Following from part 1, we proceed to referenced “new blog entry” which is meant to outline how and why, as per Dale’s Husband, I am amongst a group of twisted troublemakers that should be brought down to ruin for their intellectual and ethical crimes.” In this case, it is specified that I am an Enemy of Truth.
As a review of part 1, I had posted the article Missing Prophecy about the Baha’i Faith’s failed prophecy and subsequent cover-up. Dale’s Husband “eagerly copied a blog entry from it to support my own case against the Baha’i Faith” but that is as far as the appreciation of my research went as I was suddenly accused of said crimes.
Well, I touched upon some reasons why this charge was leveled in part 1 and it was genetic assertions and a logical fallacy. Thus, let us continue from there as it is stated about me “And does this guy really call himself a True Freethinker? He is not one if he doesn’t take into account the failings and falsehoods associated with Christianity!” Firstly, I have had to deal with such styled ad hominems various times. It is merely asserted that I am not one but that I do not consider failings and falsehoods associated with Christianity. Well, if by Christianity is meant a fallible religion consisting of people who joined it via a first step of admitting that they are fallen sinners who do not become 100% holy whilst on Earth then indeed, there are failings and falsehoods associated with Christianity—and I have pointed out very many of these such as can be seen here. But even so, you will note that Dale’s Husband is, yet again, merely making generic assertions. Well, that was still form the post considered in part 1, now let us come to the other post.
I am referred to as “a hard-core Christian” guilty as charged and yet, “who was not nearly as critical of his own religion as he was of other faiths, a clear sign of dishonesty and bigotry.” At this point I will point out that, as just noted, this is faulty, that this is another generic assertion and I am still waiting for the premise upon which dishonesty and bigotry is being condemned.
The post quotes portions of my about page and comments upon it. I noted that “The concept of freethinking is deeply rooted in the Bible itself as in the Bible, we find firm belief, we find doubt, we find skepticism, we find rebellion, we find every facet of human reactions towards, and against, the divine. Some people label themselves ‘skeptic’ when they really mean ‘cynic.’” The comment made about this is that it is “blatantly dishonest!” with not premise upon which to condemn dishonesty, since “The Bible does contain references to skepticism, doubt, and rebellion, and it condemns all these things and even depicts people who have these traits being put to DEATH by God himself! Also, considering the many, many, MANY atrocities and incidents of infighting, outfighting, upfighting, downfighting, forwardfighting, backwardfighting, and all around fighting among people of various religions and creeds throughout history, only a profoundly ignorant person would NOT be a cynic about religions in general, let alone Christianity in particular!”
Note that it is authoritatively and generically merely asserted skepticism, doubt and rebellion are condemned in the Bible, sometimes to the point of death, and yet, not one single quotation nor citation is offered.
Then there is an instance of moving the goal post since the context is the contents of the Bible but Dale’s Husband jumps to commenting on “various religions and creeds throughout history.” Thus, even if “only a profoundly ignorant person would NOT be a cynic about…Christianity in particular!” then Dale’s Husband is not helping matter by merely being vague and not backing up claims.
Now, are there instances in which in fact a person or people are condemned for skepticism, doubt, and rebellion. Indeed and there are reasons why such as that they should have known better. But what about my assertion? Here is a good example of skepticism and doubt as “Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said…” then do this and that—WHAT!!! God Himself said it, Gibeon knows that and he asks “If”??? DIE!!! Well, no, rather the text goes, “Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said, Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said.” How dare he, DIE!!! Well, no, “And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water.” So, end of story…or not, “And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.” Oh, that is it, he is in for it now, “And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground” (Judges 6:37-40) Well, it is not as exciting when we actually quote and site.
After a lengthy quote from my about page the comment is, “Did it ever occur to Ammi that the worst liars are the ones who assert the loudest they are telling the truth?” Well, you know how I tend to deal with such generic claims, I will ask, “Did it ever occur to Dale’s Husband that the worst liars are the ones who assert the loudest they are telling the truth?” Note that the claim that I am a liar is just that a mere generic un-evidence claim and I am waiting for the premise upon which lying is being condemned.
Another comment is, “Did it ever occur to Ammi that the worst liars are the ones who assert the loudest they are telling the truth? And using the Bible to prove anything in the Bible is classic circular reasoning, of course.” Note, logical fallacies are being condemned but without a premise. Also, if you are reading a recipe which calls for a cup of flour, it is invalid circular reasoning to check the intro of that very same recipe book to see if by “cup” they mean sifted or packed? Of course, not. There is such a thing as circular reasoning but it is not always as simple as it seems. For example, if a volume is complied with is an anthology consisting of various author’s views on underwater welding safety procedures would it be circular to affirm that which one author states by consulting another one—within the same volume? Of course, not.
