I am at it again. I've set my sights on yet another Christian author who has published one more in a long line of books seeking to refute the New Atheists. This one is titled The 'New' Atheism: 10 Arguments That Don't Hold Water?, by Michael Poole, published by Lion Hudson plc, 2009.
I found this book to be poorly organized and the noted sources are a little difficult to understand at first, but other than that it is well written. The author has organized the arguments he will address by having each chapter devoted to a particular argument made by the New Atheists, which he designates as 'A' for “argument” or “assertion,” along with a corresponding number. It's certainly a different format for a book like this, and is a little annoying, but those are my opinions about how the book is laid out. As for the arguments themselves, let's find out...
However, before I begin I'd like to thank John, also known as “Hendy,” who currently blogs at technologeekery, for accepting my invitation to proofread early drafts and for advice on grammar. Thanks a bunch John!
Chapter 1: Un-natural selection or 'Down with sex!'
A1 Religion is evil because many bad deeds have been done by religious people.
In this first chapter Poole disagrees with Richard Dawkins' and Christopher Hitchens' complaints about the many evil deeds done by religious people. However, I feel that Poole has erected a strawman of sorts. The New Atheists do not view the bad deeds done by religious people as the reason religion is bad, it is the beliefs themselves that cause many people to do bad things, hence the many examples they give in support of their argument.
For example, in The God Delusion, Dawkins says,
You don't have to make the case for what you believe. If somebody announces that it is part of his faith, the rest of society, whether of the same faith, or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained custom, to 'respect' it without question; respect it until the day it manifests itself in a horrible massacre like the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the London or Madrid bombings. [1]
Poole counters by arguing that the New Atheists should have given a more balanced treatment by citing the many good things religion has done, such as the “abolition of slavery,” “the starting and foundation of schools and hospitals,” etc. (11) I disagree with the first claim, but the second and third are closer to the truth. [2]
My second complaint is that Daniel Dennett did provide several examples of religious people doing good things (and Poole even acknowledges this) so it's not as if the New Atheism as a whole disregards the sometimes good things religion has done. They just seem to believe that the bad outweighs the good, and that is my opinion as well.
He also complains about Hitchens' subtitle: “Religion Poisons Everything,” which I believe is a poor argument since it's obvious that it was worded in that manner to sell more books. Obviously Hitchens knows that religion has lead to some good things but, again, believes the bad outweighs the good. However, I do agree that the subtitle is an over exaggeration.
I believe Poole has erected another strawman when referring to Daniel Dennett's book Breaking the Spell. He wrties,
The investigation of the functions served by religion - functionalism - is not, in principle, a threat to the truth-claims of religion. It is a partial, but valuable, study of one aspect of the behavior of individual and collective humankind. Given Dennett's beliefs, he suggests
The three favourite purposes or raisons d'etre for religion are
to comfort us in our suffering and ally our fear of death
to explain things we can't otherwise explain
to encourage group cooperation in the face of trials and enemies
Religion serves these three functions, and why not? They say nothing about the truth or falsity of the beliefs themselves. (13-14)
Dennett's main purpose was not to investigate whether or not religion is true but the origins of religion. Even the chapter where Dennett is quoted is titled “The Roots of Religion.”
In order to make his point about why such “argumentation is bad” he gives an example. He argues that “sex produces page after page of stories about broken promises, rape, adultery, promiscuity […]” and argues how illogical it would be to conclude that “sex is bad for you and sex poisons everything.” (15)
The problem with this argument is that it's based on a strawman as I've already explained so this argument is irrelevant. Even still, this argument is absurd since sex in and of itself is not a human activity that comes with certain beliefs which might influence behavior. Rather, it is the beliefs we often have about the inequality of women, or seeing women as purely sexual objects, that are often a cause of sex crimes, and not sex itself. Religion, on the other hand, does come packaged with certain beliefs that can cause immoral behavior.
Finally, Poole tries the “They're not a true Christian” defense against the numerous atrocities done by Christians or because of Christian beliefs. He writes,
In short, [Jesus] is saying: if people don't do (or try to do, since we are all fallible) what I teach, don't believe them if they claim to have faith in me, and to be one of my followers. (16)
Obviously, Christianity as its practiced today is much more than what Jesus preached and because there are so many varieties of beliefs within the religion of Christianity itself it's absurd to argue that such and such person isn't a true Christian if they don't hold to your particular set of beliefs.
Chapter 2: 'Faith is believing what you know ain't so
A2 'Faith is irrational' and 'demands a positive suspension of critical faculties.'
The author cites several quotes by the New Atheists stating how faith is “unevidenced belief,” but disagrees with this claim. He essentially uses semantics to argue his case here, saying that “credulity” would be a better word to use than faith to describe belief without evidence. Poole writes,
The above views of faith do not reflect how the word is generally used in everyday life. […] [W]e might express our faith in a surgeon, a close friend's reliability […] (18-19)
These beliefs he uses as examples of “faith” are actually not “unevidenced” beliefs, but are beliefs that are reasonably held due to certain facts. Perhaps both the surgeon and the close friend are trusted because they have proven themselves to be reliable in the past? However, religious beliefs often have no evidential support to speak of. Any claims of evidence are often found to be faulty, such as “design” arguments. Therefore, religion can be said to be based on “blind faith.” After all, it's been shown quite extensively that Christianity is built upon exactly this kind of faith, “belief without evidence.” [1]
The final argument Poole uses is the claim that atheists have “faith” too. Faith in our senses. This argument has the same problem I spoke of above. Based upon past experience our senses can be trusted and have been proven to be reliable most of the time. In addition, the scientific method has often been helpful in correcting any issues with our senses not accurately representing the world, such as the common example of ghost sightings. Here, our senses are seemingly leading us astray but the scientific method can be used as a way to check to be sure our senses are not deceiving us.
The author also references Richard Dawkins' lectures titled Growing Up in the Universe and argues that Dawkins has also used the word “faith,” essentially trying to discredit his argument, saying that, “faith is a word used by religious and non-religious people” to mean “trust.” He quotes Dawkins saying that one must “put your faith in the scientific method. There's nothing wrong with having faith... there's nothing wrong with having faith in a proper scientific prediction.” (21)
What Dawkins meant in his lecture by “faith in the scientific method” was that based upon what we know about the laws of physics he knew that when he swung a ball, suspended by a string, away from his face it wouldn't swing back and strike him due to the knowledge we have of how objects behave due to these laws.
I don't feel this semantics argument is an effective one because no matter which word one uses, what matters is how one comes to believe certain things and whether or not there is reliable evidence for those beliefs. The scientific findings of science Dawkins spoke of in his lecture had solid evidence backing his statements, which is a far cry from the claims of religion. I will get to those supposed evidences later on in the book.
Chapter 3: People who live in glass houses...?
A3 Religious beliefs are memes, mind viruses, self-delusion, placebos, wishful thinking and indoctrination.
Poole argues,
But if belief in a God is a 'mind virus' that we may not know we have, then the double-edged sword that cuts both ways dictates that belief in no God is also a 'mind virus' that we may not know we have. This leaves the awful possibility that the atheist, too, may be living a life of total self-delusion without knowing it. (24)
Rather than trying to argue that these claims about religion are false, Poole attempts to argue that non-belief could be called a mind virus, a self-delusion, etc. but doesn't elaborate on his argument about exactly why this is so. Sure, this could “cut both ways” but where is the evidence that it does? He provides none.
Once again, Poole argues that the “double edged sword” cuts both ways when Dawkins argues how religion is “wishful thinking.” He says,
Furthermore, Dawkins claims that 'people of a theological bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they'd like to be true.' But here comes the double-edged sword that cuts both ways. Change 'theological' for 'atheistic' and where does that get us in the debate? (25)
Again, no argumentation can be found detailing exactly why what he says even remotely applies to atheists.
Next, the author complains about Dawkins', and other atheists', use of the words indoctrination and brainwashing when referring to the teaching of religion. Once again, Poole argues that Dawkins is doing the same thing through his lectures Growing up in the Universe and the series on Charles Darwin called The Genius of Charles Darwin. Poole points to some “anti-religious” comments Dawkins made in both series. I've seen the entirety of The Genius of Charles Darwin and part of Growing up in the Universe and Dawkins was educating the children, trying to get them to view the world outside of their religious bubble and encouraging them to view the scientific evidence for evolution. That's what education is supposed to do: encourage children to learn of the evidence for evolution and allow them to accept it or reject it on their own, not threaten children with hell if they don't believe your views, as is often done with religious beliefs. Of course, Poole doesn't mention that aspect of religious “education.”
Another complaint by Poole about the Genius of Charles Darwin series is that Dawkins did not tell the students that one doesn't have to choose between either belief in evolution or belief in god. True, theistic evolution is a common belief, but it wasn't mentioned by Dawkins because, frankly, it's a view that has not a shred of evidence for it so Dawkins rightfully rejects this viewpoint. (28-29)
I am shocked that a theist finally understands Dawkins' views on “child abuse” and did not falsely characterize Dawkins as some evil atheist who wants to stop parents from teaching their own kids religion. He even says, “It is reasonable not to stick the labels of the parent's faith on to children who are too young to have made individual commitments.” (26) However, he uses the same “double-edged sword” argument and says that atheism “could also owe a lot to the gullibility of young people.” (26) He provides no evidence this is the case.
He further argues that many children “are taught to question and think through their beliefs; and some, after careful thought, arrive at belief in God or retain their existing belief in God.”
He also argues that, through interactions with other children who have different beliefs, children often learn to question their beliefs on their own. Having said this Poole says, “So perhaps the dangers are not as real as Dawkins seems to think.” (26)
Yes, but the fact is that countless parents do scare their children with hell if they do not believe as they do and that's the point! Arguing that, 'Well, parents don't always do what Dawkins describes' is no argument to the fact that many parents do precisely what Dawkins is complaining about.
Once again, yes, many children do remain with religion despite learning of other views, but at least they did so without pressure from their parents and threats of hell, which is what Dawkins was complaining about in his chapter on children and religion. Even Dawkins would support this (though he would highly disagree with their decision and see it as the wrong one, but at least they were not forced into that belief). As he wrote in The God Delusion,
If, having been fairly and properly exposed to all the scientific evidence, they grow up and decide that the bible is literally true or that the movements of the planets rule their lives, that is their privilege. The important point is that it is their privilege to decide what they shall think, not their parents' privilege to impose it by force majeure. [1]
Chapter 4: '...and may be used in evidence.'
A4 'Faith (belief without evidence) is a virtue. The more your beliefs defy the evidence, the more virtuous you are.'
Poole begins by stating the following,
In Root of all Evil? Dawkins states that 'Science weighs the evidence and advances. Religion is hidebound belief for belief's sake...' and '...the whole point about faith is that even massive and constantly accumulating evidence cuts no ice.' But is this true? (30-31)
The author cites John Montgomery, Professor Emeritus of Law and Humanities, as stating how he used the “legal standards of proof by preponderance of evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt” as his criteria for believing “that God exists.” Of course, this is nothing but an appeal to authority and Poole further argues that there are forms of evidence that can be examined. Poole cites the bible and argues,
These testimonies illustrate the point that evidence today will have to be indirect - reported speech. Tests for the reliability of these authors, as well as of other historians such as Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus, draw upon the usual canons of historical evidence. (33)
There are numerous reasons why the bible cannot be trusted, one of which is the fact that these so called “historians” actually got a great deal incorrect as revealed by archeology. Having been proven wrong on many other issues it is only logical to suspend judgment until the facts can be checked. Until then, it's most wise to disregard much of what the bible says. [1]
Next, the author actually believes that he has avoided the same criticism he levels against the New Atheists. In his introduction he quoted Antony Flew,
In an earlier philosophical work, Flew cautioned that it would not
...do to recognize that of a whole series of arguments each individually is defective, but then to urge that nevertheless in sum they comprise an impressive case... We have here to insist upon a sometimes tricky distinction: between, on the one hand, the valid principle of the accumulation of evidence, where every item has at least some weight in its own right; and on the other hand, the Ten-leaky-buckets-Tactic, applied to arguments none of which hold water at all. (9)
Then, Poole argues that his case truly is a case of “cumulative evidence, each having some small value, [that] can add up to 'proof by preponderance of evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt', while steering clear of the Ten-Leaky-Buckets-Tactic explained in the Preface.” (33)
He then brings forth his so called evidence. He mentions several standard theistic arguments:
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. The seeming fine-tuning of the universe.
3. The existence of beauty and moral values, including principles of obligation and fairness.
4. Revelation.
5. The “evidential value” of religious experiences, including answered prayer.
6. Historical evidence, “drawing on both secular and religious sources.”
Poole fails to go into any kind of detail at all about these supposed evidences. Of course, each of them are horribly bad arguments and do in fact represent a “Ten-Leaky-Buckets-Tactic,” despite the author's denials. Each of these arguments have been dealt with in numerous places. Needless to say, they're all greatly flawed. [2]
In the final section Poole very briefly discusses the resurrection and again cites the bible as his “proof” that Jesus (and others) did in fact become raised from the dead. Once again, the bible is not a reliable book to be basing your beliefs on. Second, there has never been any confirmed evidence of any supernatural occurrences. If they do not occur now, why should we believe they did occur in the past? If supernatural phenomenon occurs at all surely it's on-going and does not just occur in certain time periods, especially not with all of the stories of supernatural phenomenon occurring throughout all periods of history. This is proof people believed in the supernatural throughout the past also, but due to our more advanced technology we are better able now then they were to determine whether or not these experiences were true representations of reality. All evidence to date shows they are not. [3]
Poole dismisses the very scholarly treatments that have disproven the resurrection and says, “Many have attempted to disprove the resurrection story but, so far, without noticeable success.” (38) I suppose Poole has not read the excellent collection of essays by noted biblical scholars in the book The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, edited by Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder.
Like the vast majority of this book thus far, Poole has failed to cite any sources for his alleged evidence. At the end of this chapter he relies on another argument from authority by citing Simon Greenleaf, Professor of Law at Harvard University, on the supposed reliability of the gospel accounts. (39) Once again, the facts entirely contradict Greenleaf's statement.
Chapter 5: Ancient.doc
A5 '...Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code...is indeed fabricated from start to finish: invented, made-up fiction. In that respect, it is exactly like the gospels.'
[Maimonides, a great Jewish scholar] 'fell into the same error as do the Christians, in assuming that the four Gospels were in any sense a historical record.
Finally, the author decides to defend at least some of the arguments he put forward about the reliability of the bible as a historical source.
Poole cites both Dawkns and Hitchens as dismissing the bible as a reliable source of information, and even chides Dawkins by pointing out that he failed to cite any scholars who agreed with this view. (41-42) Of course, I have given several references by several noted biblical scholars who've come to this conclusion, more or less.
Next the author disputes a few minor complaints about the bible and the place of Jesus' birth by Dawkins and Hitchens. Since it's such a minor point I won't bother to address it. However, Poole further argues for the existence of Jesus and argues that the authors of the bible must have known Jesus personally. He argues that “there appears to be good evidence that the fourth gospel was the work of the apostle John, who was closely involved with Jesus.” (44)
It's highly unlikely that the author of John knew Jesus since the gospel of John has been dated to around 90-120 A.D., a century after the events they describe. [1] Given the fact that most people only lived to about the age of 46 it does not appear likely there are any eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life. To quote Richard Carrier,
In the ancient world, the average life expectancy (for anyone who survived to age 15) was 46 years, while fewer than 1 in 20 would live to 70, and fewer than 1 in 200 would live to 85. Any witness, who survived the war and was at least fifteen years old by 35 A.D. (and thus could recall events of previous years with any kind of reliability), would probably be dead before 75 A.D. (having only a 34% chance of survival, even without an intervening war and persecution), and would almost certainly be dead by 100 A.D. (with only a 1.5% chance of survival, and that's again without an intervening war and persecution, which would have reduced the probability of survival a great deal more). […] Likewise, Josephus himself says 20 years is enough time for witnesses to no longer be available to rebut a story (Life 360; cf. Jewish War 1.15 & Against Apion 1.55). [2]
Poole cites the same authorities he did earlier but in his attempts to bolster his case by citing these individuals he inadvertently weakens it. He writes,
John Montgomery (p. 31), in his paper 'A Lawyer's Defence of Christianity', comments that
In a court of law, admissible evidence is considered truthful unless impeached or otherwise rendered doubtful. This is in account with ordinary life, where only the paranoiac goes about with the bias that everyone is lying.'
Montgomery mentions how Professor Simon Greenleaf, referred to in Chapter 4,
....applied to these [New Testament] records the “ancient documents” rule: ancient documents will be received as competent evidence if they are “fair on their face” (i.e. offer no internal evidence of tampering) and have been maintained in “reasonable custody”... He concludes that the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in any court of law. (45) [emphasis mine in bold]
As the authorities Poole just cited said, if the documents can be shown to have been tampered with or were shown to be doubtful that could cast serious doubt on the reliability of the gospels. Well, as I've explained already, the gospels have enormous contradictions between them [even between the resurrection accounts, which Poole fails to mention (42)], science has proven much of what the bible says to be inaccurate, and there is clear evidence of tampering. One example is in the gospel of Mark. Mark 16:1-8 is the earliest version of the resurrection story, where women discover the empty tomb, and an angel tells them that the disappearance of the body means that Jesus has risen. In the earliest and best manuscripts the gospel ends there, then later on a scribe adds Mark 16:9-20, which speaks of his disciples seeing Jesus after he has risen. [3] Right here is iron clad evidence of “internal evidence of tampering.”
Poole finishes out the rest of this chapter by citing more “experts” as to the reliability of the gospels. He quotes F.F. Bruce as saying,
...if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. […] Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing. […] (46)
Once again, more statements without any evidence. The fact is that scholars check the reliability of other ancient documents as well and don't just blindly trust what they say. This is often done through archeology. The reason the bible is seen with “suspicion” is precisely because of the work done by archeologists in piecing together fact from fiction regarding the bible, and showing how in numerous cases it is historically inaccurate.
Ending this chapter Poole cites F.F. Bruce and Eric Ives as arguing how the New Testament has many more manuscripts than most other ancient documents (yes, this old canard again...), thus (somehow) proving these documents are reliable. (46-47) Just because there are many copies of something does not mean we can trust what the documents say, since we do not have the original documents to compare with the surviving copies. To quote John Beversluis,
[…] Since the autographa have not survived and nobody has laid eyes on them for 2,000 years, how could anybody possibly know what was in them – much less, which copies approximate most closely to them? Since there is nothing to which existing manuscripts can be compared, the very ideas of the original manuscripts and which manuscripts approximate most closely to them are useless ideas and should be abandoned. I can judge that a photo is a good likeness of you if and only if I have seen you and know what you look like. If I have not, then I am the last person on earth to ask. The situation is not improved by assuring me that there are thousands of photos of you. The fact is that I have never seen you, so tell million photos would not help. [4]
Throughout the majority of this chapter we saw Poole use nothing more than arguments from authority without any evidence to back up his claims. Either that, or his claims contradict the facts outright as I've shown.
Chapter 6: Explaining Explaining
A6 'Historically, religion aspired to explain our own existence and the nature of the universe... In this role it is now completely superseded by science.'
'Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important.'
'Religion can only provide facile, ultimately unsatisfying answers. Science is constantly seeking real explanations.'
Poole makes his goal clear when he says,
A common mistake is to regard explanations of processes as alternatives to explanations about the acts of agents, human or divine, rather than as compatible accounts. In connection with science-and-religion issues, this tendency sometimes manifests itself not simply as contentment with one type of explanation but in denying the need, the validity, or both, of other types of explanation. […] Surely, saying “God did it” is logically compatible with saying how it came about, isn't it? (52-53)
Poole argues that “both can be true,” meaning the scientific facts about our world and acts of god. For example, according to the author evolution could very well be true, but that does not mean that god couldn’t have helped to guide it in some way.
The issue with this type of argumentation is that there is not one shred of evidence for any gods and there is no evidence of any tinkering by any supernatural agent. Due to the lack of evidence the supernatural explanations are not rejected because they are not liked, or some other reason, but because there is an enormous lack of evidence for such things.
Next, Poole claims that atheists use what he calls a “Gap of a God” and says,
But here we are confronted with something like an atheistic converse of the God of the Gaps. This is the belief that scientific explanations oust explanations of the agency of God, which I shall call Gap of a God. (55)
Once again, where is his evidence for such a belief? The supernatural has never been proven, despite much scientific study.
The reason scientific explanations supersede religious ones is simply because the scientific explanations actually explain the phenomenon while religious explanations simply “beg the question” by making one wonder how or why god did this or that. Religious explanations leave a lot to the imagination when it comes to god. On the other hand, science can explain most phenomenon while taking into account all the how and why questions. This is something that religion can't do when it comes to their pet explanation: god. But there is more than mere practical reasons to disregard religious explanations, there are philosophical reasons too. To quote Donald R. Prothero,
[S]cientists practice methodological naturalism, where they use naturalistic assumptions to understand the world but make no philosophical commitment as to whether the supernatural exists or not. Scientists don't exclude god from their hypotheses because they are inherently atheistic or unwilling to consider the existence of god; they simply cannot consider supernatural events in in their hypotheses. Why not? Because […] once you introduce the supernatural to a scientific hypothesis, there is no way to falsify or test it. [1] (emphasis in original)
Chapter 7: Where do we draw the boundary?
A7 ' Religion is a scientific theory.'
'I pay religions the compliment of regarding them as scientific theories.'
'I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis.'
Michael Poole opens his chapter with the following,
The first two claims [above] are not recent but seem consistent with the third and three similar ones in The God Delusion. But is it coherent to expect a scientific test for God, who is not a material object? […] The scientific enterprise, by its subject matter of material things and by its methods, does not concern itself with First Causes. […] So there is something odd about turning to science, the study of the natural world, in the hope of answering religious questions about whether there is anything other than the natural world (that is, God) to which the natural world owes its existence. (57-58)
While science does often rely on methodological naturalism science can and does search for supernatural phenomenon and there are materialistic ways to test for supernatural phenomenon.
To quote Donald R. Prothero once more,
[T]here have been many scientific tests of supernatural and paranormal explanations of things, including parapsychology, ESP, divination, prophesy, and astrology. All of these nonscientific ideas have been falsified when subjected to the scrutiny of scientific investigation (see Isaak 2006; also 2002 for a review). [Philip] Johnson loudly complains that the supernatural has been unfairly excluded from the debate, but this is clearly not true. Every time the supernatural has been investigated by scientific methods, it has failed the test. [1]
I also greatly favor Victor J. Stenger's statement about this issue. He sums it up by arguing,
Religions make statements about all kinds of phenomena that are legitimate parts of science, such as the origin of the universe and evolution of life. Even the principles of morality are subject to scientific investigation since they involve observable human behavior. […] The gods most people worship purportedly play an active role in the universe and in human lives. This activity should result in observable phenomena, and it is observable phenomena that forms the very basis of scientific investigation. [2]
I don't think much more needs to be said. However, I will note that Poole objects to Dawkins' argument that god must also need a creator if, as theologians say, “everything has a cause,” by stating that, “Created Gods are, by definition, a delusion.” (60) Really? If that's the case, then why do anthropologists find exactly what Poole argues is a “delusion?” The fact is that some cultures have stories about gods who are born and die. [3]
The fact is that science can and does investigate supernatural phenomenon and to date no evidence of anything supernatural has been uncovered, despite much research into the matter. Because of the very facts noted by Victor Stenger science and religion are not “non-overlapping magisteria,” to quote the late (and great) Stephen Jay Gould.
Poole also seems to believe that science and religion are compatible and argues against the claim of the New Atheists that they are in conflict, but he doesn't really develop his argument. He simply notes how many religious believers see no conflict and that there have been many religious scientists. (61-62) Science and religion are in conflict because they both make claims about the origins of the universe, the origins of man, and other questions that are clearly questions for science. In this way science and religion can do nothing but conflict with one another.
Chapter 8: An endangered species?
A8 '...good scientists who are sincerely religious in the full, traditional sense,' both in the United States and in Britain, 'stand out for their rarity and are a subject of amused bafflement to their peers in the academic community.'
Poole takes up what I would consider to be a fairly trivial point about the lack of religious scientists in The God Delusion. However, the fact is that many studies do confirm largely what Dawkins reports. But I am getting a little ahead of myself. Poole writes,
I find this statement surprising. Not only are there many scientists who have religious interests, but many such academics have formed societies to engage in scholarly studies of, and produce publications about, the interplay between science and religion. (67)
He then lists several of these societies and the number of members. For brevity I will not copy the list of each association but the total number of religious scientists in each. The total comes out to 3,721. (68)
There are several studies throughout the years which show that scientists who are religious are fairly rare. A study done in 1998 in Nature showed that 60.7% expressed “disbelief or doubt.” [1] A second study done in 2007 concluded that “52 percent of scientists surveyed identified themselves as having no current religious affiliation.” As for the labels "evangelical" or "fundamentalist," under “2 percent of the RAAS population identifies with either label.” [2] Finally, a study done in 2009 showed that only 33% of scientists believed “in god,” while 18% don't believe in a god but do believe in a “higher power.” 41% don't believe either. [3]
While it could be considered debatable what exactly “rare” means in this context the fact is that scientists are overwhelmingly non-religious.
Chapter 9: Back to the drawing board – but whose?
A9 'Darwin has removed the main argument for God's existence.'
Michael Poole begins,
The final two chapters will consider 'the central argument' of Dawkins' book which sets out to explain the origin of the universe's apparent design without invoking actual design. (69)
He then begins to discuss William Paley and the watchmaker argument, next quoting Charles Darwin as no longer being impressed by Paley's arguments since his discovery of natural selection. Poole then quotes Darwin again from a letter to Asa Gray,
Darwin's theory altered Paley's from of an argument for God from design but did not remove the idea of design altogether. Darwin suggested that the design lay in the laws God created – 'the Creator creates by...laws' – commenting that 'I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who forsaw every future event and consequence.' (70)
This quote seemed suspect to me so I looked it up. At the Darwin Correspondence Project website this letter is archived. Here is the latter half of the letter in full so you can see the context.
[…] With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.—
Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws,—a child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by action of even more complex laws,—and I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter. [1]
It appears that Poole has correctly interpreted Darwin's views, in that god may have created the laws that govern man, beast, and the universe, but the quote itself appears to take Darwin out of context by wrongly quoting him as saying that he could “see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator […],” seemingly contradicting his own statement quoted by Poole about Paley's argument.
I find the phrasing of the quote strange and I was unable to find the book Poole cited for this quote on the internet, Darwinism and Divinity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985). If anyone has it please check it out for me. Poole says it occurs on page 56.
Either way, citing Darwin's beliefs about his own theory is, once again, nothing but an appeal to authority. Furthermore, much more has been learned since Darwin's time so to cite his opinions on whether or not god has a hand in the workings of the laws of nature is pointless.
Poole continues to argue that it's still possible that this “appearance of design in nature” could have “resulted from actual design.” He argues that god could have created “a universe involving a Big Bang” and all that took place – the particles colliding, etc. - could have been caused by god. (70)
Following this argument, he continues by arguing that even though there are cancers and “[t]he presence of consequences unintended (but not unforeseen) by God does not, however, rule out divine design, even though Dawkins claims that 'natural objects... have imperfections which you wouldn't expect to get on objects designed by a real designer.'” (72)
Poole fails to provide any evidence for this all-powerful being so this argument's fatal flaw is the lack of evidence of Poole's god. With science closing the gaps in our knowledge, the tasks that god was needed for are no longer. Those many tasks are nature's do to now. Given these facts theists have had to reinvent their god. Yes, some theists have made this same argument throughout history, but that fact does not cause the evidence for their god to come bursting forth. That's the key that's missing if Poole's argument is to hold any water.
He continues to argue that god may have created the process of evolution to create life and quotes a few Christians as coming to this conclusion. He also claims the bible contains passages that speaks of evolution, one being Mark 4:26-28, but this is a very vague passage that is only speaking of the fact that corn grows after a seed is planted and man is clueless as to how this process takes place. This is just one out of countless examples of Christians' spurious reading of modern day science into the bible. The mechanism of evolution hadn't been discovered until hundreds of years later so it would be impossible for the bible to contain such knowledge.
The final topic under discussion is Intelligent Design. Because Poole is a theistic evolutionist he is hostile to the Intelligent Design movement and gives a few criticisms I agree with, such as the apparent shrinking of the number alleged “irreducibly complex” systems that I.D. supporters can point to due to our increasing knowledge. However, I find Poole's criticisms of I.D. to undermine his own arguments since our expanding knowledge of the universe itself, and not just of evolution, is closing many gaps, leaving less and less room for a god to hide. In addition, there is no evidence in the universe or our biology of any tinkering of any god, as I mentioned earlier. These facts entirely undermine Poole's argument.
I agree with Victor J. Stenger who says,
[M]ost science-savvy theologians agree with most scientists that intelligent design, at least as it has been formulated so far, is a failure. Theologians are far more impressed by the fine-tuning argument and they have received support from a number of prominent scientists who profess not to be believers but admit that the facts are puzzling and require explanation. [2]
More recently Stenger has published a new book explaining why all of the fine-tuning arguments in use are factually incorrect and he did so without resorting to the controversial multiverse theory. [3]
In conclusion, Michael Poole writes,
In short, evolution is a broken crutch for supporting atheism. (77)
As I've said, there is no evidence of Poole's god so his argument leaves him spinning his wheels and he fails to get anywhere. Furthermore, I am well aware that evolution has been assimilated into Christian belief but the fact is that evolution contradicts the original Christian belief in human origins. The fact that Christians have to reinvent their beliefs is proof that evolution is a problem for Christian dogma. It is intellectually dishonest to include new scientific discoveries into a supposedly truthful revelation from their god about human origins as told in their bible. If this was a revelation from their all-knowing god, why didn't he include the fact of evolution? Not just evolution but all scientific discoveries are a problem for Christian belief. It is not a virtue to adapt to new discoveries when it comes to religion, it is a disgrace.
Chapter 10: Unpeeling the Cosmic Onion
A10 '...some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwin does for biology, rendering God improbable.
'...any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress.'
The first half of this chapter discusses the controversial multiverse theory and Poole explains that it is not possible to observe it and if this is so why is it considered “scientific.” (81) I would agree that this proposal has not been proven yet but a multiverse does fit with scientists' current knowledge of the universe, but there is no need to resort to such a hypothesis in order to refute this claim of fine-tuning. [1] In Victor J. Stenger's newest book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, he makes his argument by “the application of well-established physics and cosmology” alone. [2]
Poole cites Stephen Hawking as saying that “a minute increase of about one part in a million million in the density of the universe one second after the Big Bang would have meant a recollapse of the universe after some ten years.” (78-79) Poole is obviously attempting to argue this is an example of fine-tuning but this appears to be false. [3]
Next, the author argues that “[t]he idea of a necessary choice between a multiverse or God is another example of the fallacy of the excluded middle […]. The arising of our particular domain within a multiverse would no more disprove divine activity than natural selection disproves divine activity in organic adaptation […].” (82-83)
Once again, I would argue that the multiverse is more scientific than the god hypothesis simply because scientists' findings seem to predict the occurrence of a multiverse but no observations have even hinted that god exists.
The second half of this chapter addresses Richard Dawkins' Boeing 747 argument against god in The God Delusion. Poole argues that Dawkins' argument against god does not apply to a being that is immaterial since Dawkins' argument relies upon the concept of natural selection, a physical process. (83-84) As Poole has done throughout his book he has essentially made his god untouchable and unknowable. Of course, as I quoted Victor J. Stenger in a previous chapter, god is said to work within the world and so we should be able to detect his presence in some fashion, so this argument gets Poole nowhere.
I found the author's next sentence to be amusing. He wrote,
[O]ne general way of deciding God's probability would be to take the 'pointers' to God's existence, outlined in Chapter 4, and evaluate how far they support a cumulative case for God. (84)
According to his own argument god must be horribly improbable since all of his arguments in chapter 4 were shown to be completely devoid of any factual content.
Finally, Poole takes issue with Richard Dawkins' argument of the infinite regress, the same argument Poole quoted above at the beginning of the chapter.
I am confused by Poole's argument. Dawkins' statement was referring to the fact that god should also require a designer, thus god is vulnerable to an infinite regress. God couldn't have just “popped” into existence, according to this argument; he had to have been created as well.
First Poole runs the sequences of the big bang backwards, starting with the fact that the carbon in our bodies was made from stars, to the formation of stars, to the big bang itself. Poole then continues with the following,
All these explanations are, to use William of Ockham's words, 'of the same kind': physical explanations, with no mention of God. There is no obvious indication that the sequence, like the unpeeling of some cosmic onion, is an infinite regress. (85)
It appears that Poole is attempting to argue that the universe has a definite moment of creation, therefore it cannot be eternal (have an infinite regress), which is false, but Dawkins' argument was referring to god, not the universe.
Poole continues after briefly discussing quantum effects,
Summing up, it is questionable whether there is a physical infinite regress within our universe. But whichever way the answer lies, it has little bearing on the flawed 'Who made God?' argument. The idea of 'being made' is conceptually excluded in the case of the Judaeo-Christian God […] (85)
Again, Dawkins' argument was referring to god, not our universe, but the fact is that modern cosmology and physics tell us that the universe is likely eternal. [4]
Yes, Poole seems to like arguing that nothing can possibility disprove his god but, as I've stated a few times already, if god works within this world as theists argue then evidence should be there that we can examine. The fact that evidence that should be there, but isn't there, if god were real, is pretty good evidence of his non-existence. In other words, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
In the final section of the book Poole writes,
On London's 'bendy buses', early in 2009, there appeared the slogan 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.' […] If God has the same status as tooth fairies and Father Christmas, as Dawkins appears to think, is it necessary to spend so much money trying to persuade people that God doesn't exist? (89)
I'd like to answer this question for him. The reason so much money and time is spent looking to convince people there is no god is because of the physical harm that often comes from that belief, as I explained in the first chapter. In addition, numerous groups who have religious agendas seek to push their religion and/or beliefs on us and those that speak out are simply fighting back against these groups. [5]
Conclusion
This was certainly an interesting book. It was well-written and was an easy read. I just do not agree with most of the author's conclusions and feel that he is deceiving himself, especially regarding his reliance on his very fallible bible. On the other hand, it was a breath of fresh air to read a book seeking to refute the New Atheists that was not filled with misquote after misquote. Michael Poole successfully interpreted their arguments in most cases and, to my surprise, understood Dawkins' actual views on the issue of children and religion. I can't tell you how nice it was to finally find a Christian who did not take Dawkins' words and twist them in order to accuse him of wishing to pass laws to stop parents from educating their children in their religious faith.
I also am delighted to know that Poole is not an advocate of Intelligent Design. That was also a breath of fresh air.
Having said this, I know the book was not intended to be a fully fleshed out argument, hence it's brevity on most issues, so I can understand Poole not going into as much detail as I believe he needed to on most issues. However, I do wish that he would have at least cited more sources where more fully formed and detailed arguments might be found in order to supplement his brief treatment of these issues.
Finally, I think I've reviewed so many books written by Christian apologists that I can't really seem to find anyone who has any original arguments. They all pretty much say the same thing. That reminds me of a passage in a book by Robert M. Price. He said,
Reading these books and debating [Craig Bloomberg] taught me one thing: with only minor modifications, namely the partisan, opportunistic appropriation of some more recent scholarly theories, today's new generation of apologists are using the same old arguments InterVarsity sophomores are trained to use. Little has changed since the eighteenth century. In fact, every debate I have had with evangelicals has reinforced the same conclusion. What has happened, I think, is that the traditional apologetics have now become as fully a part of the evangelical creed as the doctrines they are meant to defend! The apologetics have themselves become doctrines. The official belief, then, is so-and-so, and the official defense is this-and-that. That is why their books all sound the same and why the new ones sound just like the old ones. [1]
I can relate to Price's thoughts on the matter. I've begun to feel the same way. About every book I read and refute contain almost the exact same arguments, sometimes even using the same language! One example while reading this book stuck out in my mind. I reviewed another book called The Truth Behind the New Atheism, by David Marshall, and he also argued, like Poole, that faith means “trust.” There were other similarities but I won't bore the reader with any more.
To reiterate, the book was a good and easy read but the argumentation and logic was mostly very flawed and numerous facts refuted many of the author's conclusions outright.
References
Chapter 1: Un-natural selection or 'Down with sex!'
1. The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, Houghton Mifflin, 2006; 306
2. Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship, by Hector Avalos, Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd., 2011
Chapter 2: Chapter 2: 'Faith is believing what you know ain't so
1. Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed, by Richard Carrier, Lulu.com, 2009; 329-351; 385-404
Chapter 3: People who live in glass houses...?
1. The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins; 327
Chapter 4: '...and may be used in evidence.'
1. Several books lay out this evidence. A few are as follows:
The Case Against the Case for Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel, by Robert M. Price, American Atheist Press, 2010
Who Wrote the Gospels?, by Randel McGraw Helms, Millennium Press, 1997
The End of Biblical Studies, by Hector Avalos, Prometheus Books, 2007
Jesus, Interupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them), by Bart D. Eheman, HarperOne, 2009
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Anceint Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, by Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman, The Free Press, 2001
The Bible Against Itself: Why the Bible Seems to Contradict Itself, by Randel McGraw Helms, Millennium Press, 2006
Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide, by C. Dennis McKinsey, Prometheus Books, 2000
2. The following books are good resources on these arguments:
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed For Us, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2011
The above books on the bible are excellent resources about the historical claims and claims to accuracy about the bible.
Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, by Marc D. Hauser, HarperCollins, 2006
Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, by John W. Loftus, Prometheus Books, 2008
3. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, by Terence Hines, Prometheus Books, 2003
3. Jesus is Dead, by Robert M. Price, American Atheist Press, 2007; 4
4. The Case Against The Case for Christ:A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel, by Robert M. Price, American Atheist Press, 2010; 98-99
Chapter 6: Explaining Explaining
1. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald R. Prothero, Columbia University Press, 2007; 11
Chapter 7: Where do we draw the boundary?
1. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald R. Prothero, Columbia University Press, 2007; 11
2. The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2009; 14
3. Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker, by David Eller, American Atheist Press, 2007; 14
A while back I received a comment on my post titled Why I Do Not Support the Troops by a seemingly illogical, hateful, and sexist (even though he denies it in the website's Introduction) man who goes by the name Viceroy. He writes on a blog called Real Men Have Spoken.
Despite the silly name of the website this army vet wrote to me on the aforementioned post about how wrong I am. I responded but he never replied. I guess it's kind of hard to when facts are staring you in the face. At Kassie Dill's blog post about her unconstitutional treatment at the hands of cops and the courts I left a comment telling her I hope she gets through everything OK and good luck. This guy (and a few other illogical and hateful statists) spewed their nonsense and one guy essentially told me he'd like to see me dead! It's amazing how much these ardent statists are so much like fundamentalist theists. They're horribly intolerant, hateful, and ignorant to boot. That doesn't make for much of a conversation but I'm sure what I write goes way over their heads anyway. Here is this one guy's threat towards myself, Kassie Dill, and another Dill supporter. “magic” wrote:
Gauntlet thrown cunt... Face the challenge... And for Arizona and dido... I hope you and this stupid bitch are hit by a bus and I witness it... And as a veteran.... A medic and a nurse I realize I have the ability to save your life but I'd just walk away because you don't support what I do
Wow.... is all I can think to say. Also in the comments the same illogical individual who left the comment on my blog responded with the following:
Viceroy said...
You are lucky you didn't get the shit kicked out of you. These are real people, with real power, doing real shit. You are just an annoying little girl, who is gaining notoriety by being just that.
There is a challenge to you kassie dill, don't be a typical female and "pussy" out.
Gloves are off kid, let rock.
Since he called me (and Kassie) out to read the post linked to below and respond to his response to the above video by Kassie Dill I've decided to do just that. [1] I'm going to go through it and refute this guy's pathetic and immature insults and other misinformation. His comments will be in blockquotes while my comments will follow.
Before I begin I'd like to highlight something that was written in his website's Introduction. It says in part,
4. Let's only use new, relevant facts. The newer the facts the better. Also, if you are going to argue against us, don't being that weak crap. Get off your ass, do your research and honestly debate us; or else we will crush you. I would like to illustrate the failure of the feminists. (Betty Friedan's 1963 book The Feminine Mystique could be considered the true beginning of the woman of today)
Let's see if this “man” follows his own rules shall we?
Update – 11-30-11: It's come to my attention that “Viceroy” did not write the blog post I tore apart below. A fellow jackass who goes by the name of “Magnus” did. This guy is such a doochebag that on their blog he actually writes of himself in his bio: “Magnus: The Man Behind the Legend.” Holy shit! That's too damn funny. It seems all the “men” (more like whiny, ignorant bitches) who write on this website all suffer from some kind of inferiority complex (not to mention a severe lack of critical thinking skills) and seem to feel the need to make themselves appear more “manly” then they really are. Because it was Viceroy who pointed me to the post in question and said, “Just for you buddy,” it appeared he had written it, but I was wrong. It was another wannabe macho man asshole. Even though it wasn't Viceroy who wrote the following post it seems that what I say about Magnus can also apply to Viceroy since it seems he fully supports this post.
Let the Games Begin...
Ignorant, and obviously unsophisticated, old Viceroy Magnus begins his post by explaining how he's been in numerous countries in his military career and how not a single time over all those years did a single person tell him they didn't support the troops. He also has a theory about why he didn't meet anyone who didn't support the troops:
I may have been in the same place as someone who did, but I would have never known it. Why, because the people that do not support the troops are fucking pussies. PURE PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
He continues,
It takes a real sack of shit to bash the very same people that allow you to breathe delicious, fresh air. I mean what type of person is so jaded that they would openly admit to hating the very people that protect and weave the fabric of democracy?
This is hilarious. Since when has the U.S. military ever “protected” our freedoms? Which country has ever come over here and tried to take away any of our freedoms? None. Of course, the fact is there is a country that works very hard to consolidate its power and take away more and more of the freedoms it was supposedly created to protect: the united states. [2] If anything, the U.S. is responsible for going to other countries and imposing itself on others. [3]
After this he asks the following question and posts several pictures of various people protesting war, such as Code Pink.
What do these pieces of shit look like you ask? Well here are a few additional pictures I happen to dig up. Just look long and hard. These people are why Darwin was wrong. Natural selection is not true because these people should have died a long time ago. We will start with one particular group that makes me so mad I could literally cook a 10 inch thick steak on my forehead. Their name is Code Pink. It is an anti-war group consisting of mostly women. Here are a few pics so you know just what they are about.
On the contrary I'd say he seems to disprove evolution because at least these women are anti-imperialist and speak out against injustice. He sounds like some gun toting, flag waving, makes-me-sick-to-my-stomach “patriotic” buffoon who is so clueless as to the government’s actions in trying to dominate other countries, and taking away our freedoms and rights.
From this point on he just posts several pictures of Code Pink and proceeds to make fun of them. He doesn't even try to actually...you know, give any facts about why they're wrong or anything.
Viceroy Magnus posts one picture (below) of Code Pink and writes...
Hmmm, something seems to be missing from this quote. Can't quite put my finger on it.... Oh wait! Half the quote is missing! The real quote states, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Well now that makes a lot more sense now. Hey ladies, way to chop up a quote to let it fill your propaganda spewing mouths. I only wish Ben Franklin were still alive so he could have forcefully given all you women syphilis. Anyone can chop up someones quote to fit their needs. Here, I chop up Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous I Have A Dream Speech:
"It would be fatal to give the Negro equality. The Negro community must not realize that their destiny is tied up in freedom. Negros, go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities. I have a dream that one day, white boys and white girls, with faith, will be able to transform our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood." -MLK Jr
See how easy that was. Every word I just typed was said by MLK himself. In order too. I just removed some key words. That's called being a liar women. So either you have to lie to get your message across because there is no actual reason you do what you do, or you are too stupid to research the quotes you used. Either way, I hope 9/11 happens again and somehow only you and the terrorist in the planes die while the rest of the people somehow survive unscathed and inherit all of your company's wealth. I love when people don't let things like facts get in the way of their mission.
Does he actually believe he refuted anything here, or pointed out some mistake?! The essence of Franklin's quote was that people who would give up their freedoms just to feel a little more “safe” are not deserving of either their freedom or safety, presumably because he realized that often under the guise of “protecting” you those in power look to take more of your freedoms away. And this is precisely what has been taking place in america, particularly after the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center. [4]
The Code Pink banner shortened Franklin's quote most likely so it would better fit on their banner. However, the point is that the essence of the quote has not been changed and the many privacy invasions by the government is likely what these women were protesting in the picture. His Martin Luther King “quote” is just pure stupidity. It should be obvious to anyone with an I.Q. over 70 (sadly this likely rules out Viceroy Magnus) that his MLK “quote” carries the complete opposite message of what King stood for, while Code Pink's Franklin quote has retained its meaning, even though they shortened it dramatically.
After this last example of hair brained stupidity he begins making fun of, and insulting people in, other pictures of Code Pink members. Below one picture of an elderly woman he writes, “Fat, Old Waste of Space.” He then posts more pictures, this time of the wacky right wing Christians who stand on the street corners holding signs that say things like, “Pray for More Dead Solders,” and “Thank God for IEDs.” [improvised explosive devices]
After all this he finally gets to discussing Kassie Dill's video. He whines,
Now on the the grand finale. Naturally I could go on and on forever. However, a friend recently sent me a video that pissed me off greatly. It is the video I talked about in the opening of this article (if you still remember it). This video is of a woman who spends ten minutes detailing why she does not support the troops. There are many videos of disgusting American scum saying why they do not support the troops. I picked this particular one because it was the first one I watched. (Note, after finishing this, I did some more research and found out that this woman is actually a pretty prominent voice against troops. Her name is Kassie Dill and she has appeared on television and other media outlets numerous times). What I will do is show you the video right now, then I will do a point by point commentary on why almost every one of her points is incorrect and based on ignorance and propaganda.
So viewers don't have to go to my other blog post to watch the video here it is:
Immediately after posting Dill's video Viceroy Magnus writes,
So right off the bat we see that her name is Liberty Chick Live. An already annoying name seeing as how she is not do these videos live and doesn't value liberty. Anyway, the first thing she says is about clearing up the misconception that she does support the troops, it is just the war/administration/etc that she does not support. She makes it perfectly clear that she does not support the troops ALONG with the war, current administration, etc. OK, so that is not bad so far. She is entitled to her wrong opinion. She is so hell bent on not supporting the troops that she declares that she supports absolutely NOTHING the troops do.
Before I continue though, I want something cleared up. When a person refers to "troops," I take it to mean any person that has ever served in the military of the United States. I do not mean just those who have and still serve since 9/11. That being said, I can't speak for how everyone else defines "troops." For the purposes of this article, we will use my definition. OK, so she refuses to support anything the troops have done huh? Well, here is a list of things, in no particular order, that the troops have done that she might support.
He starts off with some pathetic insults and then has a list of nine things he claims troops have done that she should support. He writes,
1. Fought the English so we could be our own country. Without the troops, none of us would be American. We would all be English. I, for one, love my straight, white teeth and American Football. So this alone makes it worth it to support the troops.
This is just a ridiculous “reason.” I certainly don't care that I'm “american” and this is nothing more than pathetic and illogical ethnocentrism, and I certainly don't support that. I doubt Dill would either.
2. Ended World War 1 and 2. (There is so much more that can be said about this alone but I will resist).
Regarding WWI the U.S.'s policy was supposedly one of “neutrality” but Woodrow Wilson seemed to enter the war for largely economic reasons and not for any kind of defensive or humanitarian reason. [5] Due to the unethical reasons for entering the war in the first place, I don't see what's so great about their ending of it.
Regarding WWII it's crazy that he actually believes anyone should be proud that the U.S. used two atomic bombs on Japan in WWII. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was due, not for any needed defensive purposes, but purely for political reasons. Because of this, 100,000 civilians were killed. The U.S. didn't want Russia to invade Japan and wanted Japan to surrender to the U.S. so they could be the occupier of postwar Japan. Historian Gar Alperovitz noted a diary entry for July 28, 1945 by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as “most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in.” [6] The former Assistant Secretary of State, Archibald MacLeish, “spoke critically of what he saw in the post [WWII] world: 'As things are now going, the peace we will make, the peace we seem to be making, will be a peace of oil, a peace of gold, a peace of shipping, a peace, in brief...without moral purpose or human interest...'" [7]
3. Killed Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Moammar Gadaffi to name a few from this century. I suppose this lady could think of a better way to help save the lives of the millions of citizens struggling under the oppression of these terrible men. Maybe next time we should just kindly ask them the step out of power. We can even sweeten the pot with some organic honey butter soap and toasted rosemary figs wrapped in cage free chicken breasts. Give me a fucking break.
On the contrary, he needs to give me a fucking break. Let's take a look at a few facts.
First, if the united states was truly against fascism and dictators why in the world would the U.S. support dictators, such as Muammar Gaddafi, as just one example of the dictators the U.S. has supported? Second, it wasn't even the U.S. who killed Gaddafi but the Libyan rebel forces themselves! [8]
It's amazing how he credits the U.S. for saving the lives of “millions” when millions of innocent civilians were killed in these wars. In the war against Iraq alone, since 2003, approximately 113,318 civilians have been killed (accessed 11-25-11). And for mostly political reasons as I explain below.
In the case of Hitler, the U.S. “had done little about Hitler's policies of persecution. […] it had joined England and France in appeasing Hitler throughout the thirties.” In fact, “Roosevelt and his Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, were hesitant to criticize publicly Hitler's anti-Semitic politics; when a resolution was introduced in the Senate in January 1934 asking the Senate and the President to express “surprise and pain” at what the Germans were doing to the Jews, and to ask restoration of Jewish rights, the State Department “caused this resolution to be buried in committee.” [9] After the U.S. finally decided to enter the war against Hitler (even after ignoring the many deaths of innocent Jews) Hitler actually committed suicide and wasn't killed by american forces as Viceroy Magnus claims.
Regarding Benito Mussolini the U.S. “declared an embargo on munitions [to Italy] but let American businesses send oil to Italy in huge quantities, which was essential to Italy's carrying on the war.” [10] He wasn't even killed by any american forces, but by fellow Italian Walter Aduisio at the behest of National Liberation Committee.
Osama Bin Laden's actions were because of the united states' oppressive and murderous actions in the Middle East. Essentially, the U.S.'s foreign policy caused the September 11th attacks so Bin Laden's murder was no true victory of any kind. [11]
Saddam Hussein was actually aided by the U.S. in the 1980's and was even given military intelligence and “stores of materials that could be used to develop biological and chemical weapons.” [12] Even the war against Iraq in the 1990's was for political and monetary reasons. George Bush went to war because it was felt that a great offensive would cause his popularity to rise in the polls since an election was fast approaching. [13] Several nations also benefited from this war in another way, although this reason was kept from the public. “Shortly after the war, as representatives of the thirteen oil-producing nations were about to gather in Geneva, the business correspondent of the New York Times wrote: 'By virtue of its military victory the United States is likely to have more influence in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries than any industrial nation has ever exercised.'” [14]
It's more than clear that the U.S. largely goes into other countries for political or economic reasons and not for any kind of “humanitarian” reasons. Out of this list the only individuals actually killed by the U.S. was Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. In some cases, such as with Hussein, many people believed that the people were better off before the U.S. intervened and caused so much havoc, such as United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.
This fact was even mentioned in the November 28th 2011 episode of DemocracyNow! when they played a video of a talk by a former government insider, Wesley Clark, admitting this was the U.S.'s plan for several years before 9/11 to go into several countries and destroy their governments, such as Libya (which they did this year), and Iraq. They simply used 9/11 as a pretext to carry out their plans of domination. To quote Glenn Greenwald: “Clark said the aim of this plot was this: 'They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.'” (emphasis mine)
4. Defended the Alamo from Mexico. 'Nuff said there.
I'm shocked he's proud of this since those men who tried to defend the Alamo, such as Davy Crockett and James Bowie, were doing so in order to uphold their “freedom to own slaves.” [15] Therefore, the U.S. was essentially supporting slave holders during this war.
5. Thousands of troops across the globe are immediately sent to aid any area in the world affected by extreme natural disasters. Typhoons, earthquakes, tornado, flood...none of it stops us. Whether it is our country or not, we will help you and even give you our food and clothes if you need it. Troops are some of the most selfless people around. This is especially true when it comes to natural disasters in our country. The National Guard has been helping rebuild cities ruined by natural disasters since they have been around. Yet according to this lady, these humanitarians are the same people who get their rocks off by slaughtering babies.
In some cases this is true, though more often than not the U.S. military is used as a tool for the political and financial elites of the country for their own interests as I've already discussed. In other cases the military severely botches any “aid” that they might attempt or the government politics overrides any aid they seek to give. The Christian Science Monitor reported in an article titled, “Humanitarian Aid Is Not a Military Business,” that “Under a military-controlled relief effort, humanitarian assistance can easily become a tool of war. Hostile forces might see aid workers as easy targets and allies of the occupying force. Moreover, the neediest Iraqis may never receive assistance if their needs don't match the Pentagon's political goals. The reconstruction effort is likely to lack international legitimacy and financial support."
"In Iraq, the US use of humanitarian aid as a political asset threatens the efficiency and equity of aid operations. The Pentagon, overruling the Department of State, has asserted the right to organize postwar reconstruction in Iraq. It created an Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance that will have the military imprimatur on every aspect of rebuilding—from political institutions to the food aid Iraqis receive."
"Aid workers from international charities can follow along the Pentagon script or they can operate at their own considerable risk. The Pentagon has even made plans for these aid workers to wear US military-issued identification badges—something the workers see as an affront to their values as well as an unnecessary risk in a still volatile region."
"The Pentagon plan poses monumental ethical and practical challenges to aid groups. The two bedrock principles of humanitarian assistance are neutrality and impartiality."
"Neutrality means that organizations do not take sides in a conflict. Impartiality means that need is the only condition for determining who receives aid—not political affiliation, ethnicity, or any other criterion."
"Aid organizations obviously lose their neutrality if they operate under the direction of the US military. Humanitarian aid also loses its impartiality if politics, rather than need, determines who receives aid. On the ground, that might translate to the military preventing aid workers from assisting non-liberated zones, for example."
"Adherence to impartiality and neutrality, even in an imperfect way, is a practical asset to aid workers, in addition to the ethical value. Being viewed as US allies makes them easy targets for Iraqi guerrillas. "We don't want our workers compromised by having military protection," said an official of Save the Children (UK) earlier this month, as debate in the international aid community formed around the Pentagon's emerging plan."
"Many organizations, such as Oxfam, have already stated their refusal to work under the US military. Some aid organizations, however, will do so. These groups may reap valuable contracts and international visibility for their organizations. By doing so they will relinquish any pretense of neutrality and impartiality, however.”
The article concludes, “The Afghanistan conflict in 2001 showcased military incompetence in humanitarian aid distribution. In a crude bid for political influence, the US dropped individual food packets from airplanes in remote areas of Afghanistan. The only value of these token distributions was for US propaganda. Even the propaganda backfired after Afghan civilians mistook yellow unexploded ordnance for the yellow food packets. In other instances, the media reported on warlords hoarding the food packets and selling them for a profit."
"Similar stories of military mismanagement and inexperience are already emerging from Iraq. In Umm Qasr, children daily contract preventable diseases from dirty water. Rather than focus on unglamorous tasks of health and sanitation, however, US troops built a very photogenic plastic playground for the children of Umm Qasr. News photos of US soldiers sharing their rations with grateful Iraqi families cannot replace the need for technical expertise to feed millions of malnourished civilians." [16]
6. Troops slow drug trafficking across our borders. Did she forget that the Coast Guard members are also troops? I don't think one person in the Coast Guard has ever gone to Iraq and killed anyone. These men fight a different kind of war. They fight a drug war on the seas. But I guess this lady would rather have Mexican drug cartel members control our country by having the Coast Guard become obsolete enabling the cartel to bring all the drugs they want.
Ah, yes, the “War on Drugs.” This started as mostly a pathetic government-run attempt by cigarette and alcohol manufacturers to block the sale and use of intoxicants that were cheaper and, in some cases, less harmful as in the case of marijuana. Millions of peoples' stolen tax dollars are used to incarcerate nonviolent individuals simply for using a substance that harms no one else but its user. The government spends millions on a pointless crusade and jails millions of innocent, peaceful people. The “War on Drugs,” or more like the War on Innocent People, has been a huge failure. [17]
7. Help control our borders. Illegal immigration is a problem, but it is not Hispanics crossing that is the biggest issue. It is terrorists sneaking in to our country via our borders. Who controls the borders? Border patrol and occasionally local help from volunteers and the National Guard. Many people who are in the border patrol are veterans...
More conservative nonsense about “illegals.” Why am I supposed to be proud of, or support groups who, kill or imprison innocent people who are simply trying to gain a better life for themselves? This is nothing more than a form of racism and it's disgusting. The U.S. is, after all, a melting pot of various cultures and always has been. It's sad that pure racism is driving these anti-immigration laws all over the country in 2011.
8. ...In fact, many policeman are veterans too. So the next time she needs help from a cop, she should ask him/her is they are a veteran. If the cop is, then she should not accept their help. He is probably a more proficient cop because of the training he received, which would enable him to perform his job better, which better serves you. But never mind that, because she does not support the troops.
Yes, and the same kind of abusive practices you can find by soldiers are also done by cops. Police brutality, misconduct, and corruption are rampant throughout america and also the world. See my series called The Lucifer Effect.
9. The vast majority of people in our country have been in the service, know someone in the service, or have been affected by the service in some way. So for you to say you don't support the troops is like basically insulting the majority of Americans directly. Enough about this list. Let us get back to thrashing the ignorance profusely spraying from the bridge troll's snarled mouth.
This is a pointless objection. Of course I'm not going to support anyone who has carried out, or stood by, during the countless acts of brutality at the hands of soldiers or cops (since he'd like to place cops in the same category), no matter how many people that includes.
Talk about 'profuse ignorance.' I've disproven most everything he's said thus far. Viceroy Magnus continues with his nonsense. He writes,
She goes on to say that those in the military don't really know what they are doing. We think we are patriots for a good cause when in fact we are pawns fighting for oil companies and big businesses. Now, this may be true to a certain extent. But there are several factors that she probably never considered. For one, there are MAYBE a handful of people in this country that knows what the President knows and what his cabinet knows. These people know things that none of us will ever know about. Therefore, all the reasons behind each war and conflict may never truly be known by the general American population. I seriously doubt that any President would just start a war because he had a hunch. I am sure that the data showed that it was necessary, at least in some way, at the time.
This excuse is priceless! PRICELESS!!! He even admits this is true but then be backtracks and argues that maybe there is this secret reason that only those high up in the government know about... Talk about an ad hoc argument. There is no supporting evidence to support this conclusion. And what was it that Viceroy's Magnus' blog said about providing evidence?! It seems to me that he doesn't even try to live up to the standards he wants others to follow. Hypocrite.
He continues,
Another factor is that we do not really have much of a choice. Sure joining the military might make you think that we should know that shooting someone is a possibility. However, there are uniformed service members who never receive weapons of any kind (Chaplains, etc). People join the service for all kinds of reasons. Once you are in the military, the President is your ultimate boss. If he says go fight, you go fight whether you believe it or not. I joined during a time of peace and still served through 9 years of war. I didn't quit when conflict broke out. That is the pussy thing to do. If you do not go to war, you go to jail, get dishonorably discharged, and have your life ruined. Of course, they have what is called a conscientious objectors which say they do not believe in war so they get a free pass to leave the military. As a side note, if you join the military, then cry conscientious objector, you should be raped by armies of fire ants. What idiot joins the military and doesn't believe in fighting? (Chaplains excluded). Seriously, they should all be punished in some way for being so stupid. Anyway, all service members are free to desert their command and leave. While that is certainly a choice, it is not one that many would be willing to make. I would personally shoot every person in any other entire country in the face, if it meant saving one American from dying. Not an American like this bitch, but a real American. A person who works hard for an honest days pay and is too tired from working to make pretentious YouTube videos.
More nonsense and attempts at deflecting blame. I already addressed this in my response in a previous blog post. I wrote, “It appears you support the murder of people and it appears you wish to place blame on others instead of the actual people who pulled the triggers. That's a common method of disassociating yourself from the people you've killed by blaming someone else (read On Killing, by Dave Grossman). Of course, the fact is that it was the ones who pulled the triggers who are the real murderers. They could have listened to their conscience (if they even have one) and left the battlefield and refused to kill, but they didn't. I find that final statement of yours to be morally reprehensible and sickening. You can defend and deflect your actions all you want but if you pushed the button or pulled the trigger you are a murderer.”
As far as “conscientious objectors” thousands were put in prison for refusing to go to war during the first and second World Wars and the Vietnam war. [18] Hardly a “free pass.”
Even the Uniform Code of Military Justice, article 90, it says very clearly that if one “willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior officer” they can be punished by death (in a time of war) or court-marshaled.
Next she says that troops should know why we are fighting and what they are fighting for. Well let me explain just a few things to you. For one, the majority of the military is men aged 18-24. Men are aggressive and enjoy competition. We want to beat the shit out of anyone that hurts us. The more you hurt us, the more we want to fuck you up. And 9/11 hurt real bad. She says that we shouldn't be able to use patriotism as a reason to fight wars. Well guess what, we don't. We fight wars because our President says we do...period. I have known plenty of troops that were against the war but fought in it. It is our job, not our choice. This lady acts like the military is a religion or something and at any time, we can just change our minds and become anti war liberals. It is a job we volunteered to do, for whatever reason, and it is how millions provide food for their families. Active duty troops is a very small portion of what the Department of Defense spends it's military budget on. Millions rely on military funding for jobs which allows people to earn a living. Never mind that though because, according to Liberty Chick, we should eliminate the military altogether which would increase unemployment to somewhere in the 20-30% range. It is starting to sound like this lady is a terrorist herself. Plus, I am only a minute and a half into the video.
More nonsense excuses about how men are naturally aggressive. This does not excuse the common brutality by service members. He continues with the same bullshit excuse as earlier, but it doesn't fly. Something immoral that is done even by the orders of some authority is still immoral. He further doesn't even seem to understand what the hell Dill is talking about when she argues that those that decide to go into the military should know, with the help of all of the independent media, about the governments' selfish agendas and manufactured reasons when it comes to these wars, but they fight anyway. He misses her point entirely.
