "thinking" is dictated and shaped by people like the theologically and philosophically dumb Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Antony Flew (when he was still an atheist) etc.

"Freethinker" indeed.

1Godfather:

The point, if it eludes you, is not that intellectual rigor and rationality should be discouraged. It is that the much-vaunted intellectual sophistication and rationality claimed by the New Atheists (and people of the same ideological bent) is conspicuously absent or simply underwhelming. This is revealed starkly when they attempt to reproduce a theistic philosophical argument with its appropriate deductions. In essence, most atheists, when they attempt to wrestle with the arguments from the other side of the aisle, seem to be really only capable of interacting with caricaturish and simplistic misrepresentations of the argument. It betrays a certain level of intellectual vacuousness that would make you question their pretensions to the contary. It seems that much of the contents of the new atheist arsenal are simply appeals to ridicule and sophistry.

Superbly expressed! And I have taken the liberty to add the bolding in the (perhaps forlorn) hope that maybe it will help the local evangelical atheists (or any other evangelical or so-called "new" atheist who chances upon it) to ruminate upon and better understand the statement.

Here on Nairaland we have seen several instances of bizarre misrepresentations of the arguments/positions of the theists or of Christian theology by the local evangelical atheists that highlight in stark relief the obtuseness and sciolism (and even dishonesty) of the evangelical atheists. An objective intellectually minded person coming across the material posted from godlessgeeks would probably assume that it is merely parody ----- until he begins to see the evangelical atheists use the material in serious debate or argument! In fact, the fellow who posted it here and his supporter probably think it is new to Nairaland, when in fact one of their local champions here has been quoting from or referring to it for some time now.  The sad thing (for them) is that they cannot raise their game or drag themselves up intellectually to a point where they can have a genuine understanding of the arguments. As one poster put it with deliberate crudeness not too long ago: "e pass their mumu brain".

Incidentally, as I have mentioned before, this form of intellectual inadequacy is not restricted to the local evangelical atheists. Consider this quote from a review of Richard Dawkins' "Delusion":    http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire

There are points at which his ignorance of religion ceases to be amusing, and simply becomes risible. In dealing with this question he draws extensively on a paper published in Skeptic magazine in 1995 by John Hartung, which asserts that -- and here I cite Dawkin's summary: Jesus was a devotee of the same in-group morality -- coupled with out-group hostility -- that was taken for granted in the Old Testament. Jesus was a loyal Jew. It was Paul who invented the idea of taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles. Hartung puts it more bluntly than I dare: "Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs." Many Christian readers of this will be astonished at this bizarre misrepresentation of things being presented as if it were gospel truth. Yet, I regret to say, it is representative of Dawkins' method: ridicule, distort, belittle, and demonize. Still, at least it will give Christian readers an idea of the lack of any scholarly objectivity or basic human sense of fairness which now pervades atheist fundamentalism.

Similar is true of others and going back to the Craig v Harris debate that someone brought up earlier, this inability to address the arguments of the theists is one of the reasons pointed out by reviewers of the debate, including atheist reviewers, as to why Harris lost --- a point that will not be lost on any body able to follow the debate intelligently. Indeed, a point that is recurrent in the debates that Craig has held with the "new" (evangelical) atheists --- in fact even atheists express shame about some of those who represented them in the debate series with Craig.

Anyway here are two reviews of the Craig v Harris debate: one each by a theist and an atheist. http://www.randyeverist.com/2011/04/review-of-craig-vs-harris-debate.html

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15243

Final paragraph of article above:

Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivializing counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support. Dawkins' astonishingly superficial and inaccurate portrayal of Christianity will simply lead Christians to conclude that he does not know what he is talking about -- and that his atheism may therefore rest on a series of errors and misunderstandings. Ironically the ultimate achievement of The God Delusion for modern atheism may be to suggest that it is actually atheism itself may be a delusion about God.

Surely anyone who has any sense knows by now that "The God Delusion" is hogwash and a sheer rubbish piece of work! Heck, even some of the more honest among the atheists' own intellectuals say it is rubbish: for example Michael Ruse says

The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.

For a review that is still relatively easy enough to follow, see http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire

Extract

In one of his more bizarre creedal statements as an atheist, Dawkins insists that there is "not the smallest evidence" that atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. It's an astonishing, naïve, and somewhat sad statement. The facts are otherwise. In their efforts to enforce their atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systematically destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of churches and priests during the period 1918-41. The statistics make for dreadful reading. This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda -- the elimination of religion. This doesn't fit with Dawkins' highly sanitized, idealized picture of atheism. Dawkins is clearly an ivory tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the twentieth century.

