The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Anarchism

In the first piece of this series I looked at the way in which I view atheism and briefly how I became an atheist. Atheism is the first pillar of my philosophical position; anarchism is the second, and is the subject I will discuss next because atheism and anarchism are the basis for my beliefs about morality, economics, etc. which I will discuss in later installments.

Anarchism, in its original Greek, is defined as an “without” and archos “master.” Therefore, anarchism simply means without rulers, or masters.

Anarchists believe that the state, or government, is an oppressive entity and does nothing but stifle an individuals’ freedom and if he speaks up he is punished, which, when you think about it, is exactly what happens throughout history and even in present day (the recent cases of demonstrations in Egypt in 2011 is one example of peaceful protesters being beaten for speaking their minds; in America police often injure innocent, peaceful protesters [1]).

To quote the famous anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon:

To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated, regimented, closed in, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, evaluated, censored, commanded; all by creatures that have neither the right, nor wisdom, nor virtue.... To be governed means that at every move, operation, or transaction one is noted, registered, entered in a census, taxed, stamped, priced, assessed, patented, licensed, authorized, recommended, admonished, prevented, reformed, set right, corrected. Government means to be subjected to tribute, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, pressured, mystified, robbed; all in the name of public utility and the general good. Then, at first sign of resistance or word of complaint, one is repressed, fined, despised, vexed, pursued, hustled, beaten up, garroted, imprisoned [can anyone say Martin Luther King, Jr.?], shot, machine gunned, judged, sentenced, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to cap it all, ridiculed, mocked, outraged, and dishonored. That is government, that is its justice and its morality!....O human personality! How can it be that you have cowered in such subjection for sixty centuries? [2]

It isn’t hard to come up with past and current examples of the government doing precisely what Proudhon describes. For a time, the government did allow slavery; the government still spies on its citizens; [3] the governments’ henchmen, police, still arrest and beat those who protest the injustice that the government often defends (the U.S. supported the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi despite his human rights violations); we are often fined for victimless crimes, [4] and the list goes on and on. This paper is not meant to illustrate the abuses of government, though there are good references for that. [5]

We humans regularly condemn murderers, thieves, and liars in our societies, and yet when it comes to the government many of these same people defend the wars, the unjustified murders, the theft, and the countless lies that are routine for the government. Why such double standards? Can anyone articulate this to me?

One of the most common retorts is that of the “necessary evil,” but I must ask, why must evil be “necessary,” much less tolerated? Again, can this be explained to me? Why do we allow such immoral, lying, murderous individuals to rule over us? We routinely don’t allow such people in society; we lock them them up in jails and prisons, but again, we defend the government who commits acts murder, theft, etc. Wouldn’t we be better off reformulating our society where ones’ rights and freedoms were not constantly under attack?

Why the double standards? Why the tolerance for such behavior by those who govern (and in most cases don’t govern very well at all to begin with)?

Yes, yes, we have the vote, but as history clearly shows us, the vote often changes very little. Those in power still seek to restrict our rights, spy on us, etc. As Rose Wilder Lane said,

Look at any available records of any people, living anywhere at any time in the whole history of the Old World.

They revolt against their King, and replace him by another King; they revolt against him, and set up another King. In time they revolt against monarchy; they set up another kind of living Authority. For generations or centuries, they revolt and change these rulers; then they revolt against that kind of Authority, and set up another kind.

From Nebuchadnezzar to Hitler, history is one long record of revolts against certain living rulers, and revolt against kinds of living Authority.

When these revolts succeed, they are called revolutions. But they are revolutions only in the sense that a wheel’s turning is a revolution. An Old World revolution is only a movement around a motionless center; it never breaks out of the circle. Firm in the center is belief in Authority. No more than the Communist or the National Socialist (Nazi) today, has any Old World revolutionist ever questioned that belief; they all take it for granted that some Authority controls individuals.

They replace the priest by a king, the king by an oligarchy, the oligarchs by a despot, the despot by an aristocracy, the aristocrats by a majority, the majority by a tyrant, the tyrant by oligarchs, the oligarchs by aristocrats, the aristocrats by a king, the king by a parliament, the parliament by a dictator, the dictator by a king, the king by --- there’s six thousand years of it, in every language.

Every imaginable kind of living Authority has been tried, and is still being tried somewhere on earth now.

All these kinds have been tried, too, in every possible com­bination; the priest and the king, the king who is the priest, the king who is God, the king and a senate, the king and the senate and a majority, the senate and a tyrant, the tyrant and the aristocrats, a king and a parliament ---Try to think of a combination; somewhere it has been tried. [6]

And somewhere it has failed. Failed to protect the people; failed to protect their freedoms; failed to protect them from prying eyes. And these acts of rights violations, privacy violations, and brutality are most often committed by the ones we entrust with our safety, privacy and security! Ironically, Americans ignore one of the oldest and best known sayings and forms of advice we often pass on to future generations: Don’t allow the fox to guard the hen house. But we do it anyway, despite the warning!

And to the common argument that we do have much freedom, despite these many drawbacks, I again quote Lane who said,

"...a grant of liberties, no mater how extensive, is not full recognition of the fact of individual liberty."

In my mind, when is society going to reinvent the wheel, so to speak? This is the ultimate goal of anarchists.

(Dis)orderly Conduct

Anarchism does not, as is commonly argued, mean “disorder.” Even without government anarchists for centuries have proposed means of organizing a society without government so to say that anarchists wish for an absolute breakdown of rules, organization, and order is completely unfounded. While anarchists differ as to the methods to organize society, to say we do not have any methods is untrue. I will go into some of these ideas in later installments.

Bomb-Throwing, Assassinating, Lunatics

Next, I feel I must dispel another common misconception that anarchists are terrorists of some kind or are violent. To quote historian George Woodcock,

The association of anarchism with political terrorism is still well established in the popular mind, but it is not a necessary association, nor can it be historically justified except in a limited degree. Anarchists may be substantially agreed on their ultimate general aims; on the tactics needed to reach that aim they have shown singular disagreement, and this is particularly the case with regard to violence. The Tolstoyans admitted violence under no circumstances; Godwin sought to bring change through discussion and Proudhon and his followers through the peaceful proliferation of cooperative organizations; Kropotkin accepted violence, but only reluctantly and because he felt it occurred inevitably during revolutions and that revolutions were unavoidable stages in human progress; even Bakunin, though he fought on many barricades and extolled the bloodthirstiness of peasant risings, had also times of doubt, when he would remark, in tones of saddened idealism:

“Bloody revolutions are often necessary, thanks to human stupidity; yet they are always an evil, a monstrous evil and a great disaster, not only with regard to the victims, but also for the sake of purity and the perfection of the purpose in whose names they take place.”

Woodcock goes on to write,

[A]t no time was a policy of terrorism adopted by anarchists in general [and] [y]et there is no doubt that the assassinations carried out by men like Ravachol and Emile Henry and Leon Czolgosz, to name only three of the most notorious, did enormous harm to the anarchist cause by implanting in the popular mind an identification which lingers long after its justification has vanished. [7]

Individualist or Socialist?

Anarchism can be separated into two distinct groups. The socialist and the individualist. One of the most famous socialist anarchists was Michael Bakunin; one of the first persons to popularize individualist anarchist thought was Max Stirner. Socialist anarchism rejects private property and believes it to be the root of social inequalities, while individual anarchism highly values the individual, private property, ownership, and personal autonomy. I hold to the individualist branch of anarchism and I believe private property is actually one of the foundations of personal freedom. After all, how can one make use of their freedom if they have no place of their own to make use of that freedom in the first place? Yes, even without private property one can still have freedom, though by freedom I don’t just mean the ability to do what one wants so long as they do no harm to another. I also mean by freedom the ability to have a place of your own to have privacy and to have a place to store your personal belongings, and make use of those belongings without interference from others. All things that follow from Prime, which I will address in the next piece.

It’s All About the Freedom and Equality

Anarchism is ultimately about freedom and equality. The freedom to do what you want and when, so long as you do no harm to another individual or infringe upon their rights. It’s about all people treating others equally, and everyone abiding by the same rules. I will go into detail about the basis for these ideas and rights in later installments.

I think the above quotes and evidence is a good place to start in explaining why anarchists exist and what they believe and stand for, and most importantly, what I believe and stand for. While there is disagreement on the exact method of restructuring society, anarchists can all surely agree that what we have now just doesn’t work and when this takes place, when the government that the people have set up fails to do what the people set it out to do, even the founders of this country advocated the right to revolution and to reformulate the government in order to resecure our rights and freedoms. In some ways, I believe anarchists are more “patriotic” (in a certain sense) than the most diehard American because they haven’t forgotten two of the bedrock principles this country was founded upon: Revolution and Rebellion. [8]

Why Anarchism?

While I’ve discussed some of the reasons I am an anarchist above, which mirror many of the same reasons others were anarchists, I want to make clear that the reason I’m an anarchist is because of my friend and mentor Bob Clapp’s philosophy of “Scientific Individualism,” which I will explain in the next piece.



1. The Lucifer Effect, October 2008

2. Anarchism, by Daniel Guerin, Monthly Review Press, 1970; 15-16

3. Anarchists Under Surveillance

4. The Tyranny of the State, Part 4: Speed Limits

5. Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, by James Bovard, Palgrave, 1995

6. The Discovery of Freedom: Man’s Struggle Against Authority, by Rose Wilder Lane, Laissez Faire Books, Inc., 1984; 15-16

7. Anarchism, by George Woodcock, Broadview Press, 2004; 16-17

8. America: Land of the...Hypocrites?

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Anarchism

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Atheism

Atheism is defined, according to its Greek roots, as the lack of belief in gods: a “without” or “not” and theos “god.” Despite this very clear definition many atheists argue over what atheism means. Some include the rejection of the existence of supernatural phenomenon as being synonymous with atheism and not just the lack of belief in gods. Some equate atheism with free-thought or rationalism.

I disagree with each of these additions some atheists have tacked on to the meaning of atheism.

In my view, which I believe is the most logical and has the most evidence going for it, atheism is simply the non-belief of gods. The reason is because this is the most reasonable given it’s Greek roots and because of the following fact. When you look at the different forms of religion, one can easily see that not all religions subscribe to a belief in gods, so that makes them a-theistic, but they are still belief systems that contain elements of the supernatural. Take animsim as one example, which is one of the oldest forms of religion which posits that “some or all physical beings, objects, or phenomena have [a] non-physical dimension.” [1] This is a religion that is a-theistic or lacks belief in any gods, but still contains beliefs about what could be considered supernatural phenomenon. By taking these facts in consideration we can discern an accurate definition for atheism: it is a lack of belief in gods. Atheism is purely a negative and that is all. Because of this supernatural phenomena does not disqualify one from being an atheist because, just as the religion of animsim disbelieves in gods but still believe in spirits and supernatural phenomenon of some kind, atheists disbelieve in gods but can sometimes be found to believe in supernatural phenomenon.

Due to this definition of a lack of belief in gods I hold the controversial view that even babies are atheists: they lack belief in gods, just as all humans do when they’re born. God belief must be taught later in life. Some may argue the fact that humans seem to be born with an innate belief in the supernatural (we often project intentions to inanimate objects) because we are hard-wired for beliefs that are often associated with the supernatural (and religion), but those who make this argument forget that belief in a personal god and belief in the supernatural and seeing intentions and patterns where none exist are two totally different things.

While all humans are born atheists many of us, while taught religious beliefs later in life, return to our default setting of atheism despite our religious culture and upbringing through rational means by rejecting the arguments in favor of god belief. Some people just remain atheists throughout their lives because they were not indoctrinated with any theistic beliefs.

Why Atheism and Materialism?

Before I summarize why I’m an atheist and some of the evidence I examined to come to that conclusion I need to define materialism and briefly explain why I am a materialist. Materialism is the “philosophical position that considers matter as the beginning, origin, and cause of whatever exists.” [2] I studied scientific (evolution) and religious matters (the existence of god), but also the existence of the supernatural and whether or not there was a non-physical existence (such as the soul) and supernatural/paranormal occurrences (such as ghosts, etc.) which is another subject apart from atheism.

I am an individual who is an atheist (who at first became an agnostic because of certain life experiences) because of the research I began after a few Christian friends witnessed to me and I began to research all of the arguments (pro and con) for god [3], evolution [4], the age of the earth, the history of the United States and the claim of a “Christian Nation” [5], and the existence of the supernatural [6], etc. and came down on the side of the atheists, skeptics, and free thinkers. This period lasted roughly six months, though that time period only refers to how long it took me to decide that I was an atheist. I continue to read and learn about other subjects even to this day. Part of my intellectual journey consists of accepting debates from whomever who wishes to object to something I say or something I believe or view as the truth. In my mind, if someone holds a particular position it’s only rational for that person to have good reasons and evidence to believe it and if they are being rational they should be able to call up those reasons and evidence and defend their beliefs. If they cannot then their position is most likely flawed, illogical, or untrue.

To conclude, after my initial research into the truth or falsity of evolution, god, and the supernatural, I continue to research and learn about a variety of subjects and continue to wonder if anyone will eventually come to me with some evidence I haven’t already looked into and found wanting for god or some immaterial realm.



1. Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Free Thinker, by David Eller, American Atheist Press, 2007; 4

2. The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, edited by Tom Flynn, Prometheus Books, 2007; 524

3. William Lane Craig's Arguments for God Refuted

4. Critical Analysis of Evolution vs. Creation

5. America is Not a Christian Nation, Part 1; Part 2; Part 3

6. Evidence Against the Supernatural, Part 1 and Part 2

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Atheism

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Introduction

I’ve decided to begin a new series of posts I’ll call The Tao of Arizona Atheist. The tao is a Chinese word that means “the way” so the title could be “The Way of Arizona Atheist” and will be a complete and organized series outlining the entirety of my personal philosophy from atheism to anarchism. Because of my love of martial arts Bruce Lee’s book Tao of Jeet Kune Do is what inspired the title.

My goal with the series is to begin from the ground up and explain my views as they relate to atheism, Prime, and especially anarchism, and how each of these views are related and how and why they are in actuality logically valid, despite some detractors’ misunderstandings. Each post will build upon the previous one so I recommend you read each post in the order they are presented.

To the many people who comment on my blog and can never seem to understand my views I dedicate this series to you. I hope the series will put an end to the misunderstandings and will make my views on a variety of subjects easier to understand and find since, especially on the issue of anarchism, my views are often strewn throughout several posts.

I hope this series allows my readers to better understand my views and my philosophy and why I hold the views I do. In the coming months watch for each new post in the series.

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Introduction

Some Atheists Are Wrong about Communism

In my opinion there is a large error being made my some atheists when they discuss Communism and any role atheism may have played in their actions against Christianity and other religions. One of the most notable that come to mind is Hector Avalos.

