Atheism and historical revisionism

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conservative (Talk | contribs) at 05:39, 4 March 2017. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg
Nikolai Yezhov walking with Joseph Stalin in the top photo taken in the mid 1930s. Subsequent to his execution in 1940, Yezhov was edited out of the photo by Soviet Union censors.[1]

Historically and presently, most atheists lean politically left (See: Atheism and politics).

Theodore Beale wrote about secular leftists and leftists in general:

Regardless of whether it is...Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, or the vast and corpulent mass of feminists, the Left has an observable tendency to shun debate. They assert many different reasons for doing so, but the truth is always revealed by their seemingly contradictory willingness to debate the incompetent and the overmatched....

One of the things that has been interesting to observe over time is the way that the heated attacks on me, both in public and via email, have all but disappeared even though my overall readership has never been larger. Why is this? My theory is this is because most of my critics, be they atheists, feminists, evolutionists, or free traders, have learned they simply cannot win in a direct confrontation. They can't openly criticize my ideas because they have learned, much to their surprise, that they cannot adequately defend their own.

As Aristotle pointed out more than two thousand years ago, even at the rhetorical level, the side more closely approximates the truth will tend to win out, because it is easier to argue when your arguments are based on truth rather than falsehood. Events will always ultimately prove the arguments of the global warmers, the godless, the female supremacists, the socialists, the Keynesians, and the monetarists to be false because their ideas are false. This is why a good memory is one of the most lethal weapons against them and why it is so easy to win debates against them, as given enough time, they are going to contradict themselves.

Why? Because they have no choice. Being false, their positions have to be dynamic, which means they can never hope for any significant degree of consistency. This is why ex post facto revision and double-talk are the hallmarks of the Left, and is why the first thing Leftists do when they are in a position of power is to erase history and attempt to silence any voices capable of calling attention to their fictions and contradictions.[2]

See also:

Soviet Union and historical revisionism

In terms of academic and popular history, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) often engaged in historical revisionism via their control of political/ideological public discourse (media, education, etc.) and via the monitoring/silencing/imprisonment/persecution of citizens through the KGB.[3]

During and subsequent to the rule of Nikita Khrushchev (1956–64), there was competition between the pro-Stalinists and anti-Stalinists in terms of how Soviet history was portrayed.[4]

Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism

See also: Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism and Atheism and communism

Militant atheism was a part of communist ideology and this is still the case in communist China (See: Atheism and communism). For example, in 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.[5][6]

Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[7] See also: Atheism and mass murder

Dinesh D'Souza took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in historical revisionism when it comes to the atrocities of atheist regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".VIDEO.

In a recent interview D'Souza declared:

Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and Communism were atheist ideologies. Stalin and Mao weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.

It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...[8]

See also:

Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:

As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether Christian or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.[9]

Karl Marx said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[10]

Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[11]

In 1955, Chinese communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, "We Communists are atheists".[12]

Atheist Daniel Dennet's commentary on Joseph Stalin

The new atheist Daniel Dennett attempted to minimize the atheism of the militant atheist Joseph Stalin. Dennett said, “ …it occurred to me—let’s think about Stalin for a moment. Was he an atheist? You might say well of course he was an atheist. No, on the contrary. In a certain sense, he wasn’t an atheist at all. He believed in god. Not only that, he believe in a god whose will determined what right and wrong was. And he was sure of the existence of this god, and the god’s name was Stalin.”[13]

Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed

Christ on the Cross by Jacques Louis David.

See also: Historicity of Jesus and Atheists and historical illiteracy

Despite their being an abundance of historical evidence for Jesus Christ living in the first century, many atheists embarrassingly claim the Jesus never existed (see: Historicity of Jesus).

In an article entitled Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth, Christopher Price wrote concerning individuals who insist that Jesus Christ was merely a mythical figure:

I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.[14]

Price also indicates:

In his book, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, Howard Marshall points out that in the early to mid 20th century, one of the few "authorities" to consider Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopaedia. He then goes on to discuss the work of GA Wells which was then recently published.
There is said to be a Russian encyclopaedia in current use which affirms in a brief entry that Jesus Christ was the mythological founder of Christianity, but it is virtually alone in doing so. The historian will not take its statement very seriously, since ... it offers no evidence for its assertion, and mere assertion cannot stand over against historical enquiry. But more than mere assertion is involved, for an attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by GA Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better.

