Comments on Ambassador Watch: A Tempest blows up for PCG

You know, Ex-android, I’ve often mentioned on this...

2009-09-12T15:59:48.428+12:00

You know, Ex-android, I’ve often mentioned on this site that, in spite of the obvious lunacy so much part and parcel of the classic WCG, I still learned a lot of lessons and gained a lot of insights from my three-decades-long connection with it. I openly admit this.

One such insight, though obviously not unique to WCG teaching alone, is how so much of this present society of commercialism we live in (referring to the western industrial democracies, in our case) encourages us to waste so much time and effort and money on what ultimately amounts to meaningless pursuits. Yes, perhaps such distracting endeavors serve somewhat of a “respectable” purpose in that they divert people away from a lot of cosmic angst resulting to some degree from our curious and inquisitive human minds. At least temporarily.

That’s why I say that the Bible (along with other ancient texts traditionally labeled “religious” in nature) can serve as good thought-provoking literature in certain contexts, if not viewed as the literal “Word of God” and used to support all kinds of blatantly ridiculous beliefs and actions.

I seem to remember your former pastor, Dan Rogers, one time making an absolute fool of himself once up on the stage of the Auditorium, some time around 1995 or so, shortly before I left Pasadena and moved to Colorado, dramatically acting as if he were kicking “Satan’s behind,” flailing his legs around like a complete buffoon. So I can definitely envision him as being a zealous advocate of the “He who thinks, stinks” ideology!

Oh, brother!

But you know, contrary to what many of the more mi...

2009-09-12T15:59:18.841+12:00

But you know, contrary to what many of the more militant true believers on this site often carelessly assume about the dark and evil Leonardo, I would not label myself an atheist, at least in the way they typically define that word. Of course, from their extremely myopic and limited perspective, for all practical purposes, I could be considered one. But I think labels such as this are a cheap and lazy way to avoid discovering the subtle nuances of what a person actually does believe, aren’t they? – and thus one the fundamentalist mindset just naturally gravitates toward and employs with abandon. Once someone is labeled in such a way, they can then be easily dismissed, having no further credibility, as Smith points out.

Without question, I openly deny the existence of the many zany gods mankind has dreamed up through history (and this includes the maniacal God portrayed of the pages of the Bible).

However, I think it wise to at least remain open-minded to the eventual possibility that some kind of Cosmic Intelligence (for lack of a better word) may one day be shown to exist. But I envision such a possibility to be so far from the religionist’s traditional concept of “God” that there would be no comparison, as different as the night from the day.

I won’t here get into the specific reasons as to why I think this MIGHT be true, but it’s interesting to observe that so many scientific discoveries, found in the last century (or even the past several centuries), which we now just carelessly take for granted, would have been virtually unimaginable by extremely intelligent naturalists existing in previous times and epochs. Many more such mind-blowing discoveries lay out in the future, and no doubt at least some of them, way beyond the current capacity of us to conceive, awaiting examination by objective scientists who haven’t even been born yet.

In this connection I’m reminded of an interesting discussion that took place several years ago now between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, originally published in Time Magazine (11/5/2006) under the heading “God vs. Science.” It reflects much of where I’m currently at with respect to things metaphysical.

The very final paragraph of the article ends with a comment by Dawkins to Collins…

“DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”

That final sentence represents, in very broad strokes, my present state of thought on the subject.

Does this just merely represent some mental left-overs from my time spend in the fundamentalist world of the WCG?

Might it perhaps be just another form of wishful thinking?

Or is it truly a worthy possibility, “a worthy idea” to contemplate upon, as Dawkins suggested?

Currently, I don’t really know. But I sometimes wonder about it. I often wish I didn’t have to work for a living, that way I could spend much more time reading, studying, attending seminars and lectures, and just reflecting upon such things.

Ex-android, I had not heard of Smith’s more recent...

2009-09-12T15:54:16.028+12:00

Ex-android,
I had not heard of Smith’s more recent book “Why Atheism” – I’d like to check it out as well. It sounds like something I’d be interested in reading.

That’s an interesting explanation, regarding credibility and all that. I’m sure that ties in with my own explanation, which begins with the simple observation that people seem to have differing standards of proof for differing ideas. Some concepts and propositions they seem to accept into their minds as absolutely proven with very little actual evidence to support them, and sometimes even none at all. A willingness to accept extremely shallow explanations seems to be the most salient characteristic of the fundamentalist mind.

But with other ideas, especially those which threaten their sense of stability, security and certainty, they can violently reject with the greatest of ease, even in the face of vast amounts of proof that can be shown to support such ideas.

In my experience with fundamentalists, I find, for example, that very few actually disagree with the compelling evidences in support of biological evolution. To disagree would imply that they actually understand the evidences to begin with, and then take exception to them. Instead, they just simply are, in the vast majority of cases I’ve encountered, completely, utterly and ignorantly UNAWARE of them, having bought into the creationist’s cartoon-like caricature of the concept instead of what scientists who study this issue actually say.

I know this is what happened to me. I just ignorantly accepted at face value GTA’s cartoonish and incredibly inaccurate version of evolution via those magazine-style booklets like “A Theory For The Birds” “A Whale of a Tale” etc. I used to raise tropical fish as a teenager, and I even went out and bought an Archer Fish after reading the article “The Archer Fish Shoots Down Evolution!” But with all this literature, as impressive as it may have seemed to us at the time, it was a blatant straw man that was being constructed in the battleground of our minds, and then easily torn down and refuted, thus giving the WCG an appearance of credibility.

But it was virtually all smoke, mirrors and appearances - and little of real substance.
And then I know of more intelligent believers, who just don’t want to have to confront evidence and arguments disconfirming of their metaphysical certainties, simply because they know there is the possibility that such information may be true, and that would require them to have to start all over again, intellectually-speaking, and this idea can seem very depressing, especially as one gets older.

I remember reading Hoffer’s excellent analysis – “The True Believer” - when I was in my junior year at AC. But somehow, much of it just went “in one ear and out the other” – as I saw it as applying to OTHERS, but not, of course, in any way to me and the absolutely wacky beliefs I held at that time. But some of the ideas in the book did act as seeds that furrowed in my mind and sprouted up at a much later time. Then I was able to read passages from it, and had the courage to admit “Hey, that’s exactly the way I thought when I was in the WCG!”

As far as intellectual curiosity goes – yes, some folks seem to have it in great abundance, others possess virtually none of it. It appears to me that this trait perhaps represents the major characteristic between those of us who have left the fold of fundamentalism, and those who still cling to it like a frightened child to a security blanket.

Leonardo- Thanks for the suggestion on the Samson...

2009-09-12T01:52:45.438+12:00

Leonardo-

Thanks for the suggestion on the Samson book; I'll check it out.

There certainly are many books on the subject of freethought and atheism. George Smith also wrote a very helpful book entitled, "Why Atheism" in 2000.

He discusses one reason why the True Believer can dismiss the arguments of the atheist. Atheism is simply not credible to the True Believer. Smith writes:

"Without credibility a proposition will simply pass through our consciousness without stopping long enough to be examined."

He uses his own reaction to the proposition that the landing on the Moon being a hoax to keep funding for NASA. The idea isn't credible. Why waste the time investigating? The hardline theist reacts the same.

"If most Christians dismiss atheism outright this is not because they have examined the arguments for atheism and found them wanting, but because they do not take atheism seiously enough to examine its arguments in detail. Atheism, in their view, lacks credibility, so they have no motive to explore it further."

Smith's book is concerned more with the credibility of atheism rather than it's justification. The theist should read it simply to allay any doubts of belief and feel more emboldened to defend the faith if he can refute the atheist argument.

I first came in contact with Dan Barker in the book, "Leaving the Fold," edited by Edward Babinski. The book deals with the personal testimony of former fundamentalists. Barker is listed as one of eight persons turning to atheism and why. If a theist has a modicum of intellectual curiosity he would be rewarded to read this book.

"He who thinks, stinks."

I first heard this from my former pastor, Dan Rogers who is now chief of the WCG/GCI ministry. He and I went through the "The Great Rebellion" in the mid-70s. He was referring to the defectors who were reading certain books. One he mentioned to me was "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. This book was very helpful to my own understanding of my exit, recovery
and deconversion.

I think your comments about the true believers are...

2009-09-10T15:45:27.861+12:00

I think your comments about the true believers are very accurate. As HWA used to say, they “just don’t know, that they don’t know!” – and that’s exactly what keeps them in the stranglehold of fundamentalism. I really think some of the folks here who try to defend their nutty beliefs really probably have very elementary educations, in some cases probably not even making it to the high school level. This is painfully apparent in some of their rants and ravings. How tragic. But to a great degree this is the primary pool of folks religions appeal to. Studies have shown this to be the case repeatedly.

You wrote:
“I have a friend who is still a pastor in the WCG/GCI. I see him a couple of times a year for dinner. I note that he simply has no interest in anything outside his little religious world. I've been there but I got free. He still wants captivity.”

Ultimately, that’s the best explanation. They’ve just invested too much to even remotely consider the possibility that they may be just as deceived as they presume the rest of the unbelieving world to be.

You know, Ex-android, in contrast to your minister friend, I know for a fact that there are a number of COG pastors who have begun reading outside their religiously restrictive fields of reference, and they know a LOT of what they are teaching is pure bovine excrement. But in many cases, let’s face it, the financial security of an easy paycheck and possible pension payouts is just too tempting to give into as they face old age. I understand this.

But some have had the guts and integrity to walk away from it, facing an uncertain financial future. One is a very close friend of mine who was a pastor in the WCG for 18 years, and has written a book about his experiences called “God and Evolution? – The Implications of Darwin’s Theory for Fundamentalism, the Bible and the Meaning of Life” by Daniel J. Samson. I also recommend this book to ex-WCGer’s because it’s written by someone who was there, and a genuine zealot if there ever was one. Back during our AC days, Dan and I used to memorize key Scriptures by the hundreds – as we were preparing to witness to “God’s Truth” during the fast-approaching and soon to occur Great Tribulation. That was back in 1979, thirty years ago now! Ha!

You just gotta find the humor in all of this, don’t you?!

Ex-android, I very much appreciate the many insigh...

2009-09-10T15:43:49.207+12:00

Ex-android, I very much appreciate the many insightful observations made in your latest comment. As we’ve noted previously, it seems we have trodden down similar philosophical paths in life. I suppose many here on this blogsite could say the same.

As an older, more experienced person than myself once commented to me, “Nobody gets it right the first time around” – referring to the younger years of our lives. How true it is.

Yes indeed, rank ignorance, along with a dash of exuberant youthful idealism, and probably most of all, unfamiliarity with even the most basic of critical thinking skills, lead many of us to get sucked into the bizarre vortex of Armstrongism.

But we learned one heck of a lot of lessons along the way, though, didn’t we? At least some of us did! Lessons perhaps unique to that particular journey only. And lessons that I consider to be priceless – dearly paid for by hard experience, but priceless nonetheless.

I still have a friend who I attended AC together with back in the late ‘70’s. He totally disagrees with the new WCG teachings, adhering right down the line with the traditional doctrines of the classic WCG under Herbert Armstrong’s regime. But he still believes “God’s Government” to be in the hands of Joe Jr., and so my friend stays there, and still sends in his hard-earned tithes there. He is completely incapable of explaining to any of his old college friends, in any intelligible kind of way, WHY he’s come to this conclusion, but, I’m afraid, most likely, he’s NEVER going to budge. His personal temperament (very aristocratic and arrogant in nature) just won’t allow him to admit he made some errors early in life. In the years since the doctrinal cyclone swept through the WCG, he’s stubbornly painted himself into a contradictory and confusing philosophical corner that he’s just too arrogant to amend at this point.

You know, I just got back from a two-mile walk out under the stars, and I was thinking about a number of the very points you brought up in your post. I never actually heard the dictum “He who thinks, stinks” – but I definitely witnessed and experienced the principle in action at AC.

Bertrand Russell made some tremendous points in his well-known book “Why I Am Not a Christian” – a copy of which I still have on my bookshelf. I think a modern day equivalent to him is a guy named Dan Barker, though the two came from completely different backgrounds. I’m currently reading Barker’s excellent account entitled “Godless – How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists.” I would recommend it to anybody, especially those who have gone through and somehow intellectually survived the weird journey through Armstongism. Many, many parallels will be noted between his journey through religious fundamentalism and the particular version we experienced.

I’m going to have to pull out my copy of Smith’s book, and read the chapter on misology again.

Yes, education is indeed the primary key that liberates ones from the shackles of fundamentalism, as willing ignorance keeps many trapped within it. In fact, if any Church member would ever ask me (yeah, right!), I would recommend that the best way to preserve one’s faith in supernatural certainties is to never, under any circumstances, read anything that in any way counters the official party line of the various COG’s. Never even remotely entertain the idea that the church just might be wrong in some or even most of its conclusions. The flickering flame of rationality must be extinguished as much as possible to maintain faith.