In his book Fighting Words: The Origins Of Religious Violence Avalos argues that, while political motivations were more of a factor, atheism did have a role in the actions of the Communists. Avalos writes,

Our discussion will show that Stalin’s reign of terror has as much to do with politics as it did with atheism. (325)

Despite this strong stance, Avalos later admits that,

[W]e cannot find any direct evidence that Stalin’s own personal agenda killed because of atheism [...] [h]owever, we also said that inference was also an allowable method to establish causation, and we can do the same with Stalin. Stalin did follow many antireligious policies that can reasonably be attributed to his atheism. (326)

This popular atheist is guilty of committing one of the same errors Christian apologists make when discussing this issue: the belief that anti-religious actions are inherently “atheistic” in some way.

As Avalos just admitted, there is no direct evidence that Stalin (and from my research, no other Communist) killed because he was an atheist. With atheism being a motivating factor out of the equation what else could be the cause? The Marxist Communist ideology. It is illogical to assume someone’s motivations by just looking at their actions while not taking into account how important another factor might be. This is especially true when we look at the writings of the Communists and study the ideology they supported and tried to implement, which gives us a very good insight into what the most reasonable motivating factor was: their belief that certain institutions hindered the socialist progress of man and one of those was religion.

Vladimir Lenin wrote,

The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching...It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion...It means that Social Democracy's atheist propaganda must be subordinated to its basic task - the development of the class struggle of the exploited masses against the exploiters. [emphasis in original] [1]

Lenin also wrote,

The deepest root of religion in the socially downtrodden condition of the working masses and their apparently complete helplessness in the face of the blind forces of capitalism, which every day and every hour inflicts upon ordinary working people the most horrible suffering and the most savage torment, a thousand times more severe than those inflicted by extraordinary events, such as wars [and] earthquakes. [emphasis mine]

- V.I. Lenin, The Attitude of the Worker's Party to Religion

Here are two more examples:

Religion is by no means the result of exceptional ignorance and darkness, just as it is not a question of simple logic, the result of false thinking. It has its roots in the social life, in the conditions of existence; it grows upon the soil of definite social relations and is determined by the class position in society of the one or the other group. - Communist Party Conference on Antireligious Propaganda, Article IX, April 1926 [2]

Here is another one:

To the query, “Does modern civilization need religion?” the Communist answer is “yes,” so far as decaying capitalist civilization is concerned. There, under the pressure of crisis, in an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear, religion serves as an escape mechanism for the classes which history has already condemned. - Julius Hecker, 1933 [3]

It was believed that religious belief was a necessary aspect of pre-socialist life but was not needed after the society transformed into a socialist one. The Communists’ attempts to create such a socialist society resulted in Stalin’s “Great Terror” and other atrocities since the population did not want to work on collective farms, and the Communists’ attempts to do away with all things they believed would hinder or be unnecessary in a socialist society, which included religion.

One thing you must ask yourself as you read through the above quotes: Do any of these mention atheism as the cause of their dislike of religion? No. It was their Communist ideology which caused them to believe that religion was a hindrance to their socialist utopia and therefore it had to go.

When I read the excellent book by Paul Gabel called And God Created Lenin: Marxism vs Religion In Russia, 1917-1929 he recounts many of the acts of persecution of religion and the murder of Christians that occurred in Russia by the Communists, and I can understand how reading these stories makes one wonder if perhaps atheism was an influence, though something Gabel does in his book that I haven’t seen in any other history book about Communism is explain Marxist ideology and how it relates to religion. This places the Communists’ actions, in a sense, in their historical and ideological contexts, rather than just telling story after story about how atheists murdered all of these religious people, which is exactly how the Christians like to frame the debate. However, to understand why the Communists did what they did you have to also understand their beliefs and then it becomes clear.

Because it’s never been demonstrated that atheism was a factor and all of the evidence points to the Communists’ ideology it’s my opinion that atheism was not a factor in motivating the Communists, and the Marxist doctrines look to be the sole cause.

Throughout the many books and websites dealing with this subject of atheism and Communism that I’ve read I don’t recall finding anyone making use of this very important and relevant information about the Communists’ ideology. With this post I hope that all atheists who wish to partake in this debate will take a little time to learn about the ideology of Marxism and Communism and this will hopefully raise the level of the debate on the issue because the subject of ideology seems mostly absent from this discussion, and I feel this argument is the best defense against this very common charge by Christian apologists.

In conclusion, I believe the error some atheists (and especially Christians) make when discussing this issue is they focus solely on the historical events of Communist Russia (the religious persecution, murder of clergy, and church closures) and not on the Communists’ ideological beliefs and how they were motivated by them. If one paid more attention to the latter subject I believe less people would be taken in by this Christian propaganda.


1. And God Created Lenin: Marxism vs. Religion in Russia, 1917-1929, by Paul Gabel, Prometheus Books, 2005; 90

2. Ibid.; 75

3. Ibid.; 75

Some Atheists Are Wrong about Communism

Police Can Be Very Stupid Sometimes 2

The Associated Press via Yahoo.com has released information about an incident where a man doused himself in gasolene during a domestic violence dispute and when police responded to the incident shot him with a taser gun, killing him by setting him on fire!!!

Not only is this another case of police brutality involving their much over used tasers but is an enormous case of complete stupidity!!! Maybe someone should ask what the required I.Q. for a police officer is in order to be hired? My guess is it’s not very high....60-70 maybe?

Here is the story copied for convenience for my readers:


Dad of gas-soaked stun gun victim sues Pa. police

PITTSBURGH – The father of a Pennsylvania man who had soaked himself in gasoline during a domestic dispute is suing the Pennsylvania State Police because his son caught fire and died when a trooper used a stun gun to subdue him.

Shawn Mohney's federal civil rights suit filed Tuesday says 24-year-old Levi Mohney suffered burns over 98 percent of his body in March 2009.

The encounter happened at a mobile home where Levi Mohney's girlfriend lived in Strattanville, about 65 miles northeast of Pittsburgh. Troopers were responding to a report that Levi Mohney had assaulted her.

Shawn Mohney's attorney tells the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that there was no need to use the electric stun gun because Levi Mohney wasn't armed and wasn't a threat to police.

State police are not commenting on the lawsuit.

Police Can Be Very Stupid Sometimes 2

David Marshall and I: The Saga Ends

A few days ago I noted a few comments about me and my review of The Truth Behind the New Atheism in the comments of David Marshall’s blog. I responded to Marshall on my blog and exposed his factual errors about his counter-argument, his hypocrisy, and his immature attitude.

Prior to this, in November of 2010, I had emailed Marshall trying to resolve our long-standing feud and I never received a much deserved apology from him, even though I apologized for my role in the dispute. Seeing his personal attacks and smears against me (his mentioning of the name change on Amazon.com and how I’ve supposedly “attacked” him all over the internet) reminded me of the emails and it pissed me off that he continues to smear me even though I apologized to him. Unfortunately, my hopes of resolving our dispute were badly let down when Marshall responded with a curt reply and refused to apologize to me for all of the rudeness and countless smear campaigns he’s subjected me to.

Yes, the email Marshall responded with could be considered a “personal” matter and might be unethical to post it, but honestly I do not believe Marshall deserves such courtesy and the email further proves him to be the immature, petty asshole that I’ve always said he is. Though, I must admit that at the very least he removed some of the lies and smears I complained about and he apologized for the error. Though I don’t believe that action can undo all of the ill will he’s shown me the last three years since we began our correspondence on the Amazon.com forums.

I apologized for my part in the disputes and he accepted my apology but doesn’t apologize to me. That really upset me. All I can say is that I tried to be the bigger man, apologize, and resolve our issues, but my hope that Marshall would act in kind was proven wrong with his reply and proved to me just how much of a jack ass he really is.

Here is the email I wrote to him on November 13, 2010 titled “Truce.”

Mr. David Marshall,

This is probably long over due but I'd like to apologize to you for any wrong you might feel I've done to you. I admit that blurting out that you were a liar in some of our first discussions was not the smoothest way to handle the situation. I believed (and still do) that you weren't being honest in admitting some of your mistakes and I wanted to call you out on it. Looking back I should have handled the situation more delicately and I apologize. It seems to me that it was that particular situation that caused things to get out of hand and unfortunately we've never resolved it.

Despite my poor judgment you escalated the situation by beginning to call me a fool, among other put downs, and then you resorted to trying to harm my credibility by various means. Spreading around the fact that I made a mistake (which when it was pointed out to me I apologized immediately) in believing you had edited your post after the fact. Then, of course, your false claims that I'd never posted any arguments from my review on the Amazon forums. J.R. Fraser started this falsehood and you followed suit. Then, you've got your most recent statements I've found where you claim I've been sending you hate messages and something about “pornographical posts” on John Loftus' blog. I'm sorry, but I have not done anything like that. This is the only time I've emailed you so if someone is writing you obscene messages, I'm sorry, but it is not me. And as far as “pornographical posts” what in the world are you referring to?

Either someone else wrote you and you believe it's me, or you're outright lying. Unlike before, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I do not appreciate these dishonest things being spread about me. I also think the proper thing to do would have been to write to me first and ask about them instead of publicly posting these slanders.

I fully accept all responsibility for my name calling in retaliation for your above behavior and again I apologize. We are both to blame here so I would hope you'd accept responsibility for your actions towards me and apologize in kind. I do not know why you feel the need to continually spread these falsehoods but I'd like you to stop. I did nothing to deserve this behavior from you and it's obviously gotten out of hand.

We both allowed things to escalate to this level and I should have written you sooner, but with these newer statements you've been spreading about me I felt I had to intervene and confront you personally because this has to stop. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate untruthful things being spread about you, so I'd hope you'd understand that I don't either. I'd be more than willing to talk about it and maybe I could even help you track down the person. No promises but I can do my best.

I'm willing to set the past aside and wipe the slate clean. Where we go from here I do not know. I just hope in the future we can move past all this and you can leave out the name calling and slanders when and if we ever correspond again. I wouldn't mind conversing with you, or even discussing issues in your book, but all I ask is that you treat me with respect and you will get respect in return. That is all I've ever asked for. That's not too much to ask is it?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the matter and hopefully we can resolve this amicably.

Sincerely,

Ken

Marshall replies to me on November 14, 2010:

Ken,

Thanks for apologizing.