Professor Marshall was correct that neither any earlier attempt nor Wells have swayed scholarly opinion. This remains true whether the scholars were Christians, liberals, conservatives, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or Catholic. And even GA Wells himself has now conceded that a real figure called Jesus lay behind some of the teaching contained in the synoptic Gospels.[14]

Atheists and selective use of academic consensus

See also: Atheist hypocrisy

An irony of atheists asserting that Jesus never existed is that atheists often appeal to the academic consensus when it comes to pseudoscience such evolution. And secular leftists often appeal to the academic consensus when engaging in global warming alarmism.

John Lennox's discussion with New Atheist Richard Dawkins about the historicity of Christ

John Lennox pointed out to New Atheist Richard Dawkins that Dawkins claimed in his book The God Delusion that Jesus may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".[15]

Atheist historical revisionism about the birth of modern science

In his essay Of Atheism Sir Francis Bacon wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran (Koran), than that this universal frame is without a mind."[16]

A notable fact in relation to Christianity and science is that the birth of modern science occurred in the geographic area of Christianized Europe.[17] Christians awed by the grandeur of God's creative work have long striven to understand His creativity through scientific study.

Sociologist Rodney Stark investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution. In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors,[18] only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.[18] Stark believes that the Enlightenment was a ploy by militant atheists to claim credit for the rise of science.[19]

In False conflict: Christianity is not only compatible with Science - it created it. Stark writes:

Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of Rome. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called "Scientific Revolution" of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology.

Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like Voltaire, Diderot, and Gibbon, who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise......[19]

There is abundant amount of historical evidence which demonstrates a causal relationship between the Christian world of ideas and the rise of modern science.[20][21]

Professor Eric Kaufmann, who specializes in demography and politics (and is an agnostic), wrote:

Worldwide, the march of religion can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, socialism and 1960s anarchist-liberalism. Ironically, secularism's demographic deficit means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm." [22]

Internet atheists frequently engage in historical revisionism as far as the rise of modern science in Christianized Europe.[20]

For more information, please see: Christianity and science

North Korea and the start of the Korean War

Since the beginning of the Korean War (1950–53), the communist government of North Korea, which practices state atheism,[23] has repeatedly falsely denied that the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK) launched the attack which began the war.

Evolutionary pseudoscience and historical revisionism

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists and agnostics.[24]

The creation vs. evolution issue is a matter which deals with historical science and not experimental science.[25]

The atheist Ernst Mayr was a Harvard biologist and served as director of Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology from 1961 to 1970.[26][27] Mayr was a prominent evolutionist and was referred to as "the Darwin of the 20th century".[28]

Mayr wrote:

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place.

Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.[29]

Evolution and fraud/speculation posing as fact

human evolution
Nebraska man was made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. Nebraska man turned out to be nothing more than a single pig-like tooth.

Evolution is a pseudoscience that engages in historical revisionism and often has speculation posing as historical fact (see: Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation and Atheism and deception and Evolution and just so stories). In January 2012, the Journal of Research in Science Teaching published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.[30] See also: Causes of evolutionary belief

A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist and Stephen Gould, who held a agnostic worldview[31] and promoted the notion of non-overlapping magesteria, wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[32]

An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the NY Times refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism."[33]

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".[32]

Paleoanthropology, speculation and intellectual dishonesty

A rendering of "Piltdown Man", already entrenched in scientific literature in 1922.

