The UnSkeptical Skeptic - Revised

Over the past few months, I have observed a phenomenon which other people must have
noticed, a phenomenon I have named the unskeptical skeptic. Also the term anti-theism
and anti-theist as opposed to atheism and atheist was suggested by a true atheist
(a respected member of ATS 2.0) some time ago. The term anti-theism and anti-theist
well defines the current situation among the "skeptical community". For the purposes
of this discussion the following terms are defined:

Anti-theist - A militant atheist who aggressively engages in the criticisms of the
Christian Faith and other belief systems. The anti-theist is evangelistic in that
he (or she) is actively engaged in a program to convert others to their beliefs.
Anti-theists also show a great deal of hate towards the Christian Faith and against
Christians in general. This is opposed to a true atheist who normally does not
care what others believe as long as there is no active threat to them because of their
non-belief. I once was a true atheist and as a true atheist I did not really feel
the need to expound my beliefs. I considered Christianity as merely being a harmless
foible, Christians were no better nor worse than anyone else. Indeed my Christian
co-workers did witness to me and I listened politely. I did not rant and rave about
how my rights were threatened, I listen politely and after a few minutes I simply
said, "Hey I am six weeks behind schedule on this project and have to get back to
work, let us shelve this discussion for the time being." Neither did I feel the need
to convert my Christian associates.

Unskeptical skeptic - An atheist or non-believer who has accepted assertions primarily
based on the fact they are critical of Christianity, not because the assertions are
actually true and are valid claims. Many of these assertions can be shown to be
invalid (or at least highly questionable) by simply doing a small amount of research.

It is my contention that the "anti-theist skeptical community" has developed their own
form of religiosity in that 1) they have developed a core of assertions which can be
considered mythology, 2) these core of assertions have become articles of faith and that
no amount of factual refutation of these assertions will dissuade the skeptic from the
concept that these assertions are not true, 3) the skeptics have generated a new set
of prophets whose pontifications are accepted by the atheististic skeptic as being the
"gospel" truth without any question as to the validity of the claims being made ("The
prophet Acharya S has stated, therefore it is truth.").

So far I have identified some of the core beliefs of the unskeptical skeptic:
1. The "copy cat religion" assertion or plagiarism in Christianity, the contention that
Christian beliefs are basically copied from older religions. There exist many parallels
between Christianity and other religions.
2. "Conversion by the Sword", the belief or assertion that the only way Christianity
was spread was by threat of death.
3. The assertion that the Bible promotes bad science.
4. The assertion that almost all the wars in history (or at least Europe) were caused
by Christians and ordered by the Pope (After all, the Pope ordered the Crusades, the
Punic Wars, the Persian War, the Peloponnesian Wars, etc.).

Also there is a set of prophets among which are:
1. Acharya S - pen name for the current proponent of the plagiarism in Christianity thesis.
2. Joseph Wheless - author of a book called "Forgery in Christianity.

To illustrate my thesis, I generated a topic posting examining one of the most cherished
tenets of the new atheististic mythology, what has called the "copy cat assertion"
I pointed out that the same article is copied verbatim on several skeptic web sites;
however, this article contains statements about Buddha and Krishna that should have been
questioned by anyone who has done even the slightest amount of study on the subject of
comparative religions. ("Buddha crucified", I think not.) Yet this article shows up on
the same web sites as skeptics who claim that they have done extensive study on the
subject of comparative religions. However that topic posting got moved as a reply into
another thread and hardly anyone read my posting anyway.

It is my hope to start a thread where the thesis of the "unskeptical skeptic" can be
been discussed and examined. I think that this phenomenon is worthy of discussion,
consideration, and examination and a good subject for a thread. Therefore there is
an open invitation for both believers and non-believers to respond with the following
objectives in mind:
1. For the believers to post what they consider to be the tenets of the anti-theist
skeptic and any refutations they care to mention. Also for the believer to post the
names of anyone they may care to be placed on the list of the "atheist prophets".
2. For non-believers to post any of their contentions with the following exceptions
No "arguments of outrage" - that is no postings saying how cruel God is because He
ordered so many deaths in the Bible, etc. - we have heard it already. Also don't just
run over to www.skepticsannotatedbible.com and grab a bunch of unrelated passages from
the Bible and then them post here with a statement saying "Well what about this". You
have just proven my point, you merely accepting somebody's criticism of the Bible based
on an article of faith - do some homework.
3. For a refutation of non-believer postings, there will be no complaining if the
response is a link to a Christian web site, or some other web site (such as a Buddhist
web site). Certain concepts cannot be adequately discussed in 25 words or less.
Also there will be no complaining about link to a skeptic web site as long as it is to
a specific article within the site (i. e., no links to the home page of a skeptic web
page and saying here it is).
4. Certain postings may not be immediately refuted, this is hopefully an examination of
a phenomenon called the "unskeptical skeptic" and is not intended to be a "bash Christians",
"bash Muslims", "bash the Catholic Church", etc. thread.

The intention is:
1. To allow the believers to share information which can be used to more effectively
refute the skeptics assertions.
2. To permit the skeptics to present their concepts; however, be prepared to see a
reply that may be something on the order "Been there, done that, go buy a book on
the subject and read it - you don't know what you talking about".
3. To make both sides think about what they believe. It is hoped that the skeptics
become a little more skeptical about their skepticism. That is the skeptics have done
the same thing they charge the Christians of doing. They have developed a series of
tenets which are not based on facts but are misconceptions based on ignorance and are
accepted just because one of their favorite writers have stated so. When the skeptic
posts something containing the statement on the order "Buddha crucified for a sin
atonement", does he (or she) realize how ignorant that makes him (or her) appear to
someone who knows better? When statements like that appear in their arguments, then
their whole thesis becomes suspect because there are obvious flaws and some basic
research is lacking.

Mod Edit - All Caps Title

[edit on 21-12-2008 by MemoryShock]

Actually Jagd, this idea would make a good sub-forum header!!

I could be considered an anti-theist.

I generally do not criticise christianism based on any of those arguments.
You should make a research on philosophical anti christianism, first thing to read - Nietzsche.

I criticise christianism based on what they advocate, their ethos, moral and value patterns.
I criticise christians for being so stupid as to overlook the many contradictions in the bible, and for being so weak they will bow their will to a threat called hell or eternal damnation.

However you are right on many of your points, there are many points that anti-theists express too many times.

Explain to me how it is an article of faith to point the simple contradiction in "God loves and forgives all humans" and the millions of deaths described in the bible?
It's simple logic you know, just because someone MAY have said it already it doesn't mean anyone repeating it is an article of faith.

Also I don't understand how it is that you classify anti-theists common assertions as myths right away? Have you noticed that your point on anti-theists assertions suffers from the same error that you so nicely point out on their assertions? I am specially refering to the "Many of these assertions can be shown to be
invalid (or at least highly questionable) by simply doing a small amount of research. " bit, well I refute that, your point that their assertions can be shown invalid or questionable by means of a simple research can be shown invalid or at least questionable by doing a small amount of research. get the irony of it?

Anyway it is a good idea, and I agree there are patterns of anti-theist tought and arguments, maybe because they seek to be the answer to patternized (does this world really exist?) christian arguments

Well one thing antichrist, I have seen posted on skeptic web sites the simple assertion "Sakya Buddha was crucified as a sin atonement". Do you care to comment on that statement? Have you read my posting in "THE UNSKEPTICAL SKEPTIC - PART 1" dealing with skeptic other assertions concerning Krishna, Buddha, Horus, etc? I don't think so.

I didn't in fact, i guess I should, I didn't know about the existence of such post guess it matters a lot for the discussion so I apologise

I reject Nietzsche and his writings as that which emanates from a man of too little stature in life to fulfill his narcissitically induced emotional and psychological needs with his own inherent qualities (or lack thereof) and so uses what grey matter he has to issue forth utterances that confuse the masses who find commonality in his shortcomings.

In short, I feel you have backed the wrong horse....for the wrong reasons.

Well he did reply with more data to add to the common skeptic assertions. By the way has anyone caught the flaw in one of my statements in the topic posting?

Valhall,
What exactly have you read from Nietzsche?

Why do you think Nietzsche's thought confuses the masses?
Where do you find commonality in Nietzsche's thought?

Repy to Antichrist:
Antichrist has given another common assertion of the anti-theist: There are all those "many contradictions" in the Bible. Most of the skeptics get their "Biblical contradictions" from www.skepticsannotatedbible.com. They go to this particular web site and look up a few passages and there you are. Which proves my original contention, the skeptics just go to some web site and look up a few things there and accept as a matter of faith that there is indeed a "contradiction". They never do any other research (such as accessing a Christian web site) to determine if there is a response to the alleged contradictions. The web site www.skepticsannotatedbible.com is quite a trip. The believer should look into the web site for some laughs. They have placed icons besides the passages of the Bible (KJV) which indicates what the "contradiction" is. I imagine that it might be a reflection on the reading ability of the average person using the site; you got to use little smiley faces and daggers to get the message across. Some of the passages marked are really funny in a strange way - it shows that the people who "annotated" the Bible did not really have a clue as to what they were reading. Each passage is viewed as a separate entity and there is no attempt to consider it within the context of what is being discussed. Other passages are in blue underlined text and below is a commentary. One I remember in particular, the skepticsannotatedbible had underlined in such a way was the passage (Exodus 1:18-1:20) criticizing the midwives lying to pharaoh about the birth of Hebrew children. Well I guess the purport of the passage was to indicate it is wrong to lie to save the life of a child especially if the child is of Jewish or Christian parents. The authors of skepticsannotatedbible.com have gone to such lengths to criticize and ridicule the Bible is that whole effort becomes a parody and any valid claims are lost in the chaff of meaningless critique.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Repy to Antichrist:
Antichrist has given another common assertion of the anti-theist: There are all those "many contradictions" in the Bible. Most of the skeptics get their "Biblical contradictions" from www.skepticsannotatedbible.com. They go to this particular web site and look up a few passages and there you are. Which proves my original contention, the skeptics just go to some web site and look up a few things there and accept as a matter of faith that there is indeed a "contradiction". They never do any other research (such as accessing a Christian web site) to determine if there is a response to the alleged contradictions. The web site www.skepticsannotatedbible.com is quite a trip. The believer should look into the web site for some laughs. They have placed icons besides the passages of the Bible (KJV) which indicates what the "contradiction" is. I imagine that it might be a reflection on the reading ability of the average person using the site; you got to use little smiley faces and daggers to get the message across. Some of the passages marked are really funny in a strange way - it shows that the people who "annotated" the Bible did not really have a clue as to what they were reading. Each passage is viewed as a separate entity and there is no attempt to consider it within the context of what is being discussed. Other passages are in blue underlined text and below is a commentary. One I remember in particular, the skepticsannotatedbible had underlined in such a way was the passage (Exodus 1:18-1:20) criticizing the midwives lying to pharaoh about the birth of Hebrew children. Well I guess the purport of the passage was to indicate it is wrong to lie to save the life of a child especially if the child is of Jewish or Christian parents. The authors of skepticsannotatedbible.com have gone to such lengths to criticize and ridicule the Bible is that whole effort becomes a parody and any valid claims are lost in the chaff of meaningless critique.

Jag, In this post you hit on what has caused militance on both sides of the believe/don't believe issue...the taking of text out of its context, which leads to pretext. So in my efforts toward what you are trying to accomplish here, I will make sure I include all context in any scriptural reference I give.

I would like to start by pointing out a misguided concept that Antichrist has stated concerning why christians "hold an allegiance" to their faith:

"and for being so weak they will bow their will to a threat called hell or eternal damnation. "

My belief and commitment to God is not based on any fear I have of the afterlife. My conviction in my faith is based on an undeniable love and awe for the Creator who was kind enough to give me an opposing thumb; artistic enough to allow me distractions in the constellations; omniscient enough to know that as time progressed and the truth of Him grew further from the original source it would be bastardized and confused...and therefore I would need a second showing of His unconditional and unending love for me in the sacrifice of the Christ; merciful enough to impart on me as a woman the "burden" and the pain of bearing a life into the world; omnipotent enough to set all we have been able to strain our manufactured eyes to see...and beyond...in a beautiful, choreographed dance of a machine that as yet no boundary has been found; and so full of grace that He accepts my apologies for being imperfect in showing my love for Him every single night, and allows me a new start the next morning. My devotion to my faith in God is because I found the one for whom my soul sings...and it is Him.

I do not concern myself with the self-centered thoughts of what will happen next. I have a few short years in this corporeal body to show my love for Him, and I will give my utmost to use that chance to its fullest.

Thank you, Jag, for providing this thread and the opportunity to share.

But isn't that the problem? People that criticise Christianity do it by taking Bible passages "out of context." People defending Christianity point this out to defend their religion. But doesn't that mean every time that a Christian quotes the Bible, they are "taking it out of context?" How do we know what is true and what is not?

Well, Maynard, I believe that we should always include the context of any scripture we discuss in a situation like this. That doesn't necessarily mean we have blather out 4 chapters of scripture, but we should be able to provide the otherside with the entire context in which to research the scripture themselves, as well as summary comments on what the context is.

But I believe you are also stating the same thing I did, misusing scripture (by taking it out of its original context and then changing the interpretation) is done on both sides of this. And it hurts both ways.

How can we really know what the correct context is? Let's say that a 1,000 years ago, a man was writing something for the Bible. It said something like God killed all the people of Babylon. A present scholar says that he was using that as a metaphor to mean something, it doesn't matter what. But the truth was, the author of the passage was a senile old man who didn't know what he was saying. How can we really know what these people meant?

[Edited on 8-8-2003 by maynardsthirdeye]

[Edited on 8-8-2003 by maynardsthirdeye]

Thank you for your wonderful post Valhall. Many people tend to forget that God has an existence and a character that is independent of what we think. It is usually more important to seek out what God thinks about us rather than worrying about what we think about God. As for me, God exists and created the universe and ultimately us, He knew you and me before the universe was created. It is fitting that we worship God and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as our savior. Indeed, when I reach Heaven, I will not desire an "big fat reward". To be fed and clothe and to be in the presence of God will be enough. To be able to have fellowship with freinds who have past on. To be able to spend eternity with those I loved will be enough. Maybe a few quiet days now and then on a river bank fishing with Peter will be also nice. I have a million questions dealing with creation, theology, physics, chemistry, history that I will ask. Indeed I rather be the brokest sob in Heaven then the richest king in Hell for in Heaven I will have the direct Love of God and be able to have direct fellowship with Him.

maynardsthirdeye as for the context of the Bible. It is usually easy to determine if metaphor is being used or if there is reference to a historical event. Sometimes faith must be applied. You assume that God would not use a senile old man to write passages for His Book unless He had a plan to make sure what that senile old man wrote was what He wanted written.

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye
How can we really know what the correct context is? Let's say that a 1,000 years ago, a man was writing something for the Bible. It said something like God killed all the people of Babylon. A present scholar says that he was using that as a metaphor to mean something, it doesn't matter what. But the truth was, the author of the passage was a senile old man who didn't know what he was saying. How can we really know what these people meant?

[Edited on 8-8-2003 by maynardsthirdeye]

[Edited on 8-8-2003 by maynardsthirdeye]

Maynard, these unfounded allegations (such as the hypothetical circumstance you posted...i.e. the "scholar" conjectures (that means he pulls it out of an orifice) that the author was a senile old man) are exactly what Jag is talking about that "unskeptical skeptics" will just pick up and run with like their hair was on fire. Without even thinking...well, now how the heck does this guy know that???

IF you will notice, all of the "well, we can't take that into account because...insert the unfounded discreditation...is AGAINST the christian faith...not ever for it. For instance, Josephus, the Jewish historian (who lived DURING the time of Christ) confirms in the 18th Book, 3rd Chapter, 3rd section of his Antiquities of the Jews that Jesus did exist; implies that he was more than just a man; confirms he had a following of both Jews and Gentiles; states he was the Christ; confirms Pontius Pilate's role, as well as the role of "the principal men amongst" the Jews in his death on the cross; that his followers were visited by him 3 days after his death; confirms that this along with "ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him" were foretold by the divine prophets of the Old Testament times; and that the Christians, at the time of the writing (ca 100 a.d.) were still in existence.

So what do the "scholars" do with this? They say it was added in later. That Josephus didn't write it, and some zealous scribe in a back room added it. And so the story goes, over and over, there is no overcoming of these skeptics when you play against people who will 1.) reject, 2.) add, 3.) modify at will just to make sure they destroy a particular faith; and then the unskeptical skeptics just accept it and run with it...propagating it on down the line. THAT is what Jag is talking about.

One of the things that irk me is the fact that these atheists generate lies to support their atheism. If you do not want to believe, then don't believe, but do not publish lies and misconceptions to support your atheism. Do your homework. One the things that really angers me is the bashing of someone elses belief (BUddhists, Hindus, etc.) to bash Christianity. For example I have shown where skeptic web sites make the assertion "Sakya Buddha was crucified as a sin atonement" and "Krishna was crucified". Well Sakya Buddha died of old age. As far as Krishna, one segment just has Krishna disappering. Another set of Hindus say Krishna died of accidental death (mistaken for a dee) as a form of Karma payback (shows to Hindus no one escapes the laws of Karma). There is a writer, Archarya S who generated these statements. No matter what 300 million Buddhists say about Sakya Buddha, Archarya S says "Sakya Buddha crucified" therefore it must be true. No matter what 600 million Hindus say about Krishna, Archarya S says "Krishna crucified", it must be true. Sometimes I wonder what goes through the minds of theses people. They will ignore what 300 million people say about Sakya Buddha and believe the ravings of one person because it can be used to criticize Christianity.

It was not making allegations Valhall. I was merely suggesting so you could better understand my concern.

MAYNARD!!! Slow down and read my words. I wasn't stating that YOU were making allegations. I was referring to the allegations you REFERENCED. I know they were not your own.

Hope we're straight!

Valhall I'm not sure why you are citing Josephus, Josephus was born after Jesus was killed.

And while he mentions that Jesus was at least a person and figure of the times, he does not support in any way that Jesus was the Son of God or that he even did any of the things the Bible says he did.

Josephus more or less ignores Jesus as far as being able to prove the Bible...

In fact quote:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man (this is vague and possibly a translater's interpretation, Josephus could just be referencing to other people's belief in Jesus's godliness); for he was a doer of wonderful works (You mean like...charities and helping those in need? What do you mean Josephus?), a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ (Christ meaning a Lord or Noble man, only after 300AD did Christ become a term for the Savior such as in Jesus Christ). And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to at this day."(So while he acknowledges people believe him to have been ressurected, or rather, alive...not even ressurected...just not dead. He does not support in any way that Jesus actually was anything the Bible Claims. He just is reciting what he knows from those who eventually wrote the Bible. Not from actual eye-witness. No one can tell what really happend to Jesus.)

I enjoy his last words, I wonder if Josephus could ever believe that Christians would be strong even 2000 years after his day...lol.

Originally posted by Valhall
MAYNARD!!! Slow down and read my words. I wasn't stating that YOU were making allegations. I was referring to the allegations you REFERENCED. I know they were not your own.

Hope we're straight!

OKAY!! THAT'S GOOD!! WE'RE STRAIGHT!!