Lawrence Krauss Needlessly Shreds His Credibility

Richard Dawkins sidekick, Lawrence Krauss, has been repeating Dawkins crackpot notions about child abuse and religion, this time with a twist:

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss recently doubled down on his claim that teaching creationism to children was a form of child abuse during an appearance on the “The Weekly,” an Australian satirical TV news show.

During the show, host Charlie Pickering recalled that Krauss had described telling children that evolution was a lie as child abuse in a 2013 video. “That’s a fairly brutal way of putting it,” he noted.

“Yeah, exactly, but it got some attention,” Krauss replied, “cus if I hadn’t [used that description] you wouldn’t have read the line.”

“But it’s true. I mean, there are different levels of child abuse,” Krauss added. “It’s like not allowing your children to have medicine, not allowing you children to be vaccinated, for example, is child abuse, because you are doing them harm.”

“In some sense, if you withhold information from your children because you would rather them not know what reality is really like, for fear that it is going to affect their beliefs, then you are doing them harm.”
Like his mentor, Krauss attempts to support his crackpot ideas by abandoning science and replacing it with armchair philosophy.

Below the fold, I will teach the theoretical physicist how to do science.

Continue reading

Posted in child abuse, crackpots, Lawrence Krauss, New Atheism | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Good Question

At the dinner, my friend said he admired a book I didn’t like, so I sent him a copy of a review of the book I’d written. The review tipped my friend off that I was a Christian.

His response made clear that he wasn’t. He wrote, “No metaphysics are needed in my cosmos, thanks.” Although he respected his religious friends, his own views were “close to the occasionally strident and at times rude Brother Dawkins [Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion].” He noted, “We shall have some heavy lifting as workout buddies, you and I.”

I replied that a discussion of our religious differences probably would work better in a barroom than in an email exchange. “We could pretend to be college freshmen again, and it could be fun.” But my friend was not to be put off. He insisted that he had no need to “Godify the unknown or alleged unknowable.”

My new pen pal had sent me some of his writing about Acadia National Park. It spoke of “the profound responsibility of our consciousness: to use our understanding of nature to guide our conduct within nature,” and it added, “In this bloom of space-time, human reason can try to understand the development of all matter, from stars and galaxies to our own planet, fellow creatures, home island, and selves. It is our nature and duty to do so.”

I told him I agreed with these sentiments, but I wondered just why we had a duty to use our capacities for the various purposes he mentioned or, indeed, for any purpose at all.

I made it a multiple-choice question:

A) I made these duties up. If I hadn’t, they wouldn’t exist.

B) My culture made them up. I’m just a product of my culture.

C) These duties proceed from a source outside myself and my culture.

Some weeks after I posed my question, my friend apologized for not answering it. He asked me to stay tuned and promised, “I’ll give you a fair if not satisfying (for you) response to your multiple choice question—re-posed as I wish.”

But he never did.

– From HERE

Posted in atheism, duty | Tagged , | 5 Comments

NSFW: New Atheist Battle

Feminist gnu activist Ophelia Benson posted a short anti-pornography article and Richard Carrier immediately showed up to defend porn by bragging about his own experience with his numerous girlfriends. Carrier felt the need to share that many of his girlfriends want to be choked and slapped around. He then began to use Benson’s blog as a place to share some of his sexual antics.

Okay, you should get a feel for where this is going, so I’ll put the rest below the fold.

Continue reading

Posted in atheist wars, New Atheism | Tagged , | 8 Comments

Modern Day Atheism is Theology

The core “argument” of modern day atheism is the Demand For Evidence. As we all know, the modern atheist insists “there is no evidence for God” and then dares you to show he is wrong by providing the evidence. From a superficial perspective, it seems a legitimate approach, but as we have also seen, a deeper probing uncovers the fact that the Demand For Evidence is built on the assumption that the logic of the God of the Gaps argument is valid. Given that modern atheists deny the logic of God of the Gaps reasoning is valid in other contexts, they end up contradicting themselves and expose the self-defeating nature of modern day atheism. Put simply, modern day atheism can be defeated with three simple questions.

But there is another dimension to god of the gaps atheism. When the atheist argues, “there is no evidence for God,” it translates as “there is no gap that science cannot ever possibly hope to explain.” Atheism thus becomes a position of “No gap, therefore no God.” But how? How does one draw the conclusion of God’s nonexistence from the nonexistence of gaps? I can see only one way – to postulate that the existence of God would entail the existence of gaps. In other words, the atheist assumes that if God existed, there would be all sorts of gaps. Since there are no gaps, there is no God.

Okay, let’s be adults here and recognize something basic: the belief that God’s existence would entail the existence of gaps is itself a theological belief. It is theology that would have us predict the existence of gaps from the existence of God. It is a perspective of God and what He would do.

Modern atheism is an opinion that is built on theology and thus happens to be nothing more than one particular theological outlook. Thus, when atheists scoff at the value of theology, they are scoffing at their own worldview. Modern day atheism is theology.