Paleoanthropology is an interdisciplinary branch of anthropology that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and artifacts.[34]

Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at Yale University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.[35]

Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book Origins in the journal American Scientist:

...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.[36]

Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:

I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory" - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.[36]
The Canadian anthropologist Paul Gosselin points out that evolution is a secular origins myth.[37] See: Evolution as a secular origins myth

Evolutionist and Harvard professor Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...."[38] In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic, Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."[39][40] In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".[40]

Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:

Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.[41][42]

Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.[43]

Evolution and just so stories

The Question evolution! campaign by Creation Ministries International is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.[44] The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found HERE

The Question evolution! campaign poses 15 questions for evolutionists.[45]

Question 12 is:

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS (USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”[45]

For more information please see:

Denial of Creation

See also: Evolution as a secular origins myth and Suppression of alternatives to evolution and Atheism and the suppression of science

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[46]

Creation Ministries International declares:

Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and secular humanism (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking abounds in universities and governments today.[47]

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal Nature. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[46]

Although he is not a creationist, the atheist philosopher John Gray admitted in 2008 in The Guardian:

A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into pseudo-science. Dennett's notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.[48]

For more information please see: Evolution as a secular origins myth

Historical revisionism about evolutionists admitting weaknesses in the evolutionary model

Quote mining is a term typically used by evolutionists to attempt to justify a knee-jerk allegation made by an evolutionist that a quote of a prominent evolutionist admitting one or more of the many weaknesses of the evolutionary paradigm is being taken out of context when in most cases it is certainly not. This reflexive denialism and/or obfuscation occurs because Darwinism is an errant religion often practiced by dogmatists and it is not science. The Darwinist and atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse admitted: "Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[45]

Atheists and the worldviews of the founding fathers of the United States

Samuel Provoost served as the first Senate Chaplain in 1789.

Despite a very large percentage of founding fathers of the United States being Episcopalians/Anglicans, Presbyterians and Congregationalists, atheists often falsely argue that a very large percentage of the founding fathers were deists/godless.[49]

According to the U.S. Senate website:

New members to the Senate discover an enduring tradition in the chaplain's daily prayer. Soon after the Senate first convened in New York City in April 1789, it selected the local Episcopal bishop as its chaplain. Moving to Philadelphia the following year, senators again chose that city's Episcopal bishop. Arriving in Washington, D.C., in 1800, the Senate continued selecting clergymen from mainline Protestant denominations–usually Episcopalians or Presbyterians–to deliver opening prayers and to preside at funerals and memorial services for departed members. These chaplains typically served for less than a year and conducted their Senate duties along with their responsibilities as full-time leaders of nearby parishes. In 1914, the Senate began including the full text of its chaplain's prayer in the Congressional Record.[50]

Richard Dawkins lost a debate to a rabbi and then denied the debate ever took place

See also: Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Atheism and Debate and Atheism and cowardice

Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins

As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.[51]

Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:

...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?[51]

WorldNetDaily offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:

That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained.

"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.[52]

Shmuley Boteach (see license agreement)

Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:

I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.[51]

A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.

A supporter of the Question evolution campaign wrote:

We don't believe a word Richard Dawkins says and for good reason. For example, he claimed to have never debated Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, but then he had to admit a debate took place as it was videotaped. According to the student audience, the rabbi won the debate as he convinced more students of the validity of his position concerning the existence of God.

Furthermore, an angry and embarrassed Dawkins then claimed the rabbi shrieked like Adolf Hitler. Now tell me, how do you forget a debate with a rabbi who supposedly shrieks like Adolf Hitler? Obviously, Dawkins exposed himself for the clown and fraud he is.[53]

Richard Dawkins' historical revisionism about whether or not he was ever an atheist

Despite arguing for the position of militant atheism previously, the agnostic Richard Dawkins told the Archbishop Dr. Rowan Williams that he never said was an atheist.[54][55][56]

Dawkins has exhibited a history of erratic behavior in terms of his public persona and whether or not he is an atheist or an agnostic (see: Richard Dawkins and agnosticism and Richard Dawkins' Publisher's notice of his upcoming book and the issue of inconsistency and flip-flopping).

Richard Dawkins' claim that Lincoln and Kennedy were closet atheists

See also: Closet atheist

It is common for atheist activists to exaggerate the number of people who are atheists. The atheist Georgetown professor Jacques Berlinerblau declared about American movement atheists: "They wildly overestimate their numbers. They tend to overestimate the efficacy of their activism." [57]

One tactic that is used by atheist/agnostic activists to artificially inflate their numbers is to claim that a great number of people are closet atheists/agnostics.

Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins

The Times of India has a quote from Richard Dawkins about the closet atheist issue:

When will we see the first atheist President of the US? "I suspect we have already seen several atheist US presidents, they just didn't admit it," responded Dawkins. "I suspect Lincoln was an atheist, probably so was Kennedy. Obama is an intelligent man, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's a closet atheist". Does that make them all hypocrites? "You can't be an American politician without being a hypocrite," signed off the renowned biologist and ardent Darwinian.[58]

The book Abraham Lincoln: From Skeptic to Prophet by Wayne C. Temple is a well-research book which demonstrates that although Lincoln was somewhat of a freethinker/skeptic as a young man, he did become very religious later in life.[59]

Christianity Today says of Abraham Lincoln's religious beliefs:

Confusion about Lincoln’s religion arises from the multiple ambiguities of his life. On the one hand, Lincoln was, in the words of biographers James Randall and Richard Current, “a man of more intense religiosity than any other President the United States has ever had.” On the other hand, Lincoln’s faith was not conventional...

The greatest difficulty in coming to a clearer picture of Lincoln’s faith is the fact that his religion does not fit into modern categories. He was not an orthodox, evangelical, “born-again” Christian striving toward the “higher life” (as these terms have been used since the 1870s). But neither was he a skeptical “modernist” with a prejudice against the supernatural and an aversion to the Bible.[60]

CNN says of John Kennedy:

He was famously unfaithful to his wife but fiercely loyal to his church, even when it threatened his quest for the presidency...

As president, Kennedy continued to say his daily prayers, morning and night, his sister Eunice told historians. But “that doesn’t mean he was terribly religious,” she said.

“He was always a little less convinced” than the rest of the Kennedy clan, Eunice continued, especially his brother Robert Kennedy, who took after Rose.

Still, Eunice said John always hustled off to Mass on Sundays, even while traveling. Maier, the Kennedy biographer who called him Mr. Saturday Night and Mr. Sunday Morning, said The New York Times’ index of the president’s travels show him faithfully attending Mass once a week, wherever he happened to be.

“The popular perception is that he wasn’t all that religious,” Maier said, “but by today’s standards he would be called a traditional Catholic.”

Dallek said he believes Kennedy attended religious rituals more out of duty than desire. “This is the faith he was reared in, and something his parents expected him to do,” the historian said.

“As president it was kind of mandatory to go to church, to show that he was a man of good Christian faith. But was it something that informed his daily life and decisions as president? I don’t think so.”

Others, however, see echoes of Kennedy’s Catholic upbringing in his most famous speech, the 1961 inaugural address. In it, the new president urged Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

“The words chosen seem to spring from a sacramental background,” the Rev. Daniel Coughlin, first Catholic chaplain in the U.S. House of Representatives, wrote in a recent blog post.

“In fact, the whole speech was framed by his belief in a living and ever-present God both at its beginning and in the end,” Coughlin wrote.

Two months later, in a move that may have harkened back to meeting the Catholic missionary, Kennedy founded the Peace Corps. [61]

Atheist cults and atheist denialism

Whenever bizarre, atheist cults are brought up within the secular religion of atheism, atheists commonly engage in denialism concerning atheism cultism using the logical fallacy of the No true Scotsman fallacy.[62] Yet, the historical record is clear that atheist cults have existed since at least the time of the French Revolution.

For a list of atheist cults, please see: Atheist cults

Huxley Memorial debate and an accusation of historical revisionism

See also: Huxley Memorial Debate

The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".[63] The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".[64] Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop Samuel Wilberforce over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.[65] The Discover article stated the following:

Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as Alister McGrath, an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."[63]

The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper EastSideweek which states the following:

...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to Simonyi's gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."
Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith

Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a creation scientists the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed. Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:

A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.[66]

The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/intelligent design circles and the debate was tape recorded.[67] In August 2003 the Creation Research Society published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.[68] The Creation Research Society declared:

Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).[68]

Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist.

In August 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.” Morris also said about the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.[69]

Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings

As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).[68]

Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins

As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.[68] Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.[68]

Recommended books

  • The New Atheist Denial of History By Borden W. Painter Jr., 2005
  • Dimitry Pospielovsky, (December, 1987), A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheism and Soviet Antireligious Policies, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0312381328
  • Dimitry Pospielovsky, (November, 1987), Soviet Antireligious Campaigns and Persecutions (History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believers, Vol 2), Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0312009054
  • Dimitry Pospielovsky, (August, 1988), Soviet Studies on the Church and the Believer's Response to Atheism: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believers, Vol 3, Palgrave Macmillan, hardcover: ISBN 0312012918, paperback edition: ISBN 0312012926

See also

External links

References

  1. The Commissar Vanishes
  2. The distaste for debate, Theodore Beale
  3. Klaus Mehnert, Stalin Versus Marx: the Stalinist historical doctrine (Translation of Weltrevolution durch Weltgeschichte) Port Washington NY: Kennikat Press 1972 (1952), on the illegitimate use of history in the 1934–1952 period
  4. Roger D. Markwick, Rewriting history in Soviet Russia : the politics of revisionist historiography, 1956–1974 New York ; Basingstoke : Palgrave, 2001, on legitimate Soviet Historiography particularly in the post 1956 period.
  5. China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism, New American, 2014
  6. China's Communist Party Bans Believers, Doubles Down On Atheism
  7. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
  8. http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1053&Itemid=48
  9. http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm
  10. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
  11. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm
  12. Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.
  13. Atheism
  14. 14.0 14.1 Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth by Christopher Price
  15. Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed
  16. Bacon, Francis, Of Atheism
  17. http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749
  18. 18.0 18.1 Williams, Alex,The biblical origins of science, Journal of Creation 18(2):49–52, August 2004.
  19. 19.0 19.1 http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3274629/False-conflict-Christianity-is-not.html
  20. 20.0 20.1 THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE vs. HISTORICAL REVISIONISM
  21. Christianity and the birth of modern science
  22. Shall the religious inherit the earth? - Eric Kaufmann
  23. Elizabeth Raum. North Korea. Series: Countries Around the World. Heinemann, 2012. ISBN 1432961330. p. 28: "North Korea is an atheist state. This means that people do not pray in public or attend places of worship. Buddhist temples exist from earlier times. They are now preserved as historic buildings, but they are not used for worship. A few Christian churches exist, but few people attend services. North Koreans do not celebrate religious holidays"
  24. Evolution is not operational science
  25. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/mayr.html
  26. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/2/l_062_01.html
  27. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2005/02/04-mayr.html
  28. Ernst Mayr, Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, Lecture 1999, ScientificAmerican .com, 2009.
  29. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/
  30. 32.0 32.1 "Another Evolution Fraud Exposed" - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.
  31. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF
  32. Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology
  33. Answers in Genesis, Those Fossils Are A Problem
  34. 36.0 36.1 Sean Pitman, M.D., Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals
  35. Myths of Origin and the Theory of Evolution
  36. Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”
  37. Brad Harrub, Ph.D., The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins
  38. 40.0 40.1 National Geographic (online edition), Joel Achenbach, PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?
  39. Frank Sherwin, M.A., "Human Evolution" An Update
  40. Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense
  41. Question evolution! campaign by Creation Ministries International
  42. 45.0 45.1 45.2 15 questions for evolutionists
  43. 46.0 46.1 http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one
  44. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf
  45. The atheist delusion, John Gray, The Guardian, Friday 14 March 2008
  46. Chaplain's Prayer, U.S. Senate website
  47. 51.0 51.1 51.2 http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx
  48. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565
  49. Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach debate
  50. 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic, Daily Mail, 24 February 2012
  51. Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
  52. Richard Dawkins on militant atheism
  53. Professor Jacques Berlinerblau tells atheists: Stop whining!, Christian Century, Sep 14, 2012 by Kimberly Winston
  54. Look forward to the death of organized religion: Richard Dawkins, Iimes of India
  55. The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln, by Michael Burlingame and Abraham Lincoln: From Skeptic to Prophet, by Wayne C. Temple by ROBERT McCOLLEY
  56. The Puzzling Faith of Abraham Lincoln, Christianity Today
  57. How Catholic was John Kenney, CNN
  58. Atheist cults
  59. 63.0 63.1 http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/
  60. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp
  61. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n1/kids
  62. http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm
  63. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/1986-huxley-memorial-debate/
  64. 68.0 68.1 68.2 68.3 68.4 http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF
  65. http://www.icr.org/article/811/