Dawkins develops a criticism that is often directed against religion in works of atheist apologetics -- namely, that it encourages the formation and maintenance of "in-groups" and "out-groups." For Dawkins, removing religion is essential if this form of social demarcation and discrimination is to be defeated. But what, many will wonder, about Jesus of Nazareth? Wasn't this a core theme of his teaching -- that the love of God transcends, and subsequently abrogates, such social divisions?

Dawkins' analysis here is unacceptable. There are points at which his ignorance of religion ceases to be amusing, and simply becomes risible. In dealing with this question he draws extensively on a paper published in Skeptic magazine in 1995 by John Hartung, which asserts that -- and here I cite Dawkin's summary: Jesus was a devotee of the same in-group morality -- coupled with out-group hostility -- that was taken for granted in the Old Testament. Jesus was a loyal Jew. It was Paul who invented the idea of taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles. Hartung puts it more bluntly than I dare: "Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs." Many Christian readers of this will be astonished at this bizarre misrepresentation of things being presented as if it were gospel truth. Yet, I regret to say, it is representative of Dawkins' method: ridicule, distort, belittle, and demonize. Still, at least it will give Christian readers an idea of the lack of any scholarly objectivity or basic human sense of fairness which now pervades atheist fundamentalism.

There is little point in arguing with such fundamentalist nonsense. It's about as worthwhile as trying to persuade a flat-earther that the world is actually round. Dawkins seems to be so deeply trapped within his own worldview that he cannot assess alternatives. Yet many readers would value a more reliable and informed response, rather than accepting Dawkins' increasingly tedious antireligious tirades.. . . .

5 Nairaland Evangelical atheist mantras cu.m standard arguments

1. Atheism isn't a belief
2. You can't prove a negative
3. The burden of proof is on the believer
4. Ockham's Razor
5. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence


all debunked . . .  http://www.philosophynow.org/issue78/Wheres_The_Evidence


The article is simple and short enough and one would ordinarily think easy enough for even evangelical atheists to understand ---- except for the now standard intellectual inadequacy and/or dishonesty.

manmustwac

As far as I understand it, the opening post is about hypocrisy ---- not about the falsehood of religion/s as such. For example, see this last line from the opening post:

If only we practice the injunctions laid out by our various holy books, our society would be a reflection of our lives. Sadly we are with our various faiths trying to cut our nose to spite the face.

It seems to me the opening poster is saying: we don't really practise what our various religions teach and/or we misuse the teaching. I think there is a considerable amount of truth in this and to that extent I agree with much of the opening post by and large.

Let us try and reason together honestly for one minute: for this purpose only let me agree with you (really let me assume) that there is no God. Even if there is no God and we take the teachings of Christianity as only a moral code for right and wrong: do you think if people truly follow what Christianity teaches there would be so much corruption in Nigeria?

Do you think a person truly following the teachings of Christianity would cheat another person? Do you think a person following the teachings of Christianity will hold you to ransom until you pay some bribe before performing his official function? Do you think a person following the teaching of Christianity will not feel some remorse for taking sex.ual advantage of another person?

Let's even go to a different arena: do you think a person truly following the teachings of Christianity will buy private jets, build unaffordable universities, live opulently on the back of "tithes and offerings" of misguided people who call themselves his congregation or followers?

Random sayings (usually laughable) of local evangelical atheists.*


1. ". . . saying atheism is a religion is like saying not having a car is a type of car."









* To be revised/updated as and when etc

^Whatever.

As I said to another poster, I don't generally refute idiocy except for a particular danger; I prefer to just point it out.

^ Well, a claim that maybe the "biological father" of Jesus Christ is a Roman soldier who "quaffed Mary" is supported by mentioned in Wikipedia ---- so that proves it then.  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-802388.0.html#msg9546224

One atheist's perspective on Craig vs Avalos: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392

Craig begins by embarrassing Avalos by showing how Avalos combated a previous opponent by demanding that he be able to recognize Biblical manuscripts by sight – which is not how scholars work with Biblical texts anyway. Avalos comes out swinging, citing very specific parts of Craig’s work and trying to put Craig in uneasy situations. Craig responds calmly and confidently, and reminds the audience that almost nothing Avalos has said (1) builds a case against the Resurrection, nor (2) rebuts the arguments Craig gave in this debate. Avalos focuses on a linguistic disagreement with Craig – but of course nobody in the audience can tell who is right, and it wasn’t even part of Craig’s case in the debate.

Also, Avalos is kind of a Joystick d.ickk* at certain times, which doesn’t help him. His language attacks Craig more than Craig’s arguments. After Craig gives his final speech, Avalos jumps in on Craig’s applause and says, without any humor, “I very much appreciate your applause for me, thank you.” Smooth, Avalos.

* language filter, ha!

Debate: Is God a delusion?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-nULVvgbx0&feature=autoplay&list=PL1E634D387E3E5D4C&lf=PlayList&playnext=1

Interesting debate: funny the atheist debater couldn't go beyond the standard atheist mantras that we have identified and that we have seen repeatedly on this forum. Another interesting observation: if a top atheist "thinker" like the debater here quite so plainly avoided the arguments for the existence of God put to him by Craig, how can we expect the local evangelical atheists here to have the capacity to face those arguments.?How can we be surprised that all they can do is snipe with the same typical evangelical atheist codswallop?

Anyway, enjoy: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-nULVvgbx0&feature=autoplay&list=PL1E634D387E3E5D4C&lf=PlayList&playnext=1

^^ Doing cool.

Any news?

^^ Are you minding him? Someone who once implied a possible homose.xual relationship between Jesus and "the disciple whom Jesus loved" says he wants a "debate"!

Who has time for that kind of person?

^^ While you are at it, find out whether the Willie Lynch Letter (that you said made you weep and showed us up) is genuine.

^^ I don't think you understood my post; as long as you maintain your current dishonest disposition I am not interested in a debate with you at all.

Shake and call it a day, no problem.

But still, not interested in discussion --- I never am when the approach of the interlocutor is dishonest.

plaetton:
Enigma,
Please refrain from getting personal. Its shows a weakness. We are on a public forum debating ideas. No need to switch into war mode.
Pls pls pls, feel free to expose my lies, discredit my views , repudiate my beliefs and tear my positions to pieces. It will be part of my learning process.
Tactfully avoiding the topic and Resorting to name-calling portrays a weakness in both you and your viewpoints.
Am ready to continue.

I have absolutely no (zero, zilch) interest in debating anything with you. If you act the fool, I will call you a fool. If you tell lies, I will call you a liar.

I make no bones about such things.

plaetton:
Good rebuttal, or non-rebuttal.

Kudos.

Idiocy does not need rebuttal --- except when it poses a particular danger.

Let me show you just one example:

plaetton:
. . .  Athiests come to this forum to have healthy debates on religion and most times , to defend against attacks from religious folks who have misconceptions about what athiesm is about. I do not think that aniest come here to wage battles against anyone. That would be contradictory since freedom of thought and the soveriegnty of the mind are the essential underpinnings of athiesm. . . .

Now that is a typical idiotic lie --- deliberately or ignorantly.

Evidently, the Christians are not entitled to freedom of thought and sovereignty of the mind! Hence, when they are discussing on their own among themselves, you fool atheists (or do you now call yourself agnostic?) jump in to insult them in all kind of ways.

^^^ I'll only let you know why I don't generally bother to reply to your posts even in your previous incarnation as globexl or whatever it was.

You constantly lie through your teeth both deliberately and in sheer ignorance ---- witness some of the nonsense even in your post above; although I guess some will buy the lies.

Witness also e.g. your theatrics about the fake Willie Lynch letter.

I don't generally have time for people like you, mate.

Some Evangelical atheists paradoxes*

1. Christianity is a white man's religion ------ ( of what colour are the apostles and bishops of the evangelical atheists like Dawkins, Harris etc?)
2. Christian writings - especially New Testament writings - are stone/bronze age material (hmm, when did Socrates, Pluto, Aristotle etc live, work or write?)
3. When Christians discuss their faith, even only among themselves, they are evangelising and offensive, but when the evangelical atheists spam the forum with evangelical atheist codswallop even to cause offence deliberately, they are "providing education"! 
4. Christianity is an intolerant religion but the evangelical atheist religion cannot accept any viewpoint whatsoever that suggests the existence of God; in fact even holding such a viewpoint privately is not acceptable to evangelical atheists who see it as a duty to "disabuse" the holder of the viewpoint. Perhaps call it "enlightenment"! 
5. Lack of belief in God is substantively different from belief in the non-existence of God thus a dog, a cow, a monkey is as much an "atheist" as the evangelical atheist! (Very good company  ; and as a bonus: insist that man is an ape but become angry if called a monkey  )





* To be updated as and when etc

@ Barr rich

How far now?