I'll take your word for the fact that those messages came from someone else. I hope you can see why I thought it was you -- you have used a number of names to post, one of which was quite similiar to the one these were posted under, you have shown yourself clever about finding new on-line forums in which to attack me (and that is the right word), you have used foul language from time to time, I thought you were on the thread, and while going a bit further than you have in the past, perhaps, it was reminiscent of your worst comments to JR.

But I do not want to falsely accuse anyone. If you can remind me where I said that, I'll gladly delete or alter those comments.

I also apologize for getting this wrong, as apparently I did.

Considering all the vitriolic attacks you have posted against me in different forum on the Internet, I think that's about as far as I can go at the moment.

All the best,

David Marshall

I responded on the same day and I never received a reply. I wrote back:

Mr. Marshall,

Thanks for the reply. The two messages can be found here, one on Amazon and one on John Loftus' blog. Those are the two that I know of anyway. I haven't seen any others.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2UGL9J4POFWMC/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=6&cdPage=1&asin=1414317085&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxO6FP0F8KEPQL#MxO6FP0F8KEPQL

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21219785&postID=1846579974736732117

I appreciate your willingness to delete these. You mentioned a forum? What forum are you referring to? I'm curious to see these posts for myself and what handle the person was using. I was assuming someone emailed you and said these things.

I'm perplexed about your accusation since I've never “attacked” you. You've made this accusation many times and I do not understand why you think this. However, I think you are referring to the times I posted my review of your book on a few online forums, which I posted with my blog name, Arizona Atheist, and not any other so I don't know what you mean when you say I've used other names. I[n] fact, I believe there are only three places where I've posted my review of your book. On a forum called Network54.com, Amazon.com, and Richard Dawkins' old forums, which are no longer. As far as changing my Amazon handle twice in the last three years I even mentioned the name changes in my profile and never denied changing my name. Because of this I find it hard to believe how you could think I did it maliciously in order to attack you.

In these posts all I ever did was ask people to critique my review...that's it. I never “attacked” you or any such thing. I wanted to get feedback on my review so I could correct any possible errors.That's the only reason I did it. Why you believe posting a review of a book to get feedback is an “attack” I just do not understand.

And, like I said in my first email, I'm sorry for my language but I was responding to your many insults and dishonest things you've spread about me and I simply got tired of it and lost my temper. The same with J.R. since he was the one who began that outright lie to begin with. My actions were in response to his attacks (and insults) against me.

I would really appreciate a sincere apology since I do fully believe I deserve one. I'm willing to put the aside the past and I don't see any reason why you can't do the same.

This is why I feel we must discuss this like men. You are accusing me of something (attacking you) when I've never done such a thing. My posts about you on Amazon were either 1. An attempt to have a debate with you; or 2. To expose the several false and misleading things you (and J.R.) spread about me on Amazon. There were no attacks, only several attempts to have an actual, civil discussion with you, and to set the record straight. If anyone has attacked anyone I'd say you've been attacking me for the last few years with the your actions I recounted in my first email.

Now, maybe you feel these are somehow attacks against you but I just explained my motivations. I also tried to make that clear in the posts themselves but for whatever reason you continue to feel differently.

Why?

I truly would like to resolve this.

Ken

In the links above Marshall did apologize on John Loftus’ blog and Amazon but his “apologies” were more of a defense of his actions than a true apology and he continued to post false things about me, such as me wishing for the “death” of my opponent. I expose this lie (among others) in my very long post here.

On John’s blog Marshall wrote:

Note: It appears that I was partially wrong in something I said in this forum about another poster: “Angry Atheist" aka Ken?) A guy who, when confronted (not just by me) with the absurdity of his arguments, those he is willing to show, that is, laspses into fantasies about the death of his opponent, pornographical posts, and obscurity of the kind we all know and love -- I'm right because no one is going to follow me to THIS web site and prove me wrong? Ken tells me he is not Angry Atheist. If so, then he is not the one responsible for the pornographic hate mail. (He was, however, responsible for that other stuff I described.) There were reasons for thinking it was him, but I accept his word, and apologize for my error. I am glad to know Ken did not make those posts.

On Amazon Marshall said:

Ken: If you say it wasn't you, let's assume that's true. I apologize for my apparent error.

The apparent mistake was, let me point out, easy to make, since the pseudonym was similar, Ken has used several, the tone was similiar, and the posts came from a source that Ken participated in.

The rest of what Ken says underlines why the mistake (assuming it to have been one) was easy to make.

Anyone can do a word search for ¨David Marshall¨ and ¨Arizona Atheist¨ and see who has been ¨smeering¨ whom, and who has been (mostly) ignoring whom. Note, to begin with, the first article cited, dated well before the comment Ken objects to here.

Having corrected the error, I'll be happy to ignore Ken's posts again.

I responded to him on Amazon with the following:

I appreciate the willingness of Marshall to accept responsibility for *some* of his behavior but as for the post I linked to (which is in response to the post Marshall is referring) it's clear that post I had written called, I believe something like, the Lies and Distortions of Marshall, were again IN RESPONSE to several inaccurate and outright false claims spread by Marshall. As always my posts were in response to the distortions of facts that have been spread about me all over Amazon by Marshall and two of his buddies. While Marshall manned up and accepted responsibility for SOME of his actions he did not claim full responsibility for all of them. That is very telling.

My hope is that I won’t feel the need to mention David Marshall ever again seeing as how I’ve wasted brain cells and countless hours corresponding with him, and subjecting myself to his personal attacks and smear campaigns. I tried but failed to get through to him those several months ago and I find it very telling how he refuses to apologize to me and continues to spread falsehoods about me.

These posts I’ve written exposing his many lies, his immature attitude, and his smear campaigns about me will hopefully set the record straight and show the world the true face of David Marshall, one of the rudest, most obtuse, and immature Christians I’ve ever come across (other than his side kick J.R. Fraser).

David Marshall and I: The Saga Ends

David Marshall and I: The Saga Continues

I thought I had finally been done with Marshall but I was doing an internet search for any mention of me or my blog and I came across a short discussion between Marshall and I think another Christian asking about my review of David Marshall’s book on Marshall's blog in the comments.

The Christian wrote him inquiring about a few of my arguments and Marshall, in his usual dismissive and derogatory manor, simply dismisses me and Richard Carrier, all the while ignoring two out of the three arguments the Christian asked about! But that’s not all.

Here is the Christian’s first comment:

I found your blog after reading am alledged take-down of one of your books on this cite called az atheist and was expecting to find a response from you here but found nothing. Does the author's arguments hold water? Have you seen his complaints about your book?

Marshall’s initial reply:

Anon: Thanks for the question.

Ken (aka Arizona Atheist, aka Gifted Writer, etc) has been posting attacks on me on a variety of sites around the internet. After much prodding, I once read six or seven pages of one of his interminable "reviews" of The Truth Behind the New Atheism. There was, frankly, little in it that even seemed to address what was in my book . . . it meandered forever. Maybe later in the review he finally gets to the point, but I lost patience.

You can find my responses to Victor Stenger, Richard Carrier, John Loftus, Robert Price, Hector Avalos, and other serious or at least semi-serious writers on the Internet, in some cases on this site or at christthetao. Other critics I ignore, like Tim Beazley, who probably accounts for half a dozen of the "reviews" on the Amazon site for the New Atheism book. I'm inclined to ignore Ken. If you've read the book, though, and think any of Ken's criticisms strike home, I'd be happy to respond to the ones you think most telling. If you haven't read the book, I'd suggest you do that first -- my guess is most of Ken's criticisms will dissolve for most fair-minded and intelligent readers upon reading the book.

Marshall is still up to his old dishonest tricks. I’ve never “attacked” him and I can’t understand how posting a critique of a work could in any way be considered an “attack.” If all I did was insult him I’d agree but I don’t and I lay out many facts that demonstrably show Marshall to be flat out wrong on most issues.

Since Marshall didn’t even bother reading even half of the review he obviously didn’t see enough of it to make any kind of informed opinion and there’s his usual immature dismissive attitude again. I even made it a point to strictly address his main arguments, though I did also discuss side issues that I felt were related to the issues Marshall raised (which is likely what he’s referring to), but to say I didn’t tackle his main arguments is just ridiculous. Again, his lack of reading it in its entirety makes his opinion invalid.

The Christian replies by copying a few arguments of mine from the review:

Thank you for the quick response!

In his critique of the first chapter he argues that you’ve taken Justin Martyr out of context.

>>>>Marshall also quotes a few early christian apologists as to their views on faith. On page 21 Marshall writes, “Justin Martyr wrote, 'Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honor and love what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions.' Origen...argued that there was good evidence (in archeology, history, miracles, and prophecy) that the Christian faith was, in fact, reasonable."

It's odd, but Marshall doesn't even provide a direct quote for Origen so how can we truly know what Marshall is saying about about him is accurate? However, I do have a direct quote and it presents a much different view than Marshall claims. Origen said, "We admit that we teach those men to believe without reasons." [2]

As for Justin Martyr, Marshall neglected to quote the following from the twenty-third chapter of his First Apology:

"And that this may now become evident to you— (firstly ) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed; that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things: and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race: and (thirdly) that before He became a man among men, some, influenced by the demons before mentioned, related beforehand, through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised, they narrated, in the same manner as they have caused to be fabricated the scandalous reports against us of infamous and impious actions, of which there is neither witness nor proof – we shall bring forward the following proof." [3]

But what "proof" is he referring to? Nothing but the bible. 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 scriptures]." [emphasis in original] [4]

It seems it’s Marshall who has taken these early apologists out of context.<<<<

In the second chapter he says that you are wrong about Richard Sternberg and his persecution. He references a website that talks about emails contradicting Richard Sternberg’s accusations.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_sternber.php

He also complains about your views on Intelligent Design.

>>>>I also cannot believe Marshall said that intelligent design can help to "keep evolutionary theory honest." How in the hell can it possibly keep the science of evolution "honest" when the people who advocate it use dishonest tactics in trying to get intelligent design to be accepted? The scientists that are misquoted [15] and taken out of context are a staple of creationist arguments; the often inaccurate and sometimes outright dishonest attempts at distorting scientific facts [16] are all very good reasons why intelligent design and its advocates should in no way be said to help the scientific community remain "honest." If anything that's an outright lie in itself.<<<<

The review is so long it would be impossible for me to mention everything I saw and I've already taken up two comments but these are a few things that jumped out at me that seem like decent challenges to a few of your arguments.

Marshall responds:

Anon: Are you Ken? If you are, that's fine -- I don't have time for a long debate, but I'll answer these questions, anyway. (I haven't even taken the time to read all Dr. H's challenges yet on other threads yet, still less reply -- and he's a friend!) But I'd prefer to know who I'm talking with.

I'm not taking Justin out of context. The issue is whether or not Justin thinks faith should be blind, believing without good reason, in other words, not whether his reasons are in fact good. So even if all his arguments stink, his position that faith should be premised on reason would undermine Dawkins' claim that Christian faith means "believing without reason, or in the teeth of reason." The quote I give shows that Justin does not think that, and so would arguments from Scripture.

It's also not true that Justin relies only on Scripture. Carrier is just wrong, as he is about many things, being something of a blowhard.

This is clear in the very next chapter to the one I cited -- chapter three of the 1st Apology, on the very first page of the book:

"But lest anyone think that this is an unreasonable and reckless utterance, we demand that the charges against 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 rumour, to wrong blameless men . . . "

Justin is asking for a careful legal review of the evidence, which will show the charges against Christians are baseless. That is not an appeal to Scripture; Carrier is wrong. While an appeal to Scripture might be reasonable for Justin, given his premises, in fact that is not the context in which the quotation I gave is made.

The thing about Justin blaming demons for preempting the Gospel is a popular canard among Internet atheists. I sent an article partly on this canard to a magazine a week or so ago. Probably they won't print it, because naturally they don't want to get into a debate with people like Freke and Gandy (who seem to have popularized this.) If the article isn't printed, I'll probably post it here, eventually.

One of my main points in that article is that the Internet kills brain cells, by encouraging people to "read" people like Justin Martyr and Clement second-hand, rather than for themselves. You'll get hoodwinked that way every time, especially if you read someone like AA, who I don't think reads them for HIMSELF either, or Carrier, who is too much of a bigot to represent the facts fairly. So instead of answering your question about Clement, let me just suggest that you read the original -- which is well worth reading, as is Justin -- and make up your own mind.

There is so much that’s wrong here I don’t know where to begin. First off, it’s obvious Marshall has gotten paranoid in his old age, and he insults both me and Carrier to boot!

Second, did I say anything about demons? Nope.

Third, he did nothing to answer the objection because I’ve read Justin’s First Apology (and link to it in the footnotes in my review) and Carrier is correct that the only source for Justin’s beliefs and his “evidence” are the scriptures! Yes, he said that we should ‘investigate’ Christianity but just how does he want to go about that? He relies on what the bible says - that’s it. He did not check the validity of the things he had heard or read and therefore cannot be counted as an ‘investigation.’ Far from it! So, yes, I’d say Marshall takes Justin out of context.

Marshall claims that Justin doesn’t just provide evidence from scripture but I sure didn’t find any other evidence. And I did not just read Justin “second-hand”! I read the whole Apology myself - and more than once! And he insults Carrier twice without backing up his stupid assertion. This is yet another in a long line of examples of Marshall’s hypocrisy and is typical David Marshall...

The only other point that Marshall even mentions is the quote from my review about intelligent design:

On ID, I don't see anything there that needs a response -- it all seems subjective, ad hominem (and therefore boring) and tangential to my point.

Talk about ad hominem! Not only did I cite references backing up my claims but I simply said that what Marshall wrote was borderline dishonest...which it most certainly was! That’s not an insult...I’m stating a fact that’s backed with evidence. Because what I wrote was not in any way subjective - the evidence is cited right there in the footnotes - I can’t see how Marshall can make that statement with a straight face.

As far as what I wrote being “tangential” to his point, no it wasn’t. Marshall discussed a few things in that chapter but one of the main things is his belief that intelligent design shouldn’t be dismissed by scientists and should welcome the critiques and not just shut out the IDers and maybe evolution will be better off for it. So, again, no, that’s not in any way a diversion from the theme of the chapter. You can go read my take on chapter four and make up your own mind. You can also currently read nearly the entire chapter of Marshall’s book on Google if you don’t own it.

The other issue about Richard Sternberg was just ignored, as usual, just as when I’ve brought this error of his up in the past.

Marshall can’t even be honest with fellow Christians...

That just goes to show how poor Marshall’s arguments really are. He can’t - and won’t - even defend them when asked by Christians!

David Marshall and I: The Saga Continues

The Lucifer Effect - March 2011

In this video a man is savagely beaten by police even though not a single time did he even attempt to “resist” arrest. I also want to make note that here is a post I’ve written about police arresting people for taking video of them while on duty. Not only is this an attempt to squelch any evidence of their wrongdoing but is also hypocritical due to the countless cameras that dot the roadways which spy on all innocent individuals.

The Lucifer Effect - March 2011