Leonardo- I remember after exiting the WCG and th...

2009-09-10T03:49:34.989+12:00

Leonardo-

I remember after exiting the WCG and the start of reading to understand what had happened to me. I recall I had an intense desire to know why I had thrown away 25 years of my life in that nutty atmosphere called Armstrongism.

One of the first writers I spent some time with was Bertrand Russell. He had written, "I don't recall anyone in the Bible being praised for his intellect." That was it! I went into the cult as one in near total ignorance as to how one should live one's life. I was naivete personified. The cult only taught me to trust it's Biblical interpretations and don't question any foundations. Remember the old AC dictum: He who thinks, stinks?

While in my recovery I learned a new word: misology; hatred of argument, learning, or enlightenment.

George Smith in his book, "Atheism: The case Against God" spent a whole chapter contrasting misology and faith. His insights have stood me in good stead over the years in clashes with those living by faith.

Anyways, the difference now between me in 1967 foolishly entering the cult and the me after 18 years of atheism is simply one of education. The more intelligent I became the further I distanced myself from faith.

This is the weakness I find in engaging the True Belivers here on this blog. They are not at all familiar with the reasoning that lies behind one's choice of atheism over faith. First off, they don't even have a rudimentary understanding of what defines atheism.

I have a friend who is still a pastor in the WCG/GCI. I see him a couple of times a year for dinner. I note that he simply has no interest in anything outside his little religious world. I've been there but I got free. He still wants captivity.

Happily there are other unbelievers and skeptics here. May that tribe increase.

Ex-android, my sentiments (and hopes) exactly. Yo...

2009-09-09T09:24:19.531+12:00

Ex-android, my sentiments (and hopes) exactly.

You know, in my everyday life, you’d probably be surprised at how mild-mannered a kind of guy I actually am. And I don't have a problem with simple-minded folks who want to, in their own private little world, believe the nuttiest things imaginable.

But I draw the line when they claim to have logic, facts, evidence, proof and science BEHIND their many claims, and start demanding “equal time” in educational institutions and other areas of influence for their patently false and clearly indemonstrable views.

Actually, and what many creationists and Intelligent Design proponents seem totally unaware of, is that the Bible itself makes a very revealing statement, in the famous faith chapter of Hebrews 11 we always used to go to back in my days with the WCG:

“But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is…”

To me this is pretty clear biblical statement that you can’t in any way prove or demonstrate the single most foundational supernatural belief all the others are built upon – it simply says that “…he who comes to God must BELIEVE that He is…”

Don’t prove, question, study, think things through, carefully weigh opposing explanations…just BELIEVE. And that’s why fundamentalists are so incredibly inarticulate as they assert their belief systems, not only here, but on other websites as well.

The so-called “new atheists” (and extremely articulate spokesmen for rationality) you mention (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, etc.) have every right to be frightened that fundamentalism, if allowed to subtly infiltrate into institutions of political and legal power unchallenged, could set back scientific progress for centuries to come. We have clear and undeniable historical records of this happening before in other times and cultures, and so it could very well happen again.

That’s why I spend so much time carefully responding to the fundamentalists like Larry and the many cowards who post as “Anonymous” on this site – because, ultimately in the long run, the stakes are indeed quite high.

This site is not just a place for (as some pro-COGer’s claim) ex-members to beat the dead horse of Armstrongism with their unrelenting attitudes of anger and bitterness because they don’t “have a life.”

Well, I do HAVE a life, and thus far a very wonderful one, and if I allow these fundamentalist bozos to take over by default, then I, at least in some ways, will bear some responsibly for the horror and bloodbaths that will surely follow.

It’s fairly clear here, to any insightful and careful reader who follows the blogs on a regular basis, that the fundamentalists have patently FAILED in their weak attempts to defend their supernatural assertions.

And I know you and I are not the only ones who have taken note of this. Larry is just one pathetic example of how fundamentalist beliefs can erode one’s reasoning power, no matter how much formal education he CLAIMS to have, and the ability to communicate one’s ideas in intelligible ways that can actually persuade others. There are many others.

So we keep on keeping on!

It's odd that BB who claims a past connection ...

