Sample clip of my debate with an
atheist on the issue of morality.
Find the whole debate at this link
DOGMATHEISM : The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Annie Laurie Gaylor on the Solstice and God’s Un-Evidenced Non-Existence
Whilst sitting in for Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham had occasion to interview The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s co-founder (along with Dan Barker) Annie Laurie Gaylor.1
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is an organization established in the USA which is a country that was premised upon the concept of freedom of religious expression.
Let us glean from the interview:
INGRAHAM: …Joining us now from Madison, Wisconsin, of course is Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which bought the ads. Annie Laurie, how are you doing? Merry Christmas, by the way.
ANNIE LAURIE GAYLOR: Well, merry winter solstice…it's the winter solstice…It is the natural holiday. The reason for the season….And the real reason for the season is the winter solstice. And people in the northern hemisphere celebrated this time of year from millennia with evergreens and festivals and gift exchanges because they're recognizing the real new year, natural holiday, the beginning of the new year.
There is no such thing as a “natural holiday” as nature enjoins no such thing upon us. What there is, such as in this case, is neo-Pagan atheism which promulgates awe, reverence and perhaps worship of nature as a replacement of God (see Atheism as nature worship or neo-paganism).
Note that, for example, the Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor did not seem to mind an actually Pagan inspired holiday being celebrated by the President of the USA, Barak Obama, in the White House (see here). She stated, “We should be able to get along with the separation of church and state” but what about separation of Paganism and state? Also, note that she is confusing the US Constitution’s “Establishment Clause” against a state religion which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing of religion” with Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he references “a wall of separation between Church and State.”
Jefferson, deist or not, attended Christian church services in the Capitol Building. Ironically, The Freedom From Religion Foundation would have called for his impeachment for doing so.
Apparently, they understand Jefferson better than Jefferson understood Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence states that we have inalienable rights that have been given to us by “our Creator…nature’s God.”
Christians do not give presents because of Northern hemispheric concerns but because God gave (John 3:16), the wise men gave (Matthew 2:11), St. Nicolas gave, people need things given to them, etc.
GAYLOR: It's meant to say something true that there isn't a God…heathens greetings is one of our other billboards and reasons greetings. And I think it's fun.
I would imagine that it is fun for her and Dan Barker to continue positively affirming God’s non-existence without providing any evidence whatsoever; fun, easy and quite lucrative. On this note the conversation continued thusly:
INGRAHAM: …it's a free country, so you can spend out your money and take out any kinds of ads like this. And you know, I actually am personally not bothered by it, but what I think is interesting is that there seems to be an orthodoxy and even a religious dogma among atheists, just as strong as that among, you know, devout Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, but you all call it winter solsticism or atheism or whatever the trendy way of referring to it is now.
INGRAHAM: But you guys are just as dogmatic as the people you say people are crazy because they think this, you know, this little baby was born in a manger.
GAYLOR: There is nothing dogmatic about the winter solstice. It's reality. It's the shortest and darkest day of the year.
INGRAHAM: I mean, dogma about the fact that there is no God. You're obviously dogmatic that, are you not? Or are you up in the air about that?
GAYLOR: Well, I think that there -- you can certainly say that the God of the bible cannot be proved to be true. If there is no proof for something, we should not believe it. And more people have been killed in the name of religion for something that cannot be proved than for any other reason. And I think that many people might be pleased to know there is no God. There's no person watching over you ready to end you to hell.
Annie Laurie Gaylor displaying an
icon with a bust of Charles Darwin
Note that just because one day is shorter than the rest is no reason to celebrate. They seem to do so in order to express belligerence against Christianity. This is because 1) you do not see them, for example, placing bus ads and billboards in USA Muslim communities, nor oversees in Muslim countries, that read “Yes, Hussein…there is no Allah” or some such thing and 2) their ads do not simply express pro-Solstice sentiments but anti-theism, anti-Christian sentiments. The Solstice is, for them, an excuse for expressing prejudice while most of us are expressing gratitude and love.
The issue is her atheistic orthodoxy, her dogmatheism, as Laura Ingraham emphasizes that she is referring to Annie Laurie Gaylor’s un-evidenced positive affirmation of God’s non-existence.
The key question to ask her would be, “You state that there is no proof for the existence of God, or even specifically the God of the Bible. Considering that you claim that God’s existence ‘cannot be proved to be true’ what would you consider evidence, or proof, of God’s existence?” You see, her dogmatheism goes beyond merely positively affirming God’s non-existence without evidence, it goes on to positively affirming that evidence or proof of God’s existence is actually impossible.
Note also that having not even bothered attempting to justify her dogmatheism she resorts to a favorite atheist talking point in referencing hell. This is an emotive trick which allows her, or so she thinks, to side step justifying her assertions and instead drops an emotionally charged grenade.
Since there are arguments in favor of God’s existence the fact that she offers none for God’s non-existence means that she is merely being dogmatic as even a poor argument beats out no argument.
Do not be fooled by this trick for various reasons including that there is a hell of atheism which is just as terrifying, if not more so. Apparently, employing “hell” is a one word response to anything Christian related as the interview proceeded thusly:
GAYLOR: I'm a…third generation free thinker. I was brought up free from religion.
She “was brought up free from religion”? Wow, I had no idea that she and I have that much in common.
GAYLOR: My parents did not believe in indoctrination. I do not believe that small children should be indoctrinated in abstractions that they cannot have any real way to determine whether it's true or not….
I think children should be allowed to grow up and make these decisions for themselves.
INGRAHAM: So a 6-year-old child should make decisions for himself?
GAYLOR: I think that a lot of children grow up in great fear, for example, of hell. And I think that is child abuse…there is no hell…I think this is a primitive notion. And it's very harmful to small children to have ideas that are that fearful inculcated in them by their parents and their churches.
As I have variously evidenced and have experienced in my personal upbringing that the concept of parents who believe that children should be allowed to grow up and make these decisions for themselves whilst not inserting their own ideas and guiding them towards a preferred direction along the way is a sham.
Lastly, I found this brief exchange interesting,
GAYLOR: If there are being people magnanimous in the name of religion, terrific. But many times, it is religion that gets the credit and taxpayers that get the bill. As you know, Catholic charities get a huge amount of infusion of federal money from taxpayers.
INGRAHAM: Planned Parenthood does, too. But you won't have a problem with that.
Dead silence was perhaps the best answer that Annie Laurie Gaylor could offer at this point; particularly since her partner in prejudice, Dan Barker, believes that “abortion is a blessing” and has expressed inhumane sentiments about healthy, beautiful, innocent and defenseless human babies in the womb (see here).
It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any
print media for whatever purpose (in agreement or in order to criticize it) only as
long as the following conditions are met: