Sample clip of my debate with an
atheist on the issue of morality.
Find the whole debate at this link
Is PZ Myers establishing a church? Behold his new “wonderful revelation,” part 1 of 2
you don't even have a heavenly father at all, the imaginary guy…
Reality is harsh, man. But it is reality…
Our cosmic father did not and does not exist…
the imaginary guy you are worshipping is actually a hateful monster…
a bad and tyrannical father…
PZ Myers was kind enough to affirm that which I have repeatedly repeated:
PZ Myers is an adherent of the atheism sect that positively affirms God’s non-existence without evidence (probably why he refuses to debate the issue Atheism is an emotional rejection of God that hides behind a very thin veneer of intellectual and scientific respectability.
Atheism is a consoling delusion or, rather, a combination of consoling delusions such as:
The consoling delusion of eruditeness.
The consoling delusion lack of ultimate accountability.
The consoling delusion absolute autonomy.
PZ Myers at the atheist worship service during
which he refused to debate Christians—see this link
PZ Myers nicely provided even more evidence of this in one succinct sentence,
no gods and no masters, only autonomous agents free to think and act.1
PZ Myers has, in sadly typical atheist form, gone from defining atheism as “anti-Christianity” to taking on, as so very many of them do, the very characteristics against which he once raged.
He has taken to making positive affirmations about something that he cannot prove thus, he makes dogmatheistic statements, he generalizes all atheist into his catechism-like statements by writing in terms of “we…” as in all atheists hold to what have you and he has taken to writing “Sunday Sacrilege” which is his way of preaching to the choir; emotive sermons of intolerance, ignorance and insolence.
Scientists and atheists do something that many believers find repellent: we shatter their perception of their relationship to the universe. And understandably, they don't like that… One of it's [sic. He is referring to his neo-“revelation”] most appealing aspects is that it makes the relationship with the universe a close and personal one, of a very simple kind of relatedness, that of father and child…
often with those less savory issues of the complicated relationships many people have with their fathers, because, face it, sometimes men are jerks. Which also fits with the portrait of the omnipotent god painted by the Bible.
Note that he seems to be replacing the concept of relationship with God with relationship with the universe which is a hint as neo-Pagan-Atheism—see here, here, here and here.
Just as it states in Romans 1:20-23,
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
He is purposefully denying God’s obvious existence and replacing that relationship with a relationship with, worship of, awe in, nature.
His purpose is to talk people into denying the obvious evidence for fine tuning, for the cosmos being a creation and instead getting them to see the cosmos as a blind agent which, nonetheless, produced us. He makes sure to reference “a great Patriarch in the Sky.”
The preacher continues,
Most religious people in the West have a…father-child relationship, the patriarchy. We have a wise leader who guides us all, punishes us when we stray, offers largesse to those in his favor, and unites the whole tribe in common cause…
It was a strategy for survival that worked well…
It's anthropologically fascinating, and it's also not necessarily an evil metaphor (unless, of course, you're a woman — the patriarchy is also deeply misogynistic).
Note that he is of the school of atheism/evolution that has to admit that theism played a useful role in our evolution but that now he and his comrades have become more evolved than thou and have appointed themselves the arbiters of evolution—the unnatural selectors—who now demand that you evolve to their exalted state—see The Desperation of the Deicidal, Memetic Eugenics and the Evolutionary Watchmen
As for the patriarchy being deeply misogynistic; this is one of those statements that are generic, made without quotations or citations which leads to an argument from authority—everyone knows that the patriarchy is deeply misogynistic, right?! Certainly, there are patriarchies that are just that and some which have corrupted the Bible and become that. Yet, as for the Bible itself, note the following facts:
In the Bible we find that women had the right to own land, received inheritances, were prophetesses (in both testaments), judges, disciples, deaconesses, teachers, worked/owned their own businesses, two OT books are named after women and women were the first at the empty tomb while the male apostles were hiding in fear (see Exodus 15:20; Numbers ch. 27; 2nd Kings 22:14; 2nd Chronicles 34:22; Job 42:15; Proverbs 31:16; Isaiah 8:3; Judges 4:4; Luke 2:36; Romans 16:1-2; Acts 16:14, 21:7-9, 9:36, 18:26; Titus 2:3-4).
Also note that while Pliny the Younger (Plinius Secundus) was Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor in 112 AD he wrote to Emperor Tarjan in Epistles 10.96, referring to Christians he writes of “two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses.” This again demonstrates a continued Christian practice of having women in leadership and teaching roles; to whatever extent.
The sermon further states:
Christians and Muslims and Jews have been told from their earliest years that God is their father, with all the attendant associations of that argument, and what are we atheists doing? Telling them that no, he is not, and not only that, you don't even have a heavenly father at all, the imaginary guy you are worshipping is actually a hateful monster and an example of a bad and tyrannical father, and you aren't even a very special child — you're a mediocre product of a wasteful and entirely impersonal process…
We are apes and the descendants of apes, who were the descendants of rat-like primates, who were children of reptiles, who were the spawn of amphibians, who were the terrestrial progeny of fish, who came from worms, who were assembled from single-celled microorganisms, who were the products of chemistry. Your daddy was a film of chemical slime on a Hadean rock, and he didn't care about you — he was only obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
Note that dogmatheism here as he references atheists—plural—in terms of “we”; “we” atheists are positively affirming God’s non-existence, etc. Of course, not all atheists are militant, not all battle against theism, and not all positively affirm God’s non-existence. But PZ Myers is up to something more than dealing with facts; he appears to be composing a catechism and promulgating it Sunday after Sunday while his cult of personality cheers him on.
Also note that he is not seeking to substantiate his claims with facts, references or anything of the likes; he is merely pressing emotional buttons; those of the theist and atheist alike: God is “imaginary,” “a hateful monster, “a bad and tyrannical father” and on it goes. He is doing that which the New Atheist movement is founded upon: appeal to the youth who are naturally rebellious, preferably the college aged who have just absconded from their mommy’s apron strings and are in co-ed living arrangements, confuse them by getting their rightful rebellion against “religion” to turn to rebellion against God, deny divinely authored and administered morality and let their rebellion and libidos do the rest. I am actually shocked that the New Atheist movement is not a lot more popular; there must be something to be said for true and honest fact checking skepticism: true freethinkers.
In the end we will see that he goes from chemical slime that obeyed the laws of thermodynamics to autonomous agents how can, apparently, go against, beyond or otherwise somehow escape the laws of thermodynamics.
Now since we are apes—Richard Dawkins likewise stated, “We are not, then, merely like apes or descended from apes; we are apes”2—what is the difference between an ape crushing the skull of another ape in a violent fight over mating, territory and resources and me doing the same? Because we are more evolved apes (and atheists are the most evolved apes)? Note that Charles Darwin noted, “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term 'man' ought to be used.”3
Here is a little video that someone made (it would have been better without the editorializing):
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: