Click here to read what appears to be a lengthy excerpt from Marci McDonald’s book, “The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada,” due to be released Monday. One of the many illustrations of the absurdity of Ms. McDonald’s conspiracy theories is her labeling of the Canadian Constitution Foundation as a “Christian advocacy group.” One of CCF’s leading representatives and in-house lawyers is outspoken atheist libertarian, Karen Selick. How much credibility is Random House Canada going to get for publishing this book?
The Toronto Star – May 7, 2010
How Canada’s Christian right was built
From Stephen Harper’s refusal to fund abortion as part of his G8 initiative to the outcry that forced the cancellation of Ontario’s sex ed curriculum, the religious right is making its growing muscle felt on the political landscape. In a new book called
By Marci McDonald
From the moment I began this book, I was confronted by skeptics who insist that a truly influential religious right could never take root in Canada. For some, that denial seemed like an exercise in wishful thinking, a refusal to face the possibility that the idea of the country they cherish — liberal, tolerant, and not given to extremes of action or belief — might not be in sync with the changing reality. Others argued that if a Christian right did exist here it would have burst fully formed on to the political scene, a carbon copy of that in the U.S. — raucous and confrontational, openly pulling the strings of the Conservative party and captained by outspoken television preachers with millions of viewers ready to respond to their bidding. But the American movement has had more than three decades to take shape and flourish; by the time scholars and the mainstream media noticed, it had already infiltrated nearly every level of government from school boards to the Senate, often by stealth.
In this country, where the CRTC has kept the reins on religious broadcasting and Catholics make up a larger proportion of the faith community, the emergent Christian right may look and sound different than its American counterpart, but in the five years since the prospect of same-sex marriage propelled evangelicals into political action, it has spawned a coalition of advocacy groups, think tanks and youth lobbies that have changed the national debate. The “sleeping giant” that Capital Xtra! magazine had warned against in 2005 is now up and about, organizing with a vengeance that will not be easily reversed. As Faytene Kryskow, leader of Christian youth lobby called 4MYCanada, told a parliamentary reception, “We are here, and we are here to stay.”
With funding from a handful of conservative Christian philanthropists and a web of grassroots believers accustomed to tithing in the service of their faith, those organizations have built sophisticated databases and online networks capable of mobilizing their forces behind specific legislation with instant e-mail alerts and updates. Setting up an array of internship programs, they are also training a new generation of activists to be savvier than their secular peers in navigating the corridors of power. Already, their alumni have landed top jobs in the public service, MPs’ offices and the PMO, prompting one official from the National House of Prayer to boast in an unguarded moment, “If the media knew how many Christians there are in the government, they’d go crazy.”
Click here to read what appears to be a lengthy excerpt from Marci McDonald’s book.
Public date: May 8th, 2010Categories: News, Opinion
Tags: 4MYCanada, Christian persecution, Christian right, Dave Quist, Faytene Kryskow, Joseph Ben-Ami, Marci McDonald, National House of Prayer, Random House
May 8, 2010
You were right about the mistaken reference to the Canadian Constitution Foundation as a “Christian” advocacy group in the Toronto Star’s excerpt of The Armageddon Factor. The book itself states no such thing and, in fact, describes the foundation as “legal advocacy group,” which has occasionally acted on behalf of Christians such as Stephen Boissoin. The error occurred when the newspaper was editing the text for excerpting and in no way reflects on the accuracy of the book.
May 9, 2010
I don’t see any mention of Catholics in the Christian Right. It’s like we don’t exist.
May 9, 2010
(reposted to correct small typo…)
The subtext of Marci’s Toronto Star article reads “those who support the Conservatives are religious radicals”. This is laughable! I am a conservative. I support the Harper government. It may surprise Marci that I am an atheist… and that I fully support a woman’s right to choose and have no issue at all with gay marriage. Marci is clearly out of touch with the present day conservative voter.
To quote Marci…”When Harper came to office, he adopted an electoral script crafted by his ideological soulmates in the Republican Party”. Wow Marci – do you really believe this or are you just trying to sell books? Harper’s policies are in no way reflective of the US Republican party. The reality is that Harper is left of Obama. Unlike Harper, Obama does not endorse a publically funded universal health care system, Obama supports the right to bear arms, and endorses limits on late term abortions, not to mention the fact that he is freely and openly religious!
Your characterization of Conservatives as evangelicals is no more than common rhetoric. I’m an atheist and every single conservative that I know is an atheist. The mix of religious to non-religious conservatives simply mirrors society at large. In fact I would argue that there is more religion in the Liberal party than in the Conservative party. Marci (and the media in general) loves to pick on Christians, all the while finding no contradiction in supporting freedom of religion for new Canadian Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and the like – by and large supporters of the Liberal party.
Most educated Canadians understand that religion is absolute nonsense. For the majority of Canadians, religion is a non-issue and plays absolutely no part in the decision at the ballot box.
Marci – based on the excerpt I’ve read this book is anemic conspiracy theory and one lame attempt to enter the big leagues of religion bashing with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Stick to your day job.
May 9, 2010
Marci, that’s not a very convincing explanation. The Star’s reference to the CCF arose in connection with a reference to Shona Holmes, the plaintiff in litigation challenging the Ontario government health care monopoly. Shona’s case has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity or any other religion, so why would you have mentioned her at all, except because you wanted to introduce some tie-in to the allegedly Christian advocacy group, the CCF?
Would the Star not have let you proof-read the “excerpt” before they publish it? The National Post always lets me proof-read any changes they propose to make to my op-eds.
I’ll be checking your book when it comes out to see what you really said.
Karen Selick, Litigation Director, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (and atheist)
May 9, 2010
@Doug
Hey Doug, I addressed your exact same comment here: http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/2010/05/07/from-the-armageddon-factor-the-rise-of-christian-nationalism-in-canada/#comment-812
May 9, 2010
I have been an Evangelical of one sort or another for about 30 years. I have attended churches in various denominations as we’ve moved from place to place across this wonderful country. While I am aware that there are people out there like Marci describes I find it strange that I’ve yet to personally meet a single soul, even in avowedly fundamentalist denominations, who would espouse the ideas or confirm the collective stereotypes that Marci seems to want to paint me and so many others with. Or to hear a single such sermon. Perhaps Charles McVety would fit, but he finds little welcome in the Evangelical world, and he is generally regarded as self-promoting wannabe immitator of the extreme elements of the American religious right. Either her research is a bit thin, or she has an agenda to push, or it seems to me possibly both. From this side of the aisle it is difficult not to suspect hatred and demagoguery of a kind every bit as vicious as the various other iterations around this globe where whole minority communities are demonized by majority elements that know how to work fear of the ‘other’ to their personal advantage.
May 9, 2010
Marci,
Do you see hallucinated visions of bugs crawling up your bedroom walls too – with real theo-con faces on them?
Maybe you can just sweat the theo-cons out. Have you seen your doctor about this?
May 10, 2010
Is this the same Marci McDonald who wrote columns, years ago, for various Canadian magazines spouting her radical feminism? I’ve long since stopped buying such publications. Is there a bigger turn off from reading a newly released book than one written by some washed-up old feminist hag? Every feminist I’ve ever had a conversation with comes across as bitter, hateful and militant – they haven’t a clue about true happiness.
May 10, 2010
In the most conservative, Biblically based churches, politics is avoided. I am conservative/libertarian/”right-wing” but I keep my politics out of the church. Most true Christians are NOT obsessed with politics being the answer to Man’s problems. We preach Christ Crucified for sin. Most of the politicking now is being done in liberal churches where sin is not an issue and government is seen as the answer to Man’s problems. Even some “Evangelical” churches have watered down their theology to the lowest common denominator to attract members. They adopt politically correct issues in a desire to be love by the World. It becomes Ecumenism and all sorts of liberals (theologically) slip in.
My personal view of prophesy is that the worst Ecumenical Dominionist politicians will create a New Age, one world “church” headed by a False Prophet who will desire true Christians to be killed. He will prop up a political figure called Anti-Christ in Scripture, who will bring a false peace. True peace will only come to this earth when Jesus Christ Himself returns and brings peace. There is nothing Biblical in using government to bring about the Kingdom of God. That is the job of the Savior Himself. Until then we will be subject to a “revived Roman Empire” and can expect persecution. That is MY personal view, not held by all saved Christians, but believed in many Biblically based churches.
True Christians should not be troubled by these things. We need to keep our eyes on the face of Jesus and share the Gospel of Christ Crucified for our sin. No person can harm us spiritually, if we obey God and remain focused on him. Read your Bibles and become so familiar with the Word that you will know counterfeits when they appear. Take counsel from “old dead guys” like Charles Spurgeon and Oswald Chambers who focus on Christ alone.
May 10, 2010
I agree with much of what you’ve said, Rose. However, Jesus does not want us to stand idly by. We must fight for some semblance of decency in this increasingly indecent society we live in.
May 10, 2010
Marci, I have to ask: do you often refer to the ACLU as a “neo-Nazi advocacy group” because, on occasion, it happens to defend the rights of neo-Nazis?
Since your Star piece, and your book, is about the Christian right taking over Canada, one has to wonder why you mentioned the CCF at all.
It almost looks like you, or at least the Star, divide Canadians into two mutually exclusive and exhaustive groups: evil religious conservatives looking to turn Canada into a theocracy, on one hand; and oh-so-tolerate and compassionate left-wing secularists defending Canadian values, on the other.
If that was your starting assumption, your conclusions are no surprise.
May 10, 2010
True Teatime. Paul upheld his rights as a Roman Citizen and it helped him…for a while. But not to achieve political power, but to preach the Gospel. Most of the Apostles, the REAL ones, not the New Apostolic Revolution ones died sadistic deaths.
We still do have Charter Rights though. Bless those who have refused to “plead guilty” by default or apologize for their beliefs at great personal cost.
Matthew
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Romans 12:14
Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
(That can be hard to do. I’m tend to get snipey with my enemies. But I have to remember that Jesus died for my sin and theirs.)
Ephesians 6
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
May 10, 2010
Rose says “My personal view of prophesy is that the worst Ecumenical Dominionist politicians will create a New Age, one world “church” headed by a False Prophet who will desire true Christians to be killed. He will prop up a political figure called Anti-Christ in Scripture, who will bring a false peace.”
Well I guess that is your own personal view…because the rest of us don’t know what the hell you’re talking about! I don’t mean to be rude and burst your bubble, but there is no god and there is no Santa Claus either. Hopefully with that weight off your shoulders you’ll be able to lead a full rich life.
All the best.
May 10, 2010
Doug, my man, Rose prefaced her comment by indicating it was her personal view. You, on the other hand, seem so insecure as to feel the need to call in the support of the herd in the form of “the rest of us.” Furthermore, it appears that you do in fact mean to be rude and that you would like nothing better than to burst her bubble if you could. It seems to bypass your awareness that in equating the existence of God with Santa Claus as an objective, and apparently universal factoid, is you are being dogmatic at a level that Rose actually rises above as she contextualizes and qualifies her opinion as such, within a faith-based belief system. It seems to me you fall into that rather pathetic class of atheist who has been suckered into confusing his ignorance with intellectual sophistication. If I may quote the man, “If the light that is within you is darkness, how dark is that darkness!” There are many atheists who are educated and consistent and know not to confuse their epistemology and their ontology. Some of them, I think, are closer to the kingdom of God than many Christians I know. I suggest you engage these issues serriously as opposed to just trying to score cheap shots.
All the best.
May 10, 2010
Wes,
Doug’s tone and style seem very much like a NoApologies comment regular who calls himself “Atheist”. He tends to be simply a drive-by shooter who, like this “Doug” moniker, has no intelligible epistomology that he can offer or, especially, account for.
.
Terrence,
About Marci McDonald two mutually exclusive groups: yes, irrational Hegelian ideologues like McDonald always play up a conflicting dialectical tension of boogey men vs. the people who buy her books. It’s boring, but it’s a living.
.
Everyone else,
The most prominent “theo-conservative” I can think of who was ever involved in Canadian legal history was Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Regina Dei Gratia (Queen by the Grace of God), especially her coronation vows she swore to in 1953. Those vows would send Marci McDonald into complete loopy-land. The Queen swore to uphold the “Laws of God” as laid down in the Bible. Imagine that. Download the coronation transcripts and see for yourself. This same shocking ritual and it’s content has been going on since Edward the Confessor.
May 10, 2010
Wes, good response to Doug.
May 11, 2010
Wes – You say that Doug “…has no intelligible epistomology (sic) that he can offer or, especially, account for.”
For what, exactly, am I to account? Interesting how you do not call Rose and Teatime to account for their irrational, unfounded beliefs. If you were to insist that the chiropractor cured your cancer, and I not right to question you assertion? If you’re to be believed, should you not be required to provide evidence to support your hypothesis? We’re free to question, debate or even argue about any point of view from politics to baseball…but somehow, when it comes to religion, you’re not allowed to say anything bad about it? If a Catholic tells me ‘I won’t eat meat on Friday’ or a Jew says ‘ I won’t move a light switch on Saturday’, or Rose says “the worst Ecumenical Dominionist politicians will create a New Age..”, I should say ‘I respect that’? Nonsense – I don’t respect it – I question it. I ask why and based on what logic. Religion is provided undeserved respect.
It is the religious who are to be called to account for their delusional beliefs.
May 11, 2010
Doug, “We’re free to question, debate or even argue about any point of view from politics to baseball…but somehow, when it comes to religion, you’re not allowed to say anything bad about it? If a Catholic tells me ‘I won’t eat meat on Friday’ or a Jew says ‘ I won’t move a light switch on Saturday’, or Rose says “the worst Ecumenical Dominionist politicians will create a New Age..”, I should say ‘I respect that’? Nonsense – I don’t respect it – I question it.”
Doug, it is good to question, the problem arises when people such as yourself become abusive rather than try to get answers to legitimate questions. I would rather question your comments that Catholics will not eat meat on Friday and Jews will not turn on a light switch on Sunday. Where do you get this stuff from? Do you make it up? Even if it is true, who cares, as these would be personal things one does in support of their beliefs.
So for me to ask, do you honestly believe that in the beginning there was nothing and out of this nothing there was an explosion of nothing and all this nothing when it exploded created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. Out of this “big bang” came life, energy, order, sight and on and on and on. You a funny guy Doug! Oh sorry, I guess I was just doing as you do and mocking your religion. LOL, you guys bust me up!
May 11, 2010
Hey Doug, I got another one fer ya. Did the big bang create time or did it just always exist?
May 11, 2010
Hey Ian –
but your question about time just shows me that you don’t understand the concept of time. The concept of time depends on the spatial reference frame of the observer – too many details to get into here, but I’d encourage you to study the matter.
You ask “So for me to ask, do you honestly believe that in the beginning there was nothing and out of this nothing there was an explosion of nothing and all this nothing when it exploded created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them”. To this I simply ask, who then created your God that would have created all of this? ….or did your God just ‘always exist’? I may not know how it all started, but at least I know how it didn’t start. Sorry, not meaning to be confrontational
P.S. re: my Catholics & Jews references – these are euphemisms to make a point (but technically based in their beliefs). See ‘Fasting and Abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting_and_abstinence_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
re: Jews – this is a simple reference to Shabbat the rest day in Judaism the rest day in Judaism.
So back to the matter at hand – if I don’t agree with religion, why don’t I support Marci’s declaration that the Christian Right is on the Rise in Canada?…Simply because the facts don’t support her assertion. The religious right will continue to try to influence policy (just like the Canadian Jewish Congress or the Canadian Muslim Congress or any other organized religious group), but the reality is that this so-called influence has, in no material way, impacted policy. She is simply trying to scare would-be voters to the left to fulfill her own liberal objectives.
May 11, 2010
Doug, you don’t seem to understand what “euphemism” means.
May 11, 2010
Teatime – euphemism – an inoffensive or indirect expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive or too harsh.
This is absolutely the word I meant to use – I susbstituted the indirect, inoffensive ‘not eating meat of Friday’ for the perhaps offensive and harsh ‘Catholics beliefs are nonsense and unfounded’ . Just trying not to be confrontational.
Why, what did you think it means?
May 11, 2010
Doug,
We believe that God always existed and this is supported in our scripture. The question is what is the atheist explanation for something always existing (one thing that atheists routinely ridicule Christian beliefs over). Evolution theory tries to suggest a causal relationship with a naturally occuring source and natural progression. Christians have an explanation for how this all originated and the evolutionist does not. The evolutionist wants science to apply to the limited aspects they believe give legitimacy to their position, then take on faith the origin, natural order, and complexity of all that exists as merely taking place over time. The statistical odds and science do not support the premise, but the secularist likes to proclaim “nothing else to ask or see here – just move along.” The only thing you try to claim is irrational is the existence of a God and no amount of actual evidence is welcomed or given weight. You merely try to attack marginal issues or quirks unique to individuals and denominations and use this to discredit all of Christianity. Start by being honest and saying “we have no idea how all this came about, but I find evolutionary theory credible because…and Christianity fails due to…” The “everybody knows” or “let’s assume that this always existed” doesn’t work unless you want to admit that the theory of evolution is a faith system as is Christianity.
May 11, 2010
Tom
1. “We believe that God always existed and this is supported in our scripture”; Well Tom it may be stated in your scripture, but in what way is it supported? Don’t take offense to an analogy I’m about to make, but it serves to show ridiculous your statement is. If I were to read ‘The Complete Life and Times of Santa Claus by L Frank Baum, I may ‘believe’ that Santa rose from his humble beginnings as the only human child in an enchanted forest to his ultimate destiny as the immortal being who delivers toys to the children of the world. Just because the book ’states’ this, in what way does it ’support’ the statement or make it true?
2. You argue that the ‘complexity of all that exists’ can’t be explained by evolution (it can and it is – and with overwhelming evidence). In reality this argument does nothing more than prove that your God does not exist. You attempt to explain the ’statistical’ improbability of those complex things by invoking a God. Surely you can understand that your God must, by your own logic, be at least as improbable….but then I forgot…He has always existed (how convenient).
3. You too are an atheist. I take it that you don’t believe in the Greek god Zeus, nor the Egyptian God Anubis, etc. You might find anyone to believe in such Gods rather odd or silly. If a politician wished to ‘thank Zeus’ for his strenght and wisdom, you might even be a little outraged. I just happen to take my atheism one god further.
4. You people are starting to scare me (Tom, Teatime, Rose, Ian…). Maybe Marci does have a point in her book – I should at least read it now. I’m worried that Tom is going to push for creationism in the classroom! LOL
May 11, 2010
“The only thing you try to claim is irrational is the existence of a God and no amount of actual evidence is welcomed or given weight.”
You have evidence, Tom? Actually !?!
Oboy!
Gather ’round kiddies, this is gonna be good!
May 11, 2010
Doug,
As I’ve stated, you completely dodged any scientific explanation for how the theory of evolution explains how the world came from nothing, life came from non-life, the orbit, sun, eco-system, gravity, rational thought, procreation, etc., came about by random chance with the compelling logic that time made it all happen.
The reason you – and Jim – like to just attack and belittle is that by dismissing anything that doesn’t follow your theory is that automatically a matter of faith. As you say – how convenient!
Jim,
The evidence pointing to God is found in I.D. Everyone – including Christ – conceded that faith is ultimately required to ascribe to or reject the Judeo-Christian God. If you are not familiar with the argument, let me briefly relate the watchmaker argument. Someone walks on a beach and stumbles across a watch. Since they didn’t see where it came from, they assume it just came out of nowhere. I.D. (unlike evolutionary theory) considers the complex series of questions that come out of considering the evidence around and ask themselves whether the evidence points toward chance occurance or a designer. The evolutionist starts with the premise there is no God, hand-picks what evidence shores up his position, dismisses the rest and stifles or ridicules any dissent.
I will put to both of you the same question I put to the blogger who calls himself “atheist” and any number of other professed atheists. Is it acceptable to deny Intelligent Design as a university/college elective and destroy the careers of those who would teach it as this has been done. Check out Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed.” Do you approve of the need to deny this as an elective in higher academia and/or support destroying the careers of I.D. professors? So far, it took 2 times asking “atheist” before he decried destroying their careers, but I noticed did not answer the censorship portion. This is more than any atheist has done thus far.
It’s easy to claim intellectual superiority when you’re not faced with challenges to your worldview. For evidence, check out the thread on “Darwin and Hitler” where I challenged “atheist’s” defense of abortion when I put a scientific refutation to him. Since then, he’s dropped off the blog.
May 11, 2010
Tom, thanks for confirming that I.D. is theological nonsense.
Biological evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe or even the origin of life ( I like the mica as soup-strainer hypothesis).
As for all the other nonsense you reference, that’s all been dealt with and can easily be dismissed by any smart primate with an internet connection.
May 11, 2010
Hi Doug,
Actually it was RCC who said you have “no intelligible epistomology that he can offer or, especially, account for.” I had simply suggested to you that from you comment, Rose’s actually appeared more advanced than your own. I certainly wouldn’t suggest that you or I or anyone else is not allowed to say anything bad about religion. I believe we should say anything and everything bad we responsibly can about religion. I could go on about the evils of religion to the point where I might even have you defending it. Saying so, however, doesn’t absolve us from being held acountable to the rules of honest or rational discourse. Perhaps following Dawkin’s et.al., it seems you are confusing “questioning” with simply dismissivly affirming your own dogma. All the while criticising religious people (who should be so criticised) for being unreflectively dogmatic. We call it a “plank-eye problem” (or pot calling the kettle black). Ignorant dogmatism is as rank with the ‘new atheists’ as it is with the most ridiculous, self caricatured Jack Van Impe type TV fundamentalists, true believing marxist-green Christian liberals, or jihadi zealots. I can elaborate if you wish.
May 11, 2010
Jim, since you didn’t refute any of Tom’s references I guessing you don’t qualify as “any smart primate with an internet connection.” Thanks for proving our point about how dangerous people like you are. At Doug/Atheist tries where you just put yourself down by trying childish insults.
May 11, 2010
Doug, This is Atheist with yet another monicker huh? I was worried you’d left to go biking.
Your #1 above. I know you are asking Tom, but please excuse me as I chime in. The bible we know to be the infallible word of the living God (at least our protestant one) is 66 books written over a period of 1500 years by at least 40 different authors and all with the accuracy and flow as though written by a single person. If there are errors show us where. Not just things hard to answer but errors. Science is constantly proving what is already taught in the bible. Archeology is proving correct the places and events told about in the bible. Prophecies given even before such things existed which proved 100% accurate. Even Time magazine some time ago said the one thing we have to give Christianity is the accuracy of the bible. There is no shortage of proof, God exists if you are willing to believe. It is a choice, just like your choice to not believe. Your choice isn’t one based on science but hope, because asserting science backs evolution doesn’t make it so.
Your evolutionary science assertions have been disproven over and over again.
One more thing, buddy, your not trying to be confrontational? “It is the religious who are to be called to account for their delusional beliefs.” Yea right! “Delusional beliefs” is more than just a little confrontational.
May 11, 2010
“There is no shortage of proof, God exists if you are willing to believe.”
And if I ain’t ?
You’re really funny.
Bye.
May 11, 2010
Tom – I’m loving this. I never thought I’d find a person with your point of view that I could debate. But this way is too easy, it’s like shooting Tiktaalik Roseae in a barrel!
You say “…you completely dodged any scientific explanation for how the theory of evolution explains how the world came from nothing”. Jim rightly makes the point that you don’t understand the definition of evolution (nothing to do with the origin of the universe), but nevertheless, I’ll bite and play along for fun. Science has never claimed to have all the answers…yet. It’s interesting how you creationists eagerly look for any gap in our present-day scientific knowledge and then try to fill that gap with an explanation involving God. You should be worried that as science advances, the gaps shrink, and one day there may be no gaps left for God to explain. In the meantime, you’re left to worship the gap.
Let’s take an analogy. It’s the early 1800’s and you’re on the Big Island in Hawaii. K?lauea, blows it’s stack. You have no other explanation, so you resort to the (then) conventional wisdom that the Godess Pele must be angry. Fast forward to present day. No one believes in Pele. Everyone understands that volcanos occur on or near convergent or divergent tectonic plates or in ‘hot spots’ (like Hawaii) where the convection of the Earth’s mantle creates a column of hot material that rises until it reaches the crust, which tends to be thinner than in other areas of the Earth. …see? No Pele Godess involved or required as part of the explanation. The gap continues to narrow.
Tom – the reality is that it’s not a debate of atheism vs religion, rather it’s a debate of rationalism vs supersition. You have a need to fill your gaps in knowledge with superstitious beliefs.
If I were on that Hawaiian island in 1800, I might not know what caused it to blow, but I would be among the crowd that knew there was a rational explanation and that it had nothing to do with a Godess called Pele.
PS – if you’re so concerned about an explanation of “…how the world came from nothing..” why are you not also concerned with the notion that your God could come from nothing? Tom, who created your creator?
May 11, 2010
Ian says “It is the religious who are to be called to account for their delusional beliefs.” Yea right! “Delusional beliefs” is more than just a little confrontational.”
In response I say “When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion”.
May 11, 2010
Ian says “If there are errors show us where. Not just things hard to answer but errors.”
OK – a simple google search shows tons and tons of errors. I picked just one for brevity.
MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm.
(Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life.)
May 11, 2010
The Toronto Star – May 11, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/corrections/article/807648–news-corrections-for-may-11
News corrections for May 11
An excerpt from veteran journalist Marci McDonald’s new book, The Armageddon Factor, which was published in the Star May 8, incorrectly stated that the Calgary-based Canadian Constitution Foundation is a Christian advocacy group. In fact, the foundation is a non-partisan group that defends constitutional freedoms through education and litigation. This error, in the article and photo caption, is not contained in the book but was inserted by the Star.
…
© Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2010
May 11, 2010
@ Wes – you talk about ‘affirming my own dogma’.
The responsibility is on believers to prove God’s existence rather than on atheists to disprove it. No rational person believes in tooth fairies or flying spaghetti monsters and yet they are also impossible to disprove.
By your logic it is dogmatic to have an settled opinion on the non-existence of tooth fairies or spaghetti monsters – each having no more proof than the existence of a god.
May 11, 2010
Christian Heritage Party? Huh?
No dominionist Christofacsist traitors here, no siree!
Now I have to take a bath. You people disgust me.
May 11, 2010
Doug, is that really true? Some believers have died from drinking poison or by being bitten by snakes? Wow, can you name some of them?
May 11, 2010
“In response I say “When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion”. Doug, correct me if I am wrong but I think you just proved evolution is a religion.
May 11, 2010
Here is Dawkins — stumped for an answer:
http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again
May 11, 2010
Ian said:
” Doug, correct me if I am wrong but I think you just proved evolution is a religion.”
LOL! Yes!
May 11, 2010
Atheist gets royally pwnd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco
May 11, 2010
@ Teatime – come on Teatime…get in there…no cheering from the sidelines with LOL’s allowed! Let’s here you refute one of my well crafted arguments!
PS – I looked at your video clip – I’m not sure how you see Richard as ’stumped’? Because he’s a thoughtful person and considered the question before responding, he’s ’stumped’? His answer sounded pretty sensible to me.
@ Ian – come on Ian – you can do better than that, no? You know that you don’t really believe that a Christian person has never died from a snake bit or from drinking poison.
Let’s go guys – don’t disappoint me. Try to dissect any of my infallible commentary!
May 11, 2010
Marci’s book is what thousands of Canadians have felt was taking roots back in 2006. In the last four years, we’ve seen this formerly highly respected and internationlly renowned country (Pearson’s Nobel Peace Prize, Tommy Douglas’ Medicare, Multroney’s Free Trade) sink to its lowest socio-cultural denominator!
This is no longer the country that gave us a Diefenbaker (who defied the Yankee’s fraud on Avrow) or Pearson who delivered medicare with a minority government of conciliatory policies or Trudea with official multiculturalism (funny, 55% of new Canadians are not even Christians).
This is no longer a govenrment that stays out of the bodies and bedrooms of the nation!
This sneaking attack on Canadian values by an extremist CANADIAN THEOCRATIC TALIBAN gang now gathered in Ottawa and running our country will not end well.
Attacking a woman’s inalienable human right to choose over her own body’s needs, trying to reverse gay rights, siding with extremist right-wing Bush policies that are going out of style even down south of the border, adopting a truly NEANDERTHAL IDEOLOGY to satisfy their televangelist fanatical base (10% of Canadians!), scrapping Day Care so that single mothers lose their jobs and force them to go back to “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”…
This is a Father Knows Best Harper Taliban version that should scare all Canadians! The Taliban-on-the-Hill must be exposed for what they are truly:
The enemy of women, children and progress. And no, we won’t let a bunch of cavemen push us back in the cage!
“Women’s rights are
Human Rights and
Human rights are
Women’s Rights”
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bejing Int’l Conference on Human Rights, 1995
Le’ts kick the Taliban out of our Hill before Bush’s carbon copy becomes permanently embedded in Canada’s psyche. Enough. Let’s EXIST THE MIDDLE AGES.
May 11, 2010
Hey Doug, you must be feeling like a pile on here, but it looks like you can take it. Your assertion that the responsibility is on a believer to prove God’s existence rather than the other way around, is a dogma as you have stated it, and contains no rational necessity. It would(and has been) likewise if made in reverse by a believer. You have made a culture and condition bound statement, the nature of which you seem to unaware of. There is a context in which you COULD make that assertion rationally necessary (e.g., in the context of that believer making a specific argument, for example, to convince YOU, and asking a response). You haven’t provided that context – you’ve stated it as an a priori universal that is logically absurd.
The logic of your second sentence is: since tooth fairies are impossible to disprove, and God is impossible to disprove, and rational people don’t believe in tooth fairies, rational people don’t believe in God. This too is nonsense and contains no actual logical statement I can determine. I’m not sure, but I think you are perhaps grasping at the principle of falsifiability. There are reasons why epistemologists and philosphers and of science typically reject that principle nowadays – even if it is still used to indoctrinate children in science class. Simply put we now know no one thinks that way. It is 19th and early 20th century platonic delusion to imagine we do. The closest we can come is on a process level when we are aiming at a particular kind of certainty. Even then, the only certainty is that on some level we will fail. Bias, presuppostion, enculturation, language, class, gender, economics, self-interest invade every idea we have. You can’t reatreat to some supposedly grand, objective, point of view. That was my point. When you do so it is YOU who are trying to evade responsbility for your position. You are trying paint yourself as someone who has stepped outside the hermenutic circle, withoug knowing that as you do you identify yourself unflatteringly.
The logic of your last sentence is that absence of proof entitles me to a “settled opinion.” Employing that logic, unfortunately, if I held it consistently, would identify me as a moron. It runs dangerously close to ignorance is bliss. You see how arguments by analogy get us into trouble?
May 11, 2010
Wes: Why atheism is not dogmatic:
One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
May 11, 2010
…said another way
I assume you all (Ian, Teatime, Rose, et al) reject the polytheism of the Hindus, Olympians and Vikings. You do not subscribe to voodoo, or to any of thousands of mutually contradictory tribal beliefs. Does that make you each an “ideological fanatic” because you don’t believe in Thor’s hammer? Of course not. Why, then, is it suggested I am exactly that (i.e. dogmatic) because I see no reason to believe in the particular God whose existence you, lacking any evidence positively assert?
May 11, 2010
Jim and Doug,
As Ian nicely pointed out and I already stated, the atheist loves to demean the Christian argument without responding to it. I’m not quite sure how it works to discredit Christianity by disproving the existence of Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or the spaghetti monster, but I think I’m coming over to your view on them.
Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are known to be myths. The spaghetti monster is the favoured straw argument from atheists to again avoid disproving God. There are not thousands of years of documented and in some cases eyewitness accounts contained in the bible – again as has been pointed out. It’s rare to find anyone even in different religions or with no Christian faith that challenge whether Christ exists or that his miraculous deeds did not happen. He was a fulfillment of scripture from many centuries before.
Incidentally, even Einstein, Hawkings, and many other brilliant non-Christian minds were not so arrogant as to assert their certainty of the non-existence of a God. Einstein had problems with the idea of a personal God, but of course he was not a man of faith. Was he a moron?
You are absolutely right to insist that evolution does not explain how the world began. That is my point. As I heard from a staunch evolutionist, you do not believe in the big bang, but the primordial soup theory. No one pretends to explain where the primordial soup came from, where it went, how it created such an array of species, how man acquired rational thought, ad infinitum. On the other hand I routinely hear atheists insist that I.D. cannot be taught because they accept the theory of evolution. Explain?
Incidentally, again I have not heard you say whether it is wrong to teach I.D. in college and university as an elective or acceptable to destroy the careers of these profs. You guys sure give me insight into what atheism is all about.
May 11, 2010
Well everyone, I’ve enjoyed the dialogue. Hope there are no hard feelings out there. It was fun. Our discussions are starting to become circular, so I’m moving on to another board and another topic. If nothing else, hopefully you have some insight into why an atheist is an atheist.
Tom says “…the atheist loves to demean the Christian argument without responding to it.”
In response, I’ll leave you all with this thought from Christopher Hitchens:
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
All the best.
Doug.
May 11, 2010
Hey Doug, the problem is you are working on very dated theory of knowledge. Evangelicals abandoned biblical epistemology and married themselves to this same rationalistic theory in the 20th century and it turned out a disaster. I see the new atheists are assuming the same theory. Partly I think because both substantially lack what is in balance the only benifit of a good liberal arts education. You might be able to hold your own against Evangelicals who are working from the same textbook (believe it or not) but in the end it will come crashing down. The temptation is that these old theories promised to provide us with a basis for certainty in discourse with which we could all find a basis for agreement and the world would be enlightened one way or the other, those who were wrong convinced of the error of their ways (and the rightness of ours) and all this good stuff would happen. The goal was good. If we can all just be rational like me… didn’t pan out.
The new atheists make this (to them) sneaky argument that you have just made. It is rote, and holds about as much intellectual water as a seive and it is meant to give a position to shoot at theists while defining my own position (by virtue of a solopsism) as beyond critique. Goes like this. I define my position as “non-belief.” Therefore the epistemological criticisms that can be weighed in against postions that affirm something (obviously the target is deism) miss me. Woo hoo! How good is that?
This might actually work on some level for the average secular westerner who is generally agnostic or practically atheisitic and who doesn’t make an argument. God really is a non-event in their mind. Can’t hold someone who has no real opinion about something to the rules of evidence and consistency and all that jazz, on something they don’t even think about. Right? It’ll work on that level.
Here is the problem. You have shown yourself to be the opposite of that. You abandon the luxury of that position the second you want to step into a conversation and argue a proposition and say that your belief is the right one. The new atheists seem to me to be intellectual buffons and barbarians because they want to have it both ways. They pretend the problem doesn’t exist becuause they all agree to chant the mantra – we have a non-belief. The rules of reasonability don’t apply to us except as we prescribe them. Ha ha!
So when you happily assert the concept of God can be equated with the concept of some agreed upon patent absurdity, you are making a subjective statement of fact that can be measured against the rules of reasonability and good faith. The propositional statement “God does not exist” is open to the same rules of epistemology (and requirements of humility) as the propositional statment “God exists.” Both are postive statements on a process level. The shell game is to try to take negative content (idea of absence) and sneakily impute the rules of negative process (absence of argumentation).