Posted in atheism, God, New Atheism, theology | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments

The Modern Secular Man

As I write this, my children are asleep in their room, Loretta Lynn is on the stereo, and my wife is out on a date with a man named Paulo. It’s her second date this week; her fourth this month so far. If it goes like the others, she’ll come home in the middle of the night, crawl into bed beside me, and tell me all about how she and Paulo had sex. I won’t explode with anger or seethe with resentment. I’ll tell her it’s a hot story and I’m glad she had fun. It’s hot because she’s excited, and I’m glad because I’m a feminist.

What Open Marriage Taught One Man About Feminism

Posted in Culture, Society | Tagged , | 19 Comments

More Delicate Atheists in Action

We’ve seen before that modern day atheists are delicate, fragile little flowers. They are so easily traumatized by public displays of religiosity, they have even formed an organization devoted to turning the public square into one big Atheist Safe Space.

Yet another example of the Quest for Atheist Safe Spaces has come to my attention thanks to Google. This time, it involves some statue of Jesus located in some remote setting in the mountains of Montana.

Continue reading

Posted in atheism, Delicate atheists, Intolerance, New Atheism | Tagged , , , | 19 Comments

More Censorship From Jerry Coyne

Recall that last month, Gnu activist Jerry Coyne found a way to merge his need to censor opposing views with his desire to bully other people:

So Coyne, who postures as a Champion of Free Speech, asks his readers to comment. A reader with a dissenting view comments, but the comment is censored and never sees the light of day. Instead, Coyne turns the comment into a blog entry several days later and decided to “make an example” of the dissenting voice by never allowing him/her to respond to all the nasty replies that come from Coyne and his echo chamber. Gnu atheist ethics on display.

Surprise! He’s at it again. Here’s something recently posted on Amazon.com that describes something that happened a couple of weeks ago:

Continue reading

Posted in Hypocrisy, Jerry Coyne, New Atheism | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

Dawkins Gets Something Right

Yes, Richard, it is all connected.

I wanted to build on this later, but since I am pressed for time, I’m just posting this now before I lose it.

Posted in Richard Dawkins | Tagged | 3 Comments

A Closer Look at an Atheist’s Evidential Needs

We’ve seen what Professor Coyne would count as evidence for the truth of Christianity/existence of God. So let’s have a look.

“The following (and admittedly contorted) scenario would give me tentative evidence for Christianity. Suppose that a bright light appeared in the heavens, and, supported by winged angels, a being clad in a white robe and sandals descended onto my campus from the sky, accompanied by a pack of apostles bearing the names given in the Bible. Loud heavenly music, with the blaring of trumpets, is heard everywhere. The robed being, who identifies himself as Jesus, repairs to the nearby university hospital and instantly heals many severely afflicted people, including amputees. After a while Jesus and his minions, supported by angels ascend back into the sky with another chorus of music. The heavens swiftly darken, there are flashes of lightning and peals of thunder, and in an instant the sky is clear.

If this were all witnessed by others and documented by video, and if the healings were unexplainable but supported by testimony from multiple doctors, and if all the apparitions and events conformed to Christian theology—then I’d have to start thinking seriously about the truth of Christianity.”

1. This entire example depends on the validity of God of the Gaps reasoning. We need only ask why such a sensational, miraculous “God demonstration” would count as “tentative” evidence of God? Answer – precisely because it is miraculous. Take away all the miraculous elements and Coyne would not count this as evidence for God. So it’s evidence only to the extent it represents a Gap. Coyne needs to stop playing these sneaky word games and come clean by answering a simple question – Is God of the Gaps reasoning a valid way of determining whether or not God exists? Since Coyne has previously dismissed God of the Gaps reasoning in other contexts, his answer is clearly “no,” meaning that his example must likewise be dismissed (because it entails multiple gaps), meaning Coyne has failed to provide any examples of something that would count as evidence for God.

Given that this example has now been exposed as sophistry, we could stop here. But there is more information to be gleaned from Coyne’s writing.

Continue reading

Posted in atheism, evidence, God, Jerry Coyne, New Atheism, Religion, Science | Tagged , , , , , , | 45 Comments

Jerry Coyne’s Evidential Demands

According to Dhay:

Looks like like in FvF Jerry Coyne has updated what he would count as ‘Gap as evidence'; I quote this from Nick Peters’ Facebook page for 26 June 2015:

So on pages 118-119, Coyne tells us that he too could be convinced of the Christian God? Oh. Well this is nice. What could it take?

“The following (and admittedly contorted) scenario would give me tentative evidence for Christianity. Suppose that a bright light appeared in the heavens, and, supported by winged angels, a being clad in a white robe and sandals descended onto my campus from the sky, accompanied by a pack of apostles bearing the names given in the Bible. Loud heavenly music, with the blaring of trumpets, is heard everywhere. The robed being, who identifies himself as Jesus, repairs to the nearby university hospital and instantly heals many severely afflicted people, including amputees. After a while Jesus and his minions, supported by angels ascend back into the sky with another chorus of music. The heavens swiftly darken, there are flashes of lightning and peals of thunder, and in an instant the sky is clear.

If this were all witnessed by others and documented by video, and if the healings were unexplainable but supported by testimony from multiple doctors, and if all the apparitions and events conformed to Christian theology—then I’d have to start thinking seriously about the truth of Christianity.”

LOL. You should check out Dhay’s commentary. Y’know I’ll be commenting soon. ;)

Posted in atheism, evidence, Jerry Coyne, New Atheism | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments