U.S. Foreign Policy 101: A Video Presentation by William Blum

I found this interesting video put together by William Blum, the latest author I've begun reading. I agree very much with it. I only wish more people opened up their eyes to its truth.

Arizona Atheist vs. David Marshall: 2013

Please don't ask me what compelled me to go to David Marshall's blog. Call it boredom, but one evening I was feeling at least a little optimistic that maybe – just maybe - I could get him to cough up some justifications for a few of his views to see if he could rationally defend them. Surprise, surprise! The same old elusive David Marshall resorted to his usual intellectually dishonest games and danced around the real issues. It was yet another lesson in the intellectual bankruptcy of David Marshall. This discussion took place from May 12, 2013 through May 14, 2013.

Below, I commented on a blog post of his where he decides to comment on a few of the negative Amazon.com reviews of his book and he took time to throw in a little paragraph about yours truly. I took all of my reviews down, including the one about Marshall's book on Amazon.com a little over a year ago out of protest at the censorship of atheists on their forums and because I was tired of the immature Christians who continuously trolled the forums, comment sections, and did nothing but insult me, all the while refusing to back up their claims with any facts.

This is the paragraph where he mentions me:

But the kinds of arguments in this thread seem to have attained a kind of viral status on a microcosmic level. I am sometimes confronted with their like, often attributed to a fellow calling himself Arizona Atheist, who is also fond of trying to debunk The Truth Behind the New Atheism. There is a thought out there that AA has succeeded in some way. It is not a thought I find it easy to lend credit to, because when I read AA's arguments, I seldom find even an accurate summary of my arguments, let alone anything resembling good reasons for rejecting them.

This was my initial reply to his comment:

Arizona Atheist:

Hi David,

I happened to wander over here this afternoon and I got a kick out of your “review” of Grayling's newest book The God Argument and this post in particular, especially when you reference me. I'm dumbfounded why you continually mention me but fail -always- to seriously address my responses to your arguments. Yes, you've made several half-assed attempts (such as here and here) but you always fail to do your homework and when I point out your errors you deny them, run off, and declare yourself the victor in said debate. Very strange behavior if you ask me. I would appreciate a serious, thought out response at some point if you ever feel you're capable. It would be interesting reading.

Maybe I can explain something to you. The reason there is a “thought out there” that I've refuted your book is because I have. I have quoted you accurately and explained your arguments accurately, and I have offered detailed reasons why your arguments fail. I'm sorry, but the reason so many believe I've refuted your book is plainly because I have. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

Thanks.

David Marshall:

Ken: I don't know why you find my mentioning you "strange behavior." You're probably written more words in response to this book, than are contained in the book itself. And you've posted them all over heaven.

I mention several of my more extreme and silly critics in the OP. You're kind of on the edge of that pack -- not as vitriolic as Beazley, for instance. But I also explain why I have only rarely responded to your many arguments:

"When I read AA's arguments, I seldom find even an accurate summary of my arguments, let alone anything resembling good reasons for rejecting them."

Which is also why I have only read a small fraction of them.

Also, there's your ridiculous conceit that I'm the one "campaigning" against you, as if a few mentions here and there were the cause, and your actual campaign against me - which started earlier, and involved maybe 50 times as much typing -- were the effect.

And finally, you almost never seem to admit even the most blatant error. Readers can scan my previous post rebutting your patently false claims about Justin Martyr on this site:

http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2011/07/arizona-atheist-richard-carrier-and.html

Note the accurate comments of JS Allen:

"I have to say, this is pretty surreal. David just gave comprehensive evidence that Christians (including Justin) rely on many other sources besides blind faith. Additionally, David conclusively shows that Justin relies on sources other than scripture.

"You have a really weird style of apologetic. If you were just going to ignore the facts, and accuse him of being "crazy" and "deluded", why did you even bother writing your 44,000 rambling and semi-coherent words in the first place?"

Despite the patently obvious fact that Justin Martyr does in fact appeal to many forms of evidence besides Scripture -- to the extent that he appeals to that at all -- you declare total victory and stalk off, saying you won't debate the point any more.

Well why should I want to? I only enjoy talking with people who care about truth. If you insist on standing by such nonsense (and Tim McGrew and I will be publishing more on Justin shortly), then what's there to talk about? Whether the moon is made of blue cheese or cheddar?

Arizona Atheist:

Hi David,

Interesting response.... It appears your reading comprehension has once again failed you (just as it has with your quoting of various Christians about faith and regarding Richard Dawkins). Let me see what I have to correct here...

Ken: I don't know why you find my mentioning you "strange behavior." You're probably written more words in response to this book, than are contained in the book itself. And you've posted them all over heaven.

Sorry, but you misread me. The fact that you mentioned me isn't what made me scratch my head. It's what you said. As I said in my previous comment: “you always fail to do your homework and when I point out your errors you deny them, run off, and declare yourself the victor in said debate. Very strange behavior if you ask me.” I don't understand your unwillingness or your strange inability (I'm not sure which it is) to admit when you've been proven wrong. Really, it's the only way people learn and there's no shame in it. But, despite this unforgiving denial of your wrongness, you continue to claim that neither I, or anyone else, has successfully responded to your points. Then, despite being proven wrong you write on your blog and around the web how you were somehow victorious, when it was clear that wasn't the case, like your debate with Carrier for instance (or me on I don't know how many occasions).

"When I read AA's arguments, I seldom find even an accurate summary of my arguments, let alone anything resembling good reasons for rejecting them."

Which is also why I have only read a small fraction of them.

This is an interesting ploy you have, but not uncommon among the less talented debaters. When shown wrong, rather than admit your error, you play the following game: you claim (against all rationality) that you've somehow been taken out of context. I'm sorry, but I've quoted you extensively and I know your arguments probably better than anyone, having read your book numerous times, debated with you on several occasions, and written and thought a lot about your arguments. Even more than that, you have failed to demonstrate that I don't understand. You never point to any examples, which makes it obvious what your plan really is. Avoid the discussion and move on to something else out of fear that your argument will be found out to be fallacious.

Also, there's your ridiculous conceit that I'm the one "campaigning" against you, as if a few mentions here and there were the cause, and your actual campaign against me - which started earlier, and involved maybe 50 times as much typing -- were the effect.

I never started a campaign against you. All I ever asked was for a straight up, honest debate without any of your snarky comments and insults and discrediting campaigns. I never got one. After taking such abuse, I did eventually write a lot exposing your behavior to clear my name of your bogus charges, but that happened much later, after I was on the receiving end of your personal attacks. I'd rather not rehash old nonsense though. I know what happened, and I'd rather put that behind us and stick to the discussion at hand.

And finally, you almost never seem to admit even the most blatant error. Readers can scan my previous post rebutting your patently false claims about Justin Martyr on this site:

http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2011/07/arizona-atheist-richard-carrier-and.html

I'm sorry, but it is you who is in error, which I tried in vain to convince you, but once again, either you are being willfully ignorant or you don't understand the passages that you're reading and the arguments of the New Atheists.

Note the accurate comments of JS Allen:

"I have to say, this is pretty surreal. David just gave comprehensive evidence that Christians (including Justin) rely on many other sources besides blind faith. Additionally, David conclusively shows that Justin relies on sources other than scripture.

"You have a really weird style of apologetic. If you were just going to ignore the facts, and accuse him of being "crazy" and "deluded", why did you even bother writing your 44,000 rambling and semi-coherent words in the first place?"

This is hilarious. Neither you or Allan seemed to understand anything in that discussion and it was clearly you who were in error. Allow me to quote my response to Allan's nonsense. I said, “Let’s try this again shall we?

JS,

I didn’t agree with David in the least. Like him, you also don’t understand the New Atheists’ argument about faith. It’s not that Christians never rely on evidence in their daily lives, but do not rely on evidence for their religious beliefs. Even Sam Harris says exactly this:

“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.”

Therefore, I’m not wrong in the slightest. You and Marshall are. Just as Harris stated, Christians do often demand evidence in their daily lives just as Justin demanded evidence for crimes of Christians but didn’t cite anything except the bible when referencing his religious beliefs. Got it? I hope so...”

What's surreal is this odd disconnect of so many Christians.

Despite the patently obvious fact that Justin Martyr does in fact appeal to many forms of evidence besides Scripture -- to the extent that he appeals to that at all -- you declare total victory and stalk off, saying you won't debate the point any more.

Sorry, no. It's actually the other way around. I left simply because I was unable to stand the insanity any longer.

Well why should I want to? I only enjoy talking with people who care about truth. If you insist on standing by such nonsense (and Tim McGrew and I will be publishing more on Justin shortly), then what's there to talk about? Whether the moon is made of blue cheese or cheddar?

Truth? Truth??? I think you really need to think hard about that word. Truth means corresponding to reality. Most of your views (about Justin Martyr for example) definitely do not correspond to reality.

Maybe I can try one more time.

You appealed to Justin Martyr as a man who admitted of relying on evidence for his religious beliefs. Correct? Yes or no? This argument was brought out against Richard Dawkins' and the New Atheists' claim that Christians have “blind faith,” that they don't bother with evidence. Is this accurate?

Here is your argument for Justin verbatim:

“Here's the bit I cited:

"Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honor and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions."

What is he talking about? What methodology is he pushing, here? Read the Bible, and see? No:

"For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgement, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumors which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves. For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us."

The inquiry here is judicial and historical. The question is whether Christians are "evil men," whether they in fact commit the crimes they are accused of. (Much like the claim that a certain Norwegian mass-murderer really was a "fundamentalist Christian," as often alleged.)

"Do the investigation!" Justin is saying. His address is to the emperor (chapter 1), and he is asking for a JUDICIAL review, not a Bible study. In fact, he has not even mentioned the Bible, yet.

In the next chapter, he makes the nature of the inquiry, and of Christian reason, even more clear:

"We demand that the charges against the Christians be investigated, and that, if these be substantiated, they be punished as they deserve . . . But if no one can convict us of anything, true reason forbids you, for the sake of a wicked rumor, to wrong blameless men, and indeed rather yourselves, who think fit to direct affairs, not by judgement, but by passion."

This is a direct quote from your response to my blog post. Now, what's wrong with this argument? First, what do the New Atheists argue? Allow me to quote Sam Harris.

He's written, “Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.”

What is he talking about here? He is referring specifically to religious beliefs. He's arguing that in every day life Christians do often utilize evidence in their own lives. However, they often do not do this when it comes to their religious beliefs. How is this relevant to your argument? It's very simple.

What evidence did you cite that Justin used? Let me quote you so I'm not once again falsely accused of not understanding your arguments. You said, “What is he talking about? What methodology is he pushing, here? Read the Bible, and see? No:

"For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgement, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumors which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves. For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us."

The inquiry here is judicial and historical. The question is whether Christians are "evil men," whether they in fact commit the crimes they are accused of. (Much like the claim that a certain Norwegian mass-murderer really was a "fundamentalist Christian," as often alleged.)”

You're appealing to Justin's letter to Emperor Antoninus Pius asking that Christians not be persecuted solely for their faith. He was asking them to appeal to reason and evidence and see that what they were doing was wrong. Would you agree this is what the passage you cited is discussing? Yes or no?

Why is this not an argument against the charge of blind faith? Because, Justin isn't even discussing his religious beliefs! He's discussing issues that are pertaining to the real world, in society. This has nothing to do with providing or demanding evidence for his religious beliefs, which is the issue under discussion by you and the New Atheists. Do you not understand this? Am I getting through this time? I don't know how much clearer I have to be. Maybe I can use pictures next time?

As I've demonstrated (hopefully for the last time), you have horribly taken Justin out of context.

But, alas, I'm still waiting for that knock-down response Marshall has been telling me he's going to write about my review for the last several years. The only response I've received so far is a critique of about a page and a half of my review(!), and that wasn't even the slightest bit factual.

David Marshall:

Ken: We've NEVER "debated," in any meaningful sense of the word. I've taken time to correct a few of your errors, and you often repaid me with curses and silly insults. It is not a chore I much enjoy, so you could be right about me not reading your remarks all that carefully.

Here's your claim about Justin Martyr, again:

"Throughout his Apology the only 'proof' he cites is scripture. Justin Martyr's argument summed up is not one of inquiry and evidence, but one of blind faith that the scriptures are true, and that's what he used as 'evidence,' when he never checked the reliability of such writings to begin with. According to Richard Carrier:

"You can read Justin's two apologies back to front and never once find any other methodological principle or source of his faith [other than the scripture]."

This is manifest nonsense, as I showed.

Your answer? Justin was not appealing to evidence for his "religious beliefs," just for daily matters.

Even if that were true, so what? You said the only proof Justin cited was Scripture -- you didn't say, the only proof for religious beliefs. Carrier said, read Justin back to front, and you find no other methological principle OR source of faith (than scripture)."

The word "or" here indicates that one only has to find EITHER such a principle, OR such a source of faith, to falsify the claim.

Clearly, then, it is falsified. One finds other "methodological principles" all through the book, as proven by my quotes.

If you were wise, you would at least admit sloppy wording, here. It is obviously far easier to read your claim in this broader sense: that's all you say in the paragraph's thesis sentence, most of its other sentences, and is implied by the Carrier quote.

Nor is the other side of the "or" accurate. In fact, Justin does not always or even usually argue FROM Scripture, assuming in blind faith that it is true. In fact, he argues TO Scripture, on grounds assumed to be held in common with his audience.

There is hardly a scrap of anything that can sensibly be called "blind faith" in the entire book. Your interpretation, egged on by Carrier, is complete baloney.
For instance: “It is yours to make accurate inquiry, and ascertain up to whose time the Jews had a lawgiver and king of their own.” (First Apology 32)

And again:

"And the prophecy, “He shall be the expectation of the nations,” signified that there would be some of all nations who should look for Him to come again. And this indeed you can see for yourselves, and be convinced of by fact. For of all races of men there are some who look for Him who was crucified in Judaea, and after whose crucifixion the land was straightway surrendered to you as spoil of war." (First Apology 32)

What methodological principle is Justin appealing to here to support Christian faith? History. Sociological survey. Look around, pagans, and see if this has come to pass.

Anyone who can't see this, doesn't read well.

In chapter 47 he quotes Isaiah 1:7 as a prophecy of the future desolation of Judea, then reminds his Roman readers that they fulfilled that prophecy: “And that it is guarded by you lest any one dwell in it, and that death is decreed against a Jew apprehended entering it, you know very well.”

What principle, again? "Read the Bible and accept it by blind faith?" Baloney. History. Demographic research.

If you can't admit such an obvious error, what's the point of chatting? I have better things to do with my breath.

Arizona Atheist:

David,

Ken: We've NEVER "debated," in any meaningful sense of the word. I've taken time to correct a few of your errors, and you often repaid me with curses and silly insults. It is not a chore I much enjoy, so you could be right about me not reading your remarks all that carefully.

I'm sorry but the fact is it is you who began with the petty insults.

Here's your claim about Justin Martyr, again:

"Throughout his Apology the only 'proof' he cites is scripture. Justin Martyr's argument summed up is not one of inquiry and evidence, but one of blind faith that the scriptures are true, and that's what he used as 'evidence,' when he never checked the reliability of such writings to begin with. According to Richard Carrier:

"You can read Justin's two apologies back to front and never once find any other methodological principle or source of his faith [other than the scripture]."

This is manifest nonsense, as I showed.

Your answer? Justin was not appealing to evidence for his "religious beliefs," just for daily matters.

Even if that were true, so what? You said the only proof Justin cited was Scripture -- you didn't say, the only proof for religious beliefs. Carrier said, read Justin back to front, and you find no other methological principle OR source of faith (than scripture).”

So what??? It makes a huge amount of difference what Justin is referring to since there is a specific subject that demands evidence for it, namely the religious beliefs of Christians (which is also what Carrier was discussing). Anything else is pointless.

This is the entire point. You have failed to demonstrate that Justin utilized anything but the bible in support of his religious beliefs. I should note too that you never quoted the passages below. I can only argue against what you give me and your argument made no sense for the reason I've explained in great detail.

Now, let's take a look at your “new” quotes:

“It is yours to make accurate inquiry, and ascertain up to whose time the Jews had a lawgiver and king of their own.” (First Apology 32)

You've once again taken Justin out of context. What does he use for his source for this statement? The bible! He's citing what he learned from scripture about what Moses allegedly said abut Jesus.

"And the prophecy, “He shall be the expectation of the nations,” signified that there would be some of all nations who should look for Him to come again. And this indeed you can see for yourselves, and be convinced of by fact. For of all races of men there are some who look for Him who was crucified in Judaea, and after whose crucifixion the land was straightway surrendered to you as spoil of war." (First Apology 32)

Once again Justin is citing the bible, just as Carrier said. Thus far, the only quotes of Justin you've been able to provide are 1) a quote about legal matters that have nothing to do with his religious beliefs, and 2) quotes from the bible. Now, where were those principles of “History” and “Demographic research” again? Prophesy isn't history. You do realize that no prophesy from the bible was ever fulfilled right? And the fact that you believe prophesy is a form of evidence amazes me. I'm sorry, but it's not in the least. And you've once again failed to prove your case. If only you could see that.

Then I responded a second time to clarify myself and attempt to put this debate in its proper context:

David,

It looks to me that should this discussion continue we need to take a step back and discuss what we both view as good evidence. Obviously, you believe that Justin's reliance on the bible (and it's “human testimony” to use your words) are a reliable form of evidence. I think the opposite, which is why we're looking at the same words and coming to opposing conclusions. Would you say this is accurate?

Let me explain why I don't view the bible as a reliable form of evidence (of course, had you ever read my review of your book I cover this topic in some detail). First, let's define what evidence is. My dictionary defines evidence as “something that is a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something.” I think that's pretty straight forward.

Why don't I believe that the bible is a a reliable form of proof of the stories it tells? I think it's pretty simple. The fact is, the bible isn't the most reliable document as archeology and science have shown us. So many stories in the bible have been found to be at the least exaggerations and at most complete fabrications. Because of this, I think it's a good idea to hold judgment about the validity of any story in the bible that hasn't been at least partially verified through archeology or logic. For instance, it's well known that the Exodus never happened and that many of the people in the bible are just figments of the writers' imaginations.

Had Justin cited certain historical documents, letters, etc. that we have reason to believe are real (or even better we've found them through archeological digs) then I'd say that's a good form of evidence that what he said actually happened. Unfortunately, he does nothing like this. He only cites the bible. That's it. So, why should I view this as a form of seeking evidence for his faith, when it's not? He's simply reading his bible and taking it at face value without doing any real digging to find out whether or not it's true. All ancient Christians did this (unlike what you commonly argue).

To put another way, let me use the example of the resurrection of Jesus. Why do Christians believe it? Because it's reported in the bible, but there isn't a shred of evidence this ever happened, and this is besides the fact that it's an extremely improbable event and I think doubt should be the preferred attitude until we see an man rise from being dead as a door nail. But I don't see that happening. Therefore, it's highly doubtful anything like that happened in the past either.

Yes, my bar for the evidence I will accept is set much, much (!) higher than yours, but when we're dealing with texts that have such problems I think it's the best course of action. That's what skepticism is all about. Have doubt until proven otherwise. Sadly, no Christians do this.

David Marshall:

Ken: You're imagining things. I have pointed out repeatedly, quoting Justin directly, that Justin does NOT just "rely on Scripture," either to argue in general, or to argue for faith, as you and Carrier so sweepingly claim. That is not just false, it is manifestly false, on many counts.

Also, it would be irrelevant even if it were true. The issue isn't what your premises are, or whether Justin is right to rely on the Bible when he does, it is what Justin's premises are, and whether relying on the Bible would be "blind faith" from his perspective. Whether grounds are given for faith, and whether those grounds are solid, are two completely different questions. Until you grasp and take account of that difference, you are going to continue making the same stupid mistake Gnus almost always make.

You will, in fact, continue to "believe not only without evidence, but against the evidence."

As for why I believe, that's another issue again. Where do you get off claiming that I believe in Christianity by blind trust in the Bible? That is moronic, for someone who has supposedly spent so much time reading my arguments. In fact, I not only do not usually argue that way, so far as I can recall, I NEVER argue from an assumed trust in the Bible to the truth of Christianity. Nor do I think that way. Considering how much time you've spent pouring over at least one of my books, and some of my on-line stuff, the fact that you misrepresent my thinking so badly, represents a remarkable victory over a priori dogma over evident reality, and shows why your "critique" of my book is not very valuable, even after all the work you've put into it. You really don't seem to understand my arguments very well.

Arizona Atheist:
David,

I understand your arguments just fine, thank you. Justin doesn't “just” rely on scripture??? Of course he does! As I noted earlier what were his sources of information that you've so far cited? A letter for legal redress (which doesn't even address the issue at hand, which is justifications for Christian belief) and two appeals to stories from the bible. I think it's you who is imagining things.

I believe you're very wrong. It does matter what your premises are because those premises can either lead you closer to the truth, or farther from it. One set of premises is based on reality, another on falsehood. If I began with a premise for an daily regimen of eating with the premise that saturated fats are good for me, I'm going to be in big trouble. I've got to base my premises on facts, which is that saturated fats cause arteries to clog, which is obviously bad. This same idea applies to all other areas of life, including philosophy and religion.

You say, “it is what Justin's premises are, and whether relying on the Bible would be "blind faith" from his perspective.”

I'm sorry but this is very wrong-headed. As I just explained, it doesn't matter what a person believes to be true. What matters is what the facts are, and Justin did not appeal to any form of empirical evidence for his faith whatsoever. On the contrary, I understand the different perfectly, but it's a very faulty form of reasoning as I just explained.

As for your final paragraph I was not speaking about you. I was using the issue of the resurrection to make a point, which obviously went way over your head.

Until you rethink your premises I'm afraid you're going to be stuck in this bubble of delusion. Like I said, premises matter. A lot.

David Marshall:

Ken: Let me explain this yet again. Lord knows I've tried already.

(a) One of the chief premises of the New Atheists is that by "faith," Christians mean "believing not only without evidence, but in the teeth of the evidence."

(b) That premise is distinct from the claim that the grounds for faith are in fact not intellectually viable.

I agree that (b) is more important than (a). But New Atheists claim (a), as have you, and as does Carrier. And (a) is the issue we were arguing about Justin Martyr over, not (b).

If you can't separate these two issues in your mind and argue about (a) without confusing it with (b), you'd probably be better not trying to discuss ultimate issues in public, frankly.

Arizona Atheist:

David,

Rather than these cheap evasions I think it would be helpful for you to stay on the topic at hand. Yes, I'm perfectly aware of these distinctions. I'm also aware that this rhetorical game of yours is pointless, because as I've said already, it doesn't matter what someone believes regarding their premises, what matters is whether or not the facts justify those premises. You would rather argue “Well, that's not what Christians mean by faith!” than argue about premises because I think you know you'll lose that debate.

Would you like to know why the New Atheists make this argument? Because they, like myself, also dismiss claims of the supernatural and biblical verses being given as evidence for the reasons I've already discussed. I'm simply taking the discussion back a few steps because 1) it's a logical starting point and 2) I know you can't argue for your premises so you are desperately trying to shift the topic of the discussion, which I believe is intellectually dishonest.

It does not matter what Christians mean by faith, what matters are their starting premises they bring to the table and the facts they use to support said premises. This is what the debate is really about. And you say I don't understand your arguments. I know you better than you think. You’re a slick apologist, but you're incapable of creating a logical argument because you always fail to start from a solid premise. If you worked at it, maybe your debating skills would also improve. Just a little tip there.

Allow me to clarify. The reason I think discussing premises is the most reasonable course is because we were both going back and forth arguing about Justin, “Yes he does point to evidence!” “No, he doesn't.” “Yes he does!” “No he doesn't!” with no end in sight. Therefore I decided to shift the discussion in an attempt to resolve the debate and get to the heart of the matter and why the New Atheists say what they do about faith. But it seems to me that you'd rather continue going around in a circle because then you don't have to face the elephant sitting in the room: Christians have nothing they can point to; no facts they can legitimately point to, and say, “Here, god exists.” “Jesus rose from the dead.” Therefore, if this discussion is to move forward it must start here, discussing premises.

David Marshall:

Ken: Sorry, changing the subject does not help. If you can't admit the most obvious fact about Justin Martyr's arguments -- that he appeals to other lines of reasoning besides "the Bible says it, and I believe it for no rational reason!", in fact that he does not say that at all -- there is no sense in "debating" any other issue with you.

Having denied manifestly evident reality in one case, you are certain to do so in other cases, as well. And I think that's already been shown. Zebras don't easily change their stripes, but until they do, they can't enter the Kentucky Derby.

Arizona Atheist:

David,

I see you're bowing out of discussions. Pity. But I don't blame you. Given your lack of factual premises upon which your views about Justin and his faith are based, I can see why you wouldn't want to open that can of worms. The fact is that Justin only appeals to the bible when it comes to his religious beliefs, as I've noted several times. You've been unable to distinguish between asking for evidence for his religious beliefs, versus asking for evidence in other matters. You've also badly distorted the meaning of evidence by placing the bible in the same category as any other historical document that has been confirmed. As I also explained, the bible should be treated with skepticism due to its lack of factual information. Therefore, it's only logical to be weary in believing everything the bible says until other forms of evidence can corroborate a certain passage.

Reality? I'm sorry, but until you reexamine your premises you are stuck denying reality, just as I've been trying to explain to you.

Thanks.

This was the entirety of the discussion at the time I copied it for this post. As of this posting he still has not responded. As I noted above, I can't blame him, since any discussion about his premises leads him into a dead end and he doesn't want to admit that.

William Blum and His Anti-Empire Report

Several months ago I began reading the work of William Blum, author of several very good books on U.S. foreign policy in the style of Noam Chomsky (another author I enjoy). Thus far I've read his latest, America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy: The Truth About US Foreign Policy and Everything Else, and I enjoyed it immensely. It was very educational. I also began reading his Anti-Empire Report, where he gives his thoughts on current events, which are also very interesting.