2009-09-08T10:12:17.368+12:00

It's odd that BB who claims a past connection with atheism (same as agnosticism) just simply doesn't point out the failings of the observations of the atheists.

Articulate atheistic spokesmen (Dawkins, Hitchins, Harris) have been so successful that well-known theists and those of lesser credentials have admitted there is no proof of any gods. Even our own larry has admitted that.

Gee, do we see trend here? One can only hope for it to continue.

Byker Bob wrote: "Atheists often make fine co...

2009-09-06T15:28:10.498+12:00

Byker Bob wrote:
"Atheists often make fine contributions on select topics, but are blinded to the spiritual."

Oh, come on, Bob - who are you trying to kid here?

Who can you honestly and with a straight face point to on this site who has recently made any kind of intelligible "fine contributions" in spiritual areas? Our friend Larry? - who obviously cowers away from and evades answering every serious challenge put to him that his "spiritual messages" invite?

You confuse the delusional, subjective workings of the fundamentalist mind-set with "spiritual" - that way you avoid having to grapple with the tough issues their many assertions provoke.

Well, Corky, I'd respect that opinion if I tho...

2009-09-06T07:49:57.677+12:00

Well, Corky, I'd respect that opinion if I thought it had been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Atheists often make fine contributions on select topics, but are blinded to the spiritual. Accepting Jesus Christ, and making him Lord over your life is by no means "the easy way out". At the very least, it messes up one's sex life!

BB

Some people just decide one day to give up and bec...

2009-09-05T10:35:37.170+12:00

Some people just decide one day to give up and become a believer. After all, it's easier and it's more respectable and you get along better in a country of 80% Christians.

It's a cowards way but a lot of pagans did the same thing back in the fourth century. It beats getting tortured and burned etc.

Never mind the facts, just bleeve.

Hey Paul, what would you consider the 30 years I s...

2009-09-05T08:40:13.541+12:00

Hey Paul, what would you consider the 30 years I spent as an agnostic or atheist? During my first 7 years on the WCG related internet sites, I made perfect sense to all of you atheists, and even got your kudos for the reponses which I made to posts by believers. Now I've come to some deep realizations, and have apparently stopped making any sense to certain very partisan types here.

BB

Larry wrote: "So, there is the logical answer...

2009-09-05T04:31:40.675+12:00

Larry wrote:
"So, there is the logical answer to your question. It won't satisfy you. And, I am sure you will counter with another lengthy diatribe. But this makes sense.

Your "answer" was LOGICAL, and it makes sense?!

OK, whatever you say, Larry.

And no, I won't "counter with another lengthy diatribe" because there is absolutely nothing of substance in your comment to counter. This is blatantly (and painfully) plain.

But I DO have a question on another issue: Why are you so secretive about your alleged doctorate from a world-class university? If I had a PhD in astrophysics from Harvard, for instance, I would see no reason whatsoever to hide the fact. That way people who question my claim could easily go on-line or call Harvard University and verify whether it's true or not.

Any intelligible answer you can offer here, Larry – or is God in His good wisdom hiding this piece of crucial cosmic information from my darkened mind as well?

Larry wrote: "So, there is the logical answer...

2009-09-05T04:26:35.939+12:00

Paul and Leo, I do understand your position c...

2009-09-04T17:20:18.390+12:00

Paul and Leo,
I do understand your position completely. And I don't reject it. In fact, I admire it because you are at least thinking, unlike most folks on this planet. But, in the race, you are so far behind that you think you are ahead. You have been lapped.
The "supernaturalists" as you call us, have figured out that your position also lacks "evidence". (By the way, everything I have said about my background and education is true.)

But, let's talk about something we can both agree on, the future. There will be one. Time will go on. There will be a time when the present is ancient history. That future matters. The issue of the relative merits of good or evil as philosophies of living must be resolved. The only fair way to resolve it is a demonstration where each is given a chance to show what they can do.

This demands that humans have complete free will. If you were to receive "proof" of God's existence, you would no longer have true free will. If you were able to see the angels who guard you daily and converse with them, your actions and beliefs would be altered by the knowledge that you were under continuous scrutiny, which, as it happens, you are.

But, if you were concretely aware of this, your free will would be gone. As it turns out, your free will is actually an illusion anyway. Many on this board think that they escaped a prison when they left the Church. The truth is that they just left a cell block, and now they are lost in a bigger prison. But, at least it was a cell block where people knew that there is a universe outside the prison walls. Most regular people are just blissfully unaware.

For the sake of all those who will live in the future, this issue of good and evil, must be resolved once and for all and forever. There is just way too much at stake.

So, there is the logical answer to your question. It won't satisfy you. And, I am sure you will counter with another lengthy diatribe. But this makes sense. It also correlates with what God has told us about Himself. As you mentioned, the individual is important, but the principle is more important right now!

Byker Bobster, this one's for you! http://www...

2009-09-04T09:40:09.177+12:00

Byker Bobster, this one's for you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsV_1ThIThA&feature=related

""You wrote: “To me, faith must be solid...

2009-09-04T07:31:49.003+12:00

""You wrote: “To me, faith must be solid enough to survive scrutiny, and it must also make logical sense.”

I can agree with that."

I don't, because "faith" (translation- faith in the god of the Bible) is not beholden to scrutiny, and can never make logical sense. I also don't agree with Bob because he has shown, time and time again, that he is in no way different from Larry. Bob has always shirked from scrutinizing his faith, and shielded his faith from the scrutiny of others on this forum. He has never attempted to make logical sense of his faith, except to claim that his faith and the existence of god are exempt from the scrutiny and the rigor of logic. Bob is being very hypocritical here.

Larry sez:

"Answer: nothing at all

But Leo, old boy, I don't make the rules. I understand both sides of the issue, whereas you only see your side."

Are you implying that there is a celestially derived rule governing the investigation into the existence of supernatural beings, and this rule forbids the inclusion of evidence?? What the frak are you smoking, Starbuck?

Larry, if you saw Leo's side, then you would admit that you have not a shred of evidence for the existence of god and you can fully understand why Leo may not accept the existence of god since he is given no evidence.

The Apostate Paul

And a couple more: “There is only one God, the on...

2009-09-04T07:21:19.822+12:00

And a couple more:

“There is only one God, the one that created you.”

[Wow, now there’s a real argument few could withstand! You see what I mean when I constantly point out the difference between a dogmatically stated ASSERTION that just arrogantly demands assent, and the carefully marshalling and arranging of evidence in the form of an ARGUMENT that clearly demonstrates or supports a particular viewpoint?]

One blog moderator challenged a believer by asking: “If you have evidence [that God exists] and have not yet presented it please do so here and now so we can end this discussion." To which a believer of obvious intellectual gifts responded:

“That is easy. You are part of the evidence. If you were an accident, you would not ask. You wouldn't know or understand the concept, but you do.”

[And that was it. In this believer’s mind, such a statement was easy and provided the inquirer with overwhelming evidence for the existence of a god. Wow, I’m glad he answered the question with such clarity once and for all - now we can all move on to more important topics….NOT!]

But you get my point. The kinds of evasive, amazingly imprecise, circular non-responses by bloggers who regularly comment here, such known and loved luminaries as Larry, Tom Mahon, Byker Bob, and the many others who sign their predictably limp comments as “Anonymous” – they are extremely typical of believers worldwide who frequent other websites that wrestle with the kinds of issues we discuss here on Ambassador Watch. To hear one, is to hear most of them all.

I long for some intelligent, thoughtful comments from the supernaturalist community, but mostly am disappointed by what they usually have to say.

Byker Bob, you also wrote: “It's fairly obviou...

2009-09-04T07:18:44.578+12:00

Byker Bob, you also wrote: “It's fairly obvious that some like to stereotype believers based on the obviously ridiculous…”

That’s true, but BOTH general sides of the discussion are guilty of this, don't you think?

Further, I would argue that religionist often do this to themselves by their constant PATTERN of evasions and continual unwillingness to avoid dealing with the hard underlying issues their faith rests upon.

So the "obviously ridiculous" is often all that's on offer by believers for skeptics to have to deal with.

It’s interesting because this website, of course, is not the only blogsite where this kind of discussion is occurring – although I tend to respond considerably more here, perhaps mainly because I feel more of a bond with bloggers on this site due to our mutually shared experiences within the WCG.

But I monitor other discussions occurring on the Internet wherein believers and atheists/agnostics do verbal battle with their various views and opinions. And it’s always interesting to see precisely HOW such people reason.

Anyway, here’s just several comments, not taken out of context at all, just actual comments taken randomly to provide a general sampling that is extremely common, and which demonstrate how shallow the reasoning power of most believers truly is. (Believer’s comments appear within quote marks, my responses in brackets underneath:)

“He will be found of you if you seek Him with all your heart!”

[No evidence whatsoever offered, just the assumption that a deity does indeed exist and will respond to such seeking. “He” is never defined, “His” existence is never established, but we’re told to just believe and seek.]

"Prove God doesn't exist. I'm waiting..... "

[One form or another of this lame argument is more common than most can possibly imagine among believers. But, other than the fact that you can’t prove a negative – such as the utter impossibility of DISproving the existence of leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus – folks who attempt to make this kind of assertion just cannot seem to understand that the burden of proof is on those who dogmatically claim the literal existence of an invisible deity, not on those who DENY the existence of such. When you initiate a truth claim, then it’s up to YOU to establish it’s validity. For example, scientists claim creatures on earth gradually developed over long periods of time, and then they provide powerful evidence that backs up this view, along with exposing their claims to further rigorous scientific scrutiny in order to either refute, correct or further refine their claims. Pretty easy and reasonable to understand, but you’d be surprised how often this basic pathetic non-argument is attempted by believers.]

“There is no lack of evidence that the Judeo-Christian God exists."

[Here again, an assertion is dogmatically made, but nothing more specific or precise is ever offered. You’d think if such powerful evidence is not lacking, that believers could, at least once in while for the benefit of us skeptics, cite just SOME of it, be able to extrapolate upon it, and demonstrate exactly HOW this “proves” the existence of their God. But don’t hold your breath, because it’s extremely rare that a believer can think this conceptually or with such precision.]

Byker Bob – Clyde Crashcup, now there’s a cartoon ...

2009-09-04T05:23:07.781+12:00

Byker Bob – Clyde Crashcup, now there’s a cartoon character I haven’t thought about in years! I used to watch him on black and white TV – he and his short, bald, spectacle-wearing, whispering laboratory assistant, Leonardo. Ha! They really were entertaining for the age group they were aimed at. I’ll bet his cartoons are out there somewhere on YouTube.

Anyway, I appreciated your response.

Yeah, I understand about the various reasons for bowing out of a particular blog thread, or not even getting involved in the first place. Sometimes I’ll even go months without commenting. I typically don’t get involved in some of the more lighter topics that sometimes arise (Ron Weinland’s nutty antics, the continuing saga of UCG’s Council of Elders, etc.), preferring to stick with what I consider to be the real “trunk of the tree” issues - foundational topics that many folks find so burdensome. But so many of our ideas and views are ultimately grounded in these most important areas.

I’ve noticed that many here seem to get weary of discussions about such things, but I view seeking the nature of ultimate truth to be a most worthy and profitable purpose in life. And contrary to how I used to believe when I was in the WCG, I haven’t “arrived” - and have a long, long way to go.

And I’ve found every once in a while someone (including yourself) on this blogsite to make a comment, perhaps even just a marginal side-comment, that has really got me thinking and triggered off a worthy avenue of research.

It’s just that such stimulating comments come so infrequently from the supernaturals. And when I use that term, I simple mean folks who demand to be taken seriously because they merely have a subjective opinion, and yet who cannot establish or intelligently argue for their assertions very well at all. They refuse to do the necessary preliminary homework. I think that’s why religion is so popular – it doesn’t require much serious thought at all, just rote belief. I know that doesn’t characterize ALL religious believers, but in my experience it characterizes by far the vast majority of them.

You wrote: “To me, faith must be solid enough to survive scrutiny, and it must also make logical sense.”

I can agree with that. What continually disappoints me is how most folks don’t see religious faith in this way. And contrary to what our friend Larry thinks as expressed in our many exchanges, I’m NOT a militant atheist who stubbornly closes his mind to issues that he would consider to be spiritual in nature. After all, I was a diehard “believer of believers” for over thirty years when I was in the WCG, so I’m quite familiar with fundamentalistic belief systems, the Bible, etc. But I draw the line at the place someone just expects me to unquestioningly believe without any intelligible reason to do so.

Larry, thank you for your predictably condescendin...

2009-09-04T04:24:47.942+12:00

Larry, thank you for your predictably condescending spiritual advice.

First, you once again avoid dealing with the specific issues I raise - then, once that foundational responsibility is cowardly evaded, you start spouting your sage wisdom on the great cosmic drama taking place here below, as if you actually possess some kind of special “insider” knowledge about it above and beyond the rest of us.

This overall pattern happens with almost every other believer I've ever had this general discussion with: sweep aside the difficult task of establishing the validity of your premises with any kind of clarity, precision or intelligibility, then proceed to dispense nuggets of your ethereal “wisdom from above” based on such unproven assumptions.

However, as can be easily noted, the primary question STILL REMAINS to be dealt with, no matter how desperately you try to avoid answering it: HOW do you actually KNOW about the cosmic matters you speak so glibly of, and with such certainty, and so freely dispense advice upon, when you've REPEATEDLY shown yourself on this blogsite of being utterly INCAPABLE of demonstrating the truth or existence of the many blind assumptions your "explanations" rest upon?

Intellectually-speaking, let's learn how to crawl first before we attempt to start sprinting with the big boys. You've not even shown us that you can do the former, yet you try to vainly push yourself up to the starting blocks at the Olympic Games, AS IF YOU’VE ALREADY clearly demonstrated the validity of your major premises.

In past blogs, as others can witness to, you’ve bragged that your possess a PhD degree from a world-class university (though you’ve repeatedly avoided telling us exactly what field of expertise your degree is in, and from what specific university it was earned from) so clearly you must have the mental prowess to understand this elementary prerequisite.

Sorry Larry, but it’s just not that simple. Your archaic worldview demands unquestioning assent, and I (along with millions of others) refuse to give you a free pass regarding your religious assertions. (And please don’t try to argue that it’s not YOUR worldview I disagree with, that it’s GOD’S worldview – like you’ve done many times before. This is circular reasoning at it’s worst.)

You’ve got to earn your way into any SERIOUS discussion about these issues just like anybody else. But you refuse to do the hard preliminary work required – and that’s why your comments come across, with astounding regularity, both to me and many others, as so glib, insipid and unpersuasive.

You ending by saying: "So, please try not to be angry, disgusted, irritated, depressed, or frustrated. It is hard, but doable."

I try, Larry, but it indeed is very difficult to carry on a MEANINGFUL dialog with you because you refuse to dialog - instead, like a politician, or a clergyman, you prefer to monologue. You refuse to clearly answer the specific questions put to you, which is what a dialog requires. Instead, you skip right over them so you can get to spouting your tired old "sound bite" clichés so common in the wacky world of irrational fundamentalism.

I’m always willing to engage in some good old-fashioned verbal give and take in order to arrive at greater clarity regarding whatever important issue is being debated. But you supernaturalists tend not to be taken seriously in the real-world public forum of ideas and intellectual exchange because, among other things, you refuse to 1) demonstrate your dogmatic assertions with any semblance of logic or clarity, and 2) avoid the inevitable moralizing believers are given to, that really would only be acceptable once you’ve FIRST demonstrated the validity of the assumptions such moralizing is based in. But you refuse to do either, and so we never really can get anywhere in the discussion.

Therefore, good-bye until next time.

BykerBob is complaining that atheists removed pray...

2009-09-04T02:31:27.434+12:00

BykerBob is complaining that atheists removed prayer from schools, which is an old lie retold.

Prayer hasn't been removed from public schools - it is teacher led prayer and bible study that is intended. Prayer is still allowed by students who wish to pray.
They can even study the bible when not in class if they want to do it.

It was initiated by the American Atheist Association but it was taken to federal court by the ACLU who were also representing certain Christians in the action.

So, why don't the fundies stop making up these lies and tell the truth once in a while?

Teacher led prayers in public schools was ruled unconstitutional.

What is it about UNconstitutional that the fundies can't understand?

larry hollered: "GOD MUST NOT INTERFERE...&q...

2009-09-03T23:53:32.689+12:00

larry hollered:

"GOD MUST NOT INTERFERE..."

There is no difference between that outcry and there being no gods to interfere.

Larry opined: "I am pretty sure that people i...

2009-09-03T16:12:00.076+12:00

Larry opined:
"I am pretty sure that people in those days knew when someone was dead. In fact, they were more familiar with death than we are. They were exposed to it rather often, if not daily."

Reminds me of the lawyers that had a auto accident out in farm country. A few days later when the authorities came looking for them and found their vehicle, they interviewed the farmer. He told the Sheriff that they were all dead so he buried them. The Sheriff asked if he was sure they were dead. The farmer said that "yes, I was sure, a couple of them tried to deny it, but you know how lawyers lie."