The Canaanite Genocide, William Lane Craig, and Richard Dawkins

Rubin was a rescue. Having been seized at a dogfight when he was less than two years old, his history was highly questionable. A good deal of previous experience with abused dogs, and more specifically, a background in working with pit bulls led me to believe that Rubin still could make a good pet. Given that I was in college at the time, unmarried, no children, etc. Rubin, despite having had a questionable history, was a good choice for a dog. He was loving from the get go, but as might be expected with pit bulls in general, and a pit bull that’s actually been involved with fighting on any level, he exhibited a good deal of dog aggression. As days turned to weeks, months, and eventually years, time at the dog park, time with friends dogs, and a good deal of discipline turned Rubin into a reasonably stable dog, great with people, okay with other dogs, but probably never be trusted entirely around other dogs.

And he never was.

As life went on, college turned into grad school, I married, had children, etc. Rubin was there for all of this… really through every experience of my adult life, and given this as well as his history, there is no doubt that he was my favorite pet of all time.

Eventually, we moved to a dead end road in the woods, lots of space, no neighbors… a place where the kids and dogs could run freely.

This was a different environment and living situation for Rubin. Whereas in college, he saw many different people all the time –people were constantly in and out of my college residences– and interacted with many people, people rarely come to the end of my road. What became normal for Rubin after a number of years was to not see people near my home. I suppose that over time, he interpreted this to mean that people were not supposed to be at the end of my road.

Though great with my young children, Rubin gradually became less and less reliable around strangers. It was his opinion that our home was ours exclusively, and that others didn’t belong there. What made the situation worse is that he reacted badly to people being frightened of him. The difficulty here is that people are naturally inclined to be frightened of 80 lb pit bulls that are barking and growling at them.

Continue reading “The Canaanite Genocide, William Lane Craig, and Richard Dawkins”

Regarding William Lane Craig’s Refusal to Debate John W. Loftus

Numerous readers have pointed out the apparent inconsistency between The Reactionary Researcher (TRR) commenting on Richard Dawkins’ refusal to debate William Lane Craig, arguably the world’s leading and most well-known Christian apologist, while seemingly ignoring another similar inconsistency: William Lane Craig’s refusal to debate John W. Loftus. In all honesty, TRR has not previously commented on this because:

  • TRR had not heard of John W. Loftus

Thus, TRR had not heard of Craig’s refusal to debate anyone, much less, John W. Loftus, specifically.

So, exactly who is John W. Loftus?

Interestingly, John W. Loftus is a former student of William Lane Craig’s, and according to his blogger profile:

I have three master’s degrees in the Philosophy of Religion with some Ph.D. work. I majored under William Lane Craig at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1985. I’m the author of Why I Became an Atheist, and editor of The Christian Delusion, and The End of Christianity.

It is also noteworthy that Loftus was recently added to the roster at FreeThoughtBlogs (translation = Anti-ChristianBlogs), a slightly more appropriately, but arrogantly named, multi-author blog, that is a more aggressively venomous anti-Christian spinoff from the already anti-Christian ScienceBlogs, where very little science was actually discussed anyway.

Continue reading “Regarding William Lane Craig’s Refusal to Debate John W. Loftus”

Regarding Richard Dawkins’ Refusal to Debate William Lane Craig

Author, Zoologist, former Professor at Oxford University, current emeritus fellow at the New College, Oxford, and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins, recently published an article in The Guardian titled “Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig“, addressing, logically, the issue of why Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig. Given that The Reactionary Researcher (TRR) is a big fan of both Dawkins and Craig, it was with great anticipation and expectations of a reasonable, coherent, and articulate explanation as to why Dawkins won’t debate Craig that I read this article. When I finished reading Dawkins’ piece, I found myself feeling strangely unsatisfied, which unfortunately, has become the rule rather than the exception for me when I read Dawkins recent work. I often get the impression that Dawkins believes himself to have been elevated to the status of no longer needing to offer logical, well-thought out, or coherent explanations. This would not only explain “The God Delusion“, but the inconsistent, illogical, ad hominem, harangue being discussed here.

This article expands on a more concise and simple answer addressing the question as to why Dawkins won’t debate Craig, which can be seen below:

Dawkins response in the above video is to state:

“I always said when invited to do debates that I would be happy to debate a bishop, a cardinal, a pope, an archbishop, indeed I have done those, but I don’t take on Creationists and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters; they’ve got to have something more than that. I’m busy.”

Craig is not a Creationist in the Young Earth sense of the word, and certainly is no more or less of a Creationist than the other religious figures that Dawkins mentions having debated, and as we’ll see below, Craig has much more to offer than simply being a debater. As the questioner in the video pointed out, Craig is arguably the world’s leading Christian apologist, not simply a Creationist or debater.

Continue reading “Regarding Richard Dawkins’ Refusal to Debate William Lane Craig”

God, Extraterrestrials, Science, and… Michael Shermer

Science writer and historian, founder of The Skeptics Society, Editor-in-Chief of Skeptic magazine, debater, and self-professed atheist Michael Shermer has recently authored an article titled: God or ET? You decide, wherein he proposes the following question:

What’s the difference between God and an extraterrestrial being?

Given Shermer’s status as a self-professed atheist, the answer–his answer–can be easily presupposed before one reads the article.

Nothing

In the article’s first paragraph, one encounters the following:

My question is this: how could we distinguish an omnipotent and omniscient God or intelligent designer (ID) from an extremely powerful and really smart extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI)?

Shermer further claims that any search for either God or an extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) is going to be confounded by the eponymous, self-aggrandizing, and narcississtic Shermer’s Last Law (though self-aggrandizing and self-important, Shermer–apparently–lacks any confidence regarding his future ability or opportunities to formulate additional scientific laws, hence Shermer’s Last Law):

Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God.

Continue reading “God, Extraterrestrials, Science, and… Michael Shermer”

The Pro-Choice Position is Both Logically and Morally Inconsistent

Over at ScienceBlogs, where, ironically, very little science ever actually seems to be discussed, there’s a blog titled “Dispatches from the Culture Wars“. This particular blog is authored by Ed Brayton, “journalist, commentator, and speaker”… and non-scientist, which again would be ironic were we not talking about ScienceBlogs.

Or… wait a minute, maybe that’s still ironic.

Though The Reactionary Researcher (TRR) has most probably never agreed with a single word ever posted on this blog, it’s one of the liberal atheist blogs that TRR regularly reads.

The vast majority of the unscientific rubbish posted at ScienceBlogs tends to be straight left wing political talking points, and most of it is not worth addressing directly.

That said, TRR did note a post by Brayton titled: Santorum: Jail Doctors Who Perform Abortions, the post is brief enough where it can be reproduced in its entirety here:

Rick Santorum shows just how batshit crazy he is on the issue of abortion by arguing that doctors should be criminally charged for murder for performing an abortion — even in cases of rape or incest. That’s a frothy mix of fascism and injustice.

Continue reading “The Pro-Choice Position is Both Logically and Morally Inconsistent”

William Lane Craig Debates Lawrence Krauss – Is There (Sufficient) Evidence for God? A Comprehensive Review

Christian Apologist Dr. William Lane Craig recently debated Arizona State University based theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss in North Carolina in an attempt to address the question: “Is there (sufficient) evidence for God?” You’ll note that The Reactionary Researcher (TRR) has included the word “sufficient” parenthetically, as there seems to be some question as to which question was originally proposed to the debaters. The debate moderator introduced the topic as “Is there sufficient evidence for God?”, though in his post-mortem analysis, Dr. Craig claims the debate question as proposed to him did not include the word “sufficient”. The debate can be viewed in six separate but linked sections below:


Continue reading “William Lane Craig Debates Lawrence Krauss – Is There (Sufficient) Evidence for God? A Comprehensive Review”

The Hypocrisy of a “New Atheist”

PZ Myers is a New Atheist of the nearly the same status and standing as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, or Sam Harris. He authors the prominent and extremely popular “Science Blog” entitled Pharyngula. While Pharyngula certainly does address scientific issues, like many of the blogs over at ScienceBlogs.com, deals with much more than science. Myers, being a prominent New Atheist frequently delves into religion, intelligent design, and a lot of left wing politics.

Myers is also fond of poll crashing… that is directing his minions to respond to, and ultimately skew the results of any poll he’s interested in towards his particular perspective. It’s a frequent event over at Pharyngula. I wouldn’t normally comment on this peculiar penchant, but it’s worth it to point out Myers’ hypocrisy and to read him project, and ultimately whine about the same thing he’s done, in the typical do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do fashion that’s so popular on the left.

Continue reading “The Hypocrisy of a “New Atheist””

Up ↑