The Bible is a volume of 66 books written by some 40 authors. But, the claim is that it is divinely inspired so then it has one true author: God. Well, I would say that if God states something then it is wise to accept it rather than stating “Wait God, I wanna see what Dale’s Husband has to say about that.” But you see the point, it has to be granted that God is the Bible’s ultimate author in order to claim circularity and since the question, within certain contexts, is whether God indeed is the Bible’s ultimate author then that is the issue and the charge of circularity will have to wait.
In any case, this was stated because I had written:
…in the New Testament the Bereans are considered more noble (or more “fair minded”) for double checking everything that Paul told them (Acts 17:11), Thomas asked for the evidence which the others had seen and had merely retold to him (John 20:24-30), Jesus stated, “Love the Lord your God with all your…mind. This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matthew 22:36-38).
We are clearly called to discern, test, and judge, prophets, spirits and all things:
“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1st Corinthians 14:29).
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is “discerning of spirits” (1st Corinthians 12:10).
“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1st John 4:1).
“Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1st Thessalonians 5:19-22).
“you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly” (Deuteronomy 13:14).
Dale’s Husband decides to simply sidestep facts backed by quotations and citations and complains, “What value is testing anything if the standard you use for testing is NOT reality itself, but something that itself has never been proved valid by comparing it with reality?” But, in keeping with Dale’s Husband obvious modus operandi, this is a generic assertion with no backing argumentation.
I am quoted thusly, “Much of what passes for ‘Freethought’ and ‘Freethinkin’ today is, in reality, atheism wearing a very thin disguise. The first section of the parsed essay Freethought Without Forethought? serves as evidence of this. In that case, it is clear that what is meant by Freethought is adhering to absolute materialism.” The reply by Dale’s Husband is, “There is a perfectly good reason why freethinking = atheism and it is not disguised: One of the basic concepts of Abrahamic religions is that God created the universe, therefore it should reflect his glory. But when scientists view the universe with a critical and objective eye, they see NO evidence of a creator behind it. Indeed, science has already completely discredited the creation stories in the Bible.” Well, it is a reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy to assert that “when scientists view the universe with a critical and objective eye, they see NO evidence of a creator behind it” because very many scientists who view the universe with a critical and objective eye, see evidence of a creator behind it—in fact, the very founders of the scientific method and most of the fields of science were of this sort, see the video Atheist Neil deGrasse Tyson “God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance” – new version. In this case, Dale’s Husband claims to have proved this and links to a post my reply to which you will find at this endnote 1 since that is about all it is worth.
Now, Dale’s Husband asserts that “freethinking = atheism” but the Merriam-Webster dictionary disagrees as it defines freethought as “unorthodox attitudes or beliefs; specifically : 18th century deism” so a person could believe in God, hold to deism, and be engaging in freethought. Moreover, anywhere in the world where Christians are a minority a Christian would be engaging in freethought since their doctrine would “unorthodox.”
Now, not how in the following Dale’s Husband disconnect from my context as I wrote, “If a Judeo-Christian cannot be a freethinker then freethought is not freethought but demands adherences to certain restrictive parameters. Yet, since the Judeo-Christian can think beyond, for example, materialistic parameters we can be true freethinkers.” The un-contextual comment is, “WHAT???!!! How is insisting on using only reality itself to judge spoken or written claims restrictive?” I referred to freethought, which includes theism in the form of deism, and contextualized this by referring to restrictive parameters such as found within materialism. Freethought can only be said to be about “insisting on using only reality itself” when it is interpreted to be such and applied towards those ends. Now, note the underlying assumption: Dale’s Husband has the ability to accurately discern reality even though they are utilizing what on their view is a haphazardly evolved brain which, by the way, did not evolved necessarily to ascertain empirical truth but for the purposes of survival (for unknown reasons).
Given this fact as per Dale’s Husband’s view, it is stranger still that they go on to note that they claim that I must be pointing out the restrictions, “Oh, because it does not allow for ANY delusions?” but if delusion assists my Darwinian survival then why condemn it and why attempt to get me to give up my Darwinian survival mechanism.
Dale’s Husband also wrote, “What value is the kind of ‘freethought’ that results in someone claiming that the Earth is flat” which I certainly never have—in fact, the flat Earth is a secular myth (and a current online craze de jour), see Positive Atheism – Cliff Walker: The Flat Earth Falls Flat and Flat Earth and Christianity – Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes. Dale’s Husband continues the complaint with “…at the center of the universe and/or less than 10,000 years old and assuming that is somehow worth defending against those who understand those are lies? Truth is meaningless in that case!” Again, these are generic assertions.
Dale’s Husband then admits that “some atheists wish to redefine atheism” specifically “to discredit a claim like” the one I made which is, “Atheists who have commandeered the term Freethought complain that Christians cannot be Freethinkers because they adhere to the Christian worldview. Yet, they commit the same alleged fallacy by adhering to atheism in disguise (or openly). Certainly, there are true and honest Freethinkers on both, and many other, sides of the issue. It is to these that this website is dedicated.”
Now, Dale’s Husband makes the truly bizarre statement that “It is indeed dishonest” still failing to premise condemning dishonest, “to claim atheism is a worldview as dogmatic as Christianity, because atheism is NOT based on any man-made scriptures that are beyond questioning.” Yet, this was not a likening of Christianity and Atheism but about how both are worldviews. Against over a century of Atheist literature Dale’s Husband asserts, without quotations and citations, that Atheism “is simply the conclusion that God does not exist. The dogma only comes from atheists when they assert ‘there is no God’ as a response to the Christian claim ‘there must be a God somewhere’. But the two claims are not equally valid or invalid, again because no scientist has ever found clear evidence to support the theist assumption. Ammi is lying outright there!”
There is still no premise for condemning lying. Atheism is said to be the view that “there is no God” whilst historically many Atheists have not made such an assertion because it is a positive assertion which demands evidence and proof—see Definition of “Atheism” and Variations of Atheism.
Now, I get a kick out of how the statement is made that “The dogma only comes from atheists when they assert ‘there is no God’” but, well, that is the whole entire issue is it not? What is equally valid or invalid is when both side positively affirm to possess positive knowledge.
Dale’s Husband ends the post by asking, “Need I go on?” well, yes and go on a lot further. Dale’s Husband
condemns falsehood, injustice, lying, bullying, rudeness, stupidity, wrong, darkness, evil, ignorance and upholds (or claims to do so) truth, ethics distinguishing the difference between right and wrong, good and evil and yet, provided no premise whatsoever for even beginning to write the posts against me in the first place.
So, I was changed with “intellectual and ethical crimes” but the discerning reader will surely conclude that I am to be found not guilty and that Dale’s Husband may very well be guilty of slander.
In the next and final segment we will consider “More lies from Ken Ammi.”
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.
- 1. You will note from the very title, It’s not just evolution that discredits Genesis!, that it begins with the un-evidenced assertion that evolution discredits Genesis. But if not just evolution then what? Well, Dale’s Husband writes that “It’s modern astronomy as well, as this one verse makes painfully clear: Genesis 1:16 – ‘God made two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also’” the comment to which is “Of course, one looking at the night sky with no knowledge of modern astronomy would assume that the stars are nothing more than a decoration to add to the light provided by the Sun and the Moon. But in fact, many stars are far bigger and brighter than the Sun and ALL stars are also suns, greater lights in their own star systems.”
This is not only irrelevant but confused: the Bible does not refers to stars as mere decoration, it also does not deny that they add light but only that there are “two great lights” from our perspective (which is the contextual perspective), the relative size and brightness of stars is irrelevant.
A further comment is, “Had that Bible verse been inspired by the true Creator of the universe, it might have been written: ‘God made billions of great lights, one of which we call the Sun that rules our days, and also made a lesser light to rule the night.’” Now, Dale’s Husband is playing theologian and makes a very, very typical Atheistic argument which runs thusly: if God was then God would __________ (and they fill in the blank with their subjective preference which is always something they know does not happen) and since God does not then God is not.
It is hermeneutically (and historically) inappropriate to demand that a text tell us something which its own context and/or genre was not meant to convey.
Dale’s Husband then writes, “Ironically, in another part of the Bible, we read: Psalms 19:1-2: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge’” the comment to which is “If that is true, then clearly we need to toss out the references to the Sun, the Moon, and the stars in Genesis, since they fail to ‘declare the glory of God’ and also fail to ‘display knowledge’ like the heavens are supposed to do according to the 19th Psalm.”
Note the typical Dale’s Husband’s modus operandi: make a vague assertion and move on as if the case is closes. It is asserted that they fail but not told how or why. In fact, sciences such as astronomy, cosmology and cosmogony were premised upon beholding the heavens, discerning a created design and seeking to understand the created design.
Continue reading →