Here are his two latest Reports: The Anti-Empire Report #115, April 8, 2013 and The Anti-Empire Report #116, May 3, 2013. They're very interesting reading.

Currently, I've been reading one of his older books titled Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II--Updated Through 2003. So far, like the other book I've read of his, this one is very educational and it's been very helpful to see where the U.S. has previously invaded because it then gives insight into the U.S.'s current foreign policy decisions of many counties. I plan to buy his other books at a later date. There is even a website that appears to host copies of some of the essays in Killing Hope.


The more books I read by the left the more I'm doubting whether or not laissez-faire capitalism is the best answer. I think later this week I will explain my current thoughts if I have time.

The Torturing of Reality by the Television Series 24

Introduction

The famous television series 24 was one of the most popular shows on television during its time on the air from 2001 to 2010. During that time the show aroused much controversy, mostly having to do with its numerous scenes depicting the torturing of various suspects in order to elicit information about terrorist plots.

I first became aware of the series while in the hospital in 2001 due to a minor issue. One evening as I was flipping through the channels I came across one of the first episodes of 24. The show seemed like something I would really like. I enjoy shows that are suspenseful and leave you on the edge of your seat with anticipation about what's going to happen next, and 24 quickly grabbed my attention. In addition, one of the lead characters was played by a long-time favorite actor of mine, Kiefer Sutherland, and the actress who plays Sutherland's daughter, Elisha Cuthbert, was a nice addition to the show. Every good show needs some eye candy who also possesses excellent acting skills and Cuthbert easily filled that role.

After watching this episode I began watching it on television but I soon lost interest in the series because I was too busy at the time to keep up with all the plot twists. Over the years I thought about watching them all on DVD and several years later I decided to watch the entire series through Netflix and about six months ago I finished the entire series and just recently I bought the entire series on DVD.

When I first began watching the show I knew nothing about politics or history. Now that I've been reading so much the last several years I have an entirely new perspective about it. I have a love-hate relationship with it. I love it because one of my favorite actors plays the lead character and I think Sutherland did a fantastic job portraying CTU agent Jack Bauer. I also enjoy the fast-paced action and the edge of your seat story lines and how each show leaves you wanting more. I have problems with it because of its depiction of torture as being a useful tool for gaining needed information. I didn't like how it would often portray government agents and political leaders as heroes who engaged in grotesque or immoral acts, such as torture or dishonesty towards the American people. I did not agree with the times when the leaders decided to ignore the Constitution. I also did not appreciate how it often portrayed the U.S. as a beacon of righteousness and honor, and how it sometimes depicted (or at least hinted that) those like myself, who speak out against government crimes, as misguided, immoral, or at worst, a terrorist supporter.

24 has become one of the most popular television shows and this popularity has created some serious problems. The show's depiction of torture seems to be influencing many people into believing that torture is a useful tool to extract information from the bad guys. I can certainly understand this, since when I watched the show, sometimes even I would find myself sucked into the world of fantasy and start to wonder whether or not torture would be effective.

It was through watching this television series that got me interested in the question. After watching interviewees on Democracy Now explain to the viewers how torture is not effective, and then hearing the complete opposite from leaders in government, philosophers, and others, I wanted to look at the facts myself and come to my own conclusions.

In this post I am going to explain in detail some of the facts that I found and why I am convinced that torture is not an effective method to elicit information from suspects.

The Controversy Erupts

From the beginning, 24 garnered complaints from humanitarian rights organizations and activists who did not appreciate the television show's depiction of people of Middle Eastern descent as mere terrorists and objected to the show's portrayal of torture as an effective method of gaining needed intelligence. Even several members of the FBI would go on Democracy Nowand voice their complaints about 24's depiction of torture.

Not only did top government officials OK the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” but many U.S. soldiers (who we often forget are sometimes young, inexperienced, naïve, and immature kids) have used the television series as proof of the effectiveness of torture. This has even been confirmed in a recent book by Kurt Eichenwald called 500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars [1]

In 2005 the New York Times published an article entitled Normalizing Torture on '24', by Adam Green, which criticized the show for descending “down a slippery slope” where “acts of torture” are viewed as “normal” and “justifiable.”

Even the star of the show, Kiefer Sutherland, weighed in on the debate in an interview with Charlie Rose on January 12th, 2007, saying that “...it is widely known that you can torture someone and they'll basically tell you exactly what you want to hear, whether it's true or not, if you put someone in enough pain. Torture is not a way of procuring information. The way of procuring information is in fact quite the opposite, and unfortunately that takes a lot of time.”

In later seasons the producers and writers of 24 met with many of the concerned groups and listened to their concerns about how they depicted torture and those of Middle Eastern descent. In later shows the story lines showed some Middle Eastern men and women as “good guys” rather than as just terrorists. It also began to change how torture was shown. Not every person who was tortured gave useful information, and sometimes gave false information in the hopes of stopping the acts of brutality against them. Still, others died during their torture, and some were innocent people who were wrongly accused and tortured, all things that can realistically happen. Despite some minor changes, the show continued to push the idea that torture worked.

To Torture or Not to Torture: There is No Question

Due to much ignorance and inaccurate media portrayals of torture, it is often argued that torture may be an effective method of procuring information, particularly in the infamous “ticking time bomb” thought experiment where a philosopher ponders whether or not there may be some dire need to get information quickly from a suspect.

As I've noted in the past, philosophy is not the most useful method of getting to the truth. Facts and data must be analyzed. Mere thought experiments often conflict with hard realities that are not taken into account and this is even more stark when the subject under discussion is torture.

Given the prevalence of the view that torture is a useful tactic, what are the facts that contradict the common narrative? Well, several government documents for one. It may surprise some to learn that in 1958 the CIA had written a once classified document laying out effective and ineffective interrogation methods. It was written by “Don Compos” (a pseudonym) and it was titled ”The Interrogation of Suspects Under Arrest.” In this little-known document, it explicitly says that “torture or extreme mental torture is not an expedient device.” It continues to argue that using forms of torture in an attempt to gain information are “as short-sighted as whipping a horse to his knees before a thirty mile ride.” It then goes on to say,

It is true that most anyone will talk when subjected to enough physical pressures, but the information obtained in this way is likely to be of little intelligence value.

This same advice is just as true today as it was in the 16th Century, when a criminal handbook observed that “those tortured often succumb to 'the pain and torment and confess things that they never did.'” [2] It's a horrendous shame that the U.S. failed to heed the words of this criminal handbook, or the more recent CIA interrogation manual, because if they had, they wouldn't have unknowingly given false information to the U.N.

Some time after November 14th, 2001 a group of Pakistani forces trapped the high ranking al-Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi and delivered him to U.S. forces. [3] The U.S. wanted to extract as much intelligence from al-Libi as possible, so they secretly shipped him off to Egypt where he would be brutally tortured by Egyptian forces at the behest of the U.S. government.

The U.S. was very familiar with the details of the brutal torture methods used by the prisons in Egypt. The CIA had “voluminous files” explaining the ways in which twelve prisoners had been tortured to death by the authorities there since the year 2000. [4] It was for this very reason that the U.S. “rendered” al-Libi to Egypt. The U.S. put much pressure on Egypt to obtain any information, by any means necessary, about connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Egypt was renowned for its brutality when torturing prisoners. Not only was the U.S. keenly aware of this, but so was al-Libi. Because of this he knew what would happen if he didn't tell them what they wanted to hear, so he simply made up false information to avoid being beaten when initially being asked for any information about Hussein and al-Qaeda. It didn't work. Apparently, the Egyptians weren't happy with the information they were told, so they began to mercilessly beat him and proceeded to throw him into a box “so small that just a minute inside was agony.” After more than fifteen hours inside the Egyptians took him out and asked him again to “tell the truth.” It was then that al-Libi decided that “small lies hadn't worked” so perhaps a “big one” would. He told his tormentors that “three al-Qaeda members had traveled to Iraq to be trained in the use of nuclear weapons.” [5] It was this false information which then Secretary of State Colin Powell passed onto the U.N. in a bid to gain support for the war against Iraq. [6]

It should be obvious that centuries of data and real-life examples of torture proving to be ineffective and immoral would outweigh any naïve “thought experiments” or the ramblings of deranged and frightened political leaders. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case for most people. Perhaps another, better example, of the failure of torture to produce real intelligence is in order.

Another al-Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, was captured in Pakistan in 2002. During his several interrogations at the hands of both the FBI and the CIA a distinct pattern soon emerged. The FBI, in order to lure their prisoner into a false sense of security and trust, used rapport-building techniques which worked to get Zubaydah talking. He identified other members of al-Qaeda and other plots to attack the U.S. With each new piece of information the FBI sent reports to Washington so further intelligence could be gathered on these leads. The CIA, however, was not impressed (there was some obvious dick measuring taking place between the two agencies). They believed that Zubaydah knew much more than he was letting on and believed that rough treatment would force more information out of him much quicker than the FBI's more methodical methods.

The CIA began to utilize common torture techniques, such as stripping him naked and turning the temperature in the room in which Zubaydah was being held to such low temperatures that “at times [he] turned a bluish hue.” In addition, the CIA inflicted sleep deprivation and blasted loud music into his cell. Unfortunately, Zubaydah didn't say a word to his tormentors, despite the harsh treatment. With the CIA running out of patience, they once again asked the FBI to come back in and talk to him. And once again, after slowly regaining the FBI agents' trust after such abusive treatment, he began to talk. This time, he told the agents about another plot by an Islamist who “had plans to use a 'dirty bomb' that would spread radiation over a small area of the United States.” [7]

The lesson should be clear. Torture merely creates resentment towards your interrogators, which makes it much less likely that any useful information will be obtained, assuming the subject talks at all during this kind of treatment.

There are other examples I could cite, such as Abdullah Almalki, who was wrongly believed to be a terrorist and who was for two years held and tortured in Syria. During this time he falsely admitted to knowing Osama bin Laden under pain of torture and falsely implicated another innocent man, Ahmad El-Maati, as being a terrorist just to stop the torture that was being inflicted upon him. [8]

The above facts just barely scratch the surface of the complete failure of torture to procure useful intelligence. If the evidence and real-life case studies provided have taught us anything it's that torture essentially leads nowhere and often results in the abuse of innocent people. Of course, if the idiots at the CIA had dug into their own archives, they could have found the interrogation manual that told them what they would later discover themselves first hand.

Years of experience and unfortunate acts of torture have shown that these brutal and immoral methods are not effective, nor expedient, and they often ensnare innocent people. Any statement to the contrary is merely propaganda spread by ignorance.

Conclusion

It's a sad state of affairs when the majority of society is taken in my mass government propaganda and especially by entertainment television. Many shows on TV are meant to do just that: entertain. 24 certainly did an excellent job of that. It was a gripping dramatized thriller that kept millions glued to their television sets. Unfortunately, the fact remains that it was responsible for convincing so many that torture was a sure-fire method of quickly getting needed information. Hopefully the above facts will help to change at least a few minds.




1. 500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars, by Kurt Eichenwald, Touchstone, 2012; 420

2. A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror, by Alfred W. McCoy, Holt, 2006; 17

3. 500 Days; 185

4. Ibid.; 219

5. Ibid.; 233

6. A Question of Torture; 118-119

7. 500 Days; 277-279

8. Ibid.; 271-277

"Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens"

A new report, obtained by NBC, partially explains the Obama Administration's (twisted) rationale for their right to murder anyone they desire. Glenn Greenwald writes,

The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen. […] Last night, NBC News' Michael Isikoff released a 16-page "white paper" prepared by the Obama DOJ that purports to justify Obama's power to target even Americans for assassination without due process (the memo is embedded in full below). This is not the primary OLC memo justifying Obama's kill list - that is still concealed - but it appears to track the reasoning of that memo as anonymously described to the New York Times in October 2011.

This new memo is entitled: "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force". It claims its conclusion is "reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a US citizen". Yet it is every bit as chilling as the Bush OLC torture memos in how its clinical, legalistic tone completely sanitizes the radical and dangerous power it purports to authorize.

To read the full DOJ document click here.

Arizona Atheist: A Year in Review and a Personal Update

Dear Readers,

Happy New Year! I hope everyone's year went well and I wish everyone well. In my opinion this year hasn't been fantastic for my blog since I haven't posted too much original content. For that I apologize. I've been very busy with life in general, work, and self-study. I teach martial arts and I'm also a personal trainer. They keep me pretty busy, along with my own workouts and my self-study.

However, I did manage to write a pretty large summary this year about the bible titled The Bible: An Exposé.

In early 2012 I was contacted by Simon & Schuster and was asked to write a pre-release review for the book titled Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots, by Deborah Feldman. I unwittingly became a part of an enormous controversy regarding the book's contents. Apparently, there were numerous Jews who hated it and wanted to smear her and her book, claiming that she was being dishonest. They began a huge discrediting campaign and spread all manner of things about her. A few things looked to have been true, most other things weren't, and a lot of it I was unable to confirm. I had several anonymous people post comments to my review smearing her and whatnot. Eventually I got so tired of all the damn drama that I disabled comments to the review. I just didn't care to listen to these hateful idiots any more. Before my leaving the discussion about the book, however, I was able to post screen shots of some very disturbing and dishonest behavior coming from some of the people who were behind the Feldman smear campaign. Much of the controversy was stirred up in the review section of Amazon.com and also in the customer discussion forums.

Other original write ups this year included my response to David Marshall's ludicrous “faith and reason” argument; the continuation of a series I began way back in 2008 called The Tyranny of the State where in the fifth installment I discuss how the Constitution has been violated since the founding era. In the sixth installment I lay bare the grusome fact that the United States is just another terrorist organization.

Lately, I've been buying several books on economics from a variety of perspectives. I've bought books by the more mainstream economist Paul Krugman, books on the Chicago school, and more books about free-market economics. My plan is to amass as much information about economic theory as I can so I am better able to sort fact from fiction regarding these diverse opinions. I still think that the free-market is a worthwhile goal but due to the fact that there have never been any true to life examples of it in action I've begun to have slight doubts about it. I've thought about how events like Bank Transfer Day was a small example of the power that the people have over even large corporations. It succeeded in stopping Bank of America from instituting a $5 debit-card fee and demonstrated to all big banks that people won't put up with their antics. A true free-market would see actions like Bank Transfer Day on a national level, involving millions of people, which would surely damage the reputation and profitability of immoral companies, which would hopefully end in their destruction. But again, this is purely theoretical since it's never been done on a large scale, but it is something I would love to see happen because then this theory could be tested in the real world in large scale. If it failed, no (rational) free-market advocate could show their face again. If that's the case I've also been considering the theory of anarcho-syndicalism.

I'm looking forward to learning more and I hope I am able to see if some of my questions might be answered in the books I'll read. I've also been working on a chapter for an anthology that I believe might be published this year but that's all I want to say about it for now.

Other than my intellectual pursuits I've been working on my physicality. Since I began weight training with my friend Bob Clapp I've been very active with fitness and improving my health and physicality. My goal is to get down to about ten percent body fat and when I go for my next body composition scan I'm hoping all of the hard work has paid off and it's even lower. With all of my reading and learning, and my workouts, I feel fantastic intellectually and physically. I think a quote by the Greek philosopher Thales sums up my life's pursuits: “"Νοῦς ὑγιὴς ἐν σώματι ὑγιεῖ,” or “A healthy mind in a healthy body.”

Before I end this update I'd like to mention that I am beginning to write a post about torture and why it's not only immoral but ineffective.

Hopefully I'll have more original content for you this year.

Take care all!

Ken

The Hunt for Bin Laden and Government Propaganda

This is an interesting read, as it sorts fact from fiction about the hunt for Bin Laden. It's titled The Doctor, the CIA, and the Blood of Bin Laden, by Matthieu Aikins, and is featured in GQ magazine.