Another blatant error is he erects a strawman when he writes,
Never mind that though because, according to Liberty Chick, we should eliminate the military altogether which would increase unemployment to somewhere in the 20-30% range. It is starting to sound like this lady is a terrorist herself. Plus, I am only a minute and a half into the video.
This is a lie. She never said any such thing about doing away with the military in the entire video, let alone within the first minute and a half of it. She was only discussing her disgust about how the military is being used to expand american power and influence.
He continues,
Included in the above paragraph should be this; she is viewing all of this through the magical power of hindsight. Where was this bitch in March of 2003 when the war started? I can tell you where I was; I had been sitting in Kuwait for a month waiting for the word on whether we were going to fight or not. Anyone can criticize the past because of hindsight. If I ran over a nail and flattened my tire, I can now say that, had I drove on another street, I wouldn't have flattened my tire. But we do not have time machines so this type of behavior is utterly useless. Why state the obvious? What matters is that the war is here. Whether or not the war should have ever happened is completely irrelevant and pointless to talk about because it is here. That can not be changed. Hell, if correcting the past with hindsight was possible, there probably would have never been any wars and we could all eat granola bars while singing kumbaya around an eco-friendly warming lamp. (No more fires because they cause global warming and if it gets too hot, polar bears will have no glaciers to lay on).
I do not know what Dill thought in 2003 but those who were properly informed should have known that the war was being waged for entirely bogus reasons. Some journalists were exposing George Bush's war propaganda and his lies about “weapons of mass destruction” the very year the war started such as James Bovard in his 2003 book Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil. Therefore, Viceroy's Magnus' pathetic excuse about “hindsight” is baseless.
He writes, “Whether or not the war should have ever happened is completely irrelevant and pointless to talk about because it is here. That can not be changed.”
This is complete bullshit because if information that comes to light, even if it comes a short time after an action has begun, that counters your current beliefs it's only logical and moral to stop any actions you're engaging in and examine the new information before continuing to make sure you weren't in error. However, the contrary evidence was ignored and millions died, mostly innocent civilians. [19]
She says that since WWII, 90% of casualties were unarmed civilians. Well, that is technically a lie. however, what she includes in her figures is those civilians killed by both sides of each war, along the slaughter/genocides of innocent people, typically by the people we are fighting. The Germans slaughtered over an estimated 6 million Jews. This number is now thought to be on the low side. She includes this number in her figures which is radically unfair since we did not condone this behavior and in fact, ended it. Kassie doesn't support the ending of the slaughter of the jews though, you know, since troops did it. If it were up to Kassie, she would have helped fill the gas chambers, fucking Nazi bitch. Saddam Hussein attempted a genocide with the Kurds. We stopped that too. Millions of innocent people were dying and we stopped that. I guess human life has no value to Kassie unless it is a straight, American liberal life. Also, I just found out that she runs a homophobic Christian group on YouTube called Alliance of Christ, or AoC. I won't provide a link because I don't want her videos to get a lot of traffic, but if you must check it out, bash her. Whether you believe homosexuality is right or wrong, homosexuals are now allowed to openly serve in the military. Therefore, if you support the troops, you have to support ALL the troops.
*Note: Anything I say about Kassie can be forwarded and applied to those that think like her. She is a voice and speaks for many people who agree with this troop bashing philosophy so this goes out to all of you that agree with this asexual succubus. (Also, I am willing to bet that her boyfriend, if she is not a lesbian, is a 105 pound man with the palest skin and he probably works at Whole Foods). But enough of the personal attacks.
I'm not sure what he's talking about Dill supposedly “includ[ing] in her figures is those civilians killed by both sides of each war, along the slaughter/genocides of innocent people, typically by the people we are fighting. The Germans slaughtered over an estimated 6 million Jews. This number is now thought to be on the low side. She includes this number in her figures [...]”
I found some references about Dill and this Alliance of Christ on the web and what he says about her might be true, though I couldn’t confirm Viceroy's Magnus' allegation about hating gays. However, I did find on her blog her obvious hatred and opposition to Planned Parenthood and she seems to believe that 9/11 was an “inside job,” which I think is ridiculous. I didn't look around her blog too much and I didn't realize she was a theist or held such nutty views. Her views certainly aren't entirely logical or consistent (she's anti-authoritarian about government but accepts another form of authoritarianism: theism) and I disagree with her about a lot, but I do agree with her on her stance on the military and government. But the video under discussion isn't about her other views, but about her views on the military, which I'd say is an ad hominem attack on the part of Viceroy Magnus.
After looking at Dill's sources she cited a UNICEF report and it doesn't mention a damn thing about the Jews or the Holocaust. Viceroy Magnus is outright lying here and he calls her a Nazi based on his purely imaginary accusation! Fuck you Viceroy Magnus! What? What was that? You expect everyone who comments on your piece of shit blog to cite facts? He writes,
Let's only use new, relevant facts. The newer the facts the better. Also, if you are going to argue against us, don't being that weak crap. Get off your ass, do your research and honestly debate us […]
I've shown over and over again how this ignorant asshole doesn't even bother to practice what he preaches!
Next, she says that service members must fall into 1 of 3 categories. Here they are.
1. They must be dumb. She claims that since information is so readily available, that you have to be really really dumb to join the military without knowing what the war was REALLY about. Well sister, if you think service members are stupid, then I got news for you; percentage wise, the military has a higher IQ, more discipline, better job prospects, a more secure future, greater networking, and more loyalty than any company I know of. Sure 10% of service members are fuck ups, but doesn't that go for any group of people? Take all of America. 1 out of 7 has gone to jail in America. Go to familywatchdog.us and type your address in. It will show you the 300+ sex offenders that live within 20 miles of your house. The percent of criminals in the civilian population greatly exceeds that of service members. How is that possible? Well, to get in the military, you need to pass many, many physical and mental tests, training regiments, written exams, and much more just to be accepted to try to be a service member. To be an American, you just need to survive birth. The screening process never stops in the military either. We are forced to maintain that level or we will be forced out of the military. The U.S. has no such standards. Also, there are many jobs in the military. Dozens. They range from engineers to pilots to everything else. Every job requires you to pass a test in order to be able to accepted for your occupation. Then, you must go to school and be trained on how to do your job. Lastly, you sit through weeks of training a year to be able to maintain that occupation. Very few civilian jobs require much more than a social security number. Back to the list. If you think I am dumb Kassie, I invite you to have an open YouTube, Facebook, phone, or any other type conversation about this topic. If you accept, I hope you bring your A game.
Looking at Viceroy's Magnus' arguments I don't think Dill would even need to bring her C+ game. He completely went around her argument. He stated it correctly in the first few sentences so maybe he's not as smart as he'd like to think because he didn't even answer it! I didn't bother to fact-check all that nonsense he said about those who go into the military as having higher I.Q.'s and whatnot. However, one thing I know isn't true is his claim that those who go into the military have “better job prospects” and “a more secure future.” A quick internet search brought up an article from 2009 titled “Iraq War Veterans Struggle to Find Jobs.” [20] What's this about bringing facts to the discussion? And those in the military supposedly have “more discipline?” Where was that “discipline” when those military men in the “Collateral Murder” video were having fun killing innocent people? Where was the “discipline” when all those jackasses in the military at Abu Ghraib prison tortured those people? [21]
2. The troops are evil serial killers who found the perfect job. She makes a valid point. Any serial killer would be more than happy to get paid to kill all the people they could. Just one problem though, we are screened so heavily that it is truly rare that a person of that caliber could be allowed to serve. Sure it has happened. Comparatively, the FBI says that there are around 50 active serial killers in the U.S. at any given time. Sure that seems like a small number, but any more than 0 is too large for me. Plus, that is just serial killers. That doesn't include the thousands of other criminals waiting to kill, rape, steal, or cut you. The point is that what we are talking about is war. War is the combating of two or more parties whose intention is to eliminate the others or to make them surrender. It isn't about who is better at poker or some other bullshit. Therefore, when you are in war, it is necessary to put yourself in a mental situation that enables you to feel no remorse for your opponent. You must be able to kill without it bothering you or it could possibly get you and your squad, team, platoon, etc killed.
Therefore, ensuring your survival is of the utmost importance. Sure there have been mistakes in war. Some people lose touch with reality, soldiers return home and find the war has affected them deeper than previously thought. Even aircraft pilots make mistakes. The optics aren't the greatest for viewing details. It isn't like every aircraft is equipped with a 60 in LED TV in HD. Here is a video she referenced as the brutal slaughtering of innocent people:
If you watched the whole video, it did seem like a few of them had weapons. In fact, some of them did. But here is what you don't know...what happened before this video was shot? What was said in the War Room? Was this mission in a known hostile area? What was the goal of the mission? There are many things that need to be taken into consideration before you automatically assume that every service member is a psychopath. When you are in a war zone, those people are your mortal enemy. They are trying to kill you. It is either you or them. The pilot here even thought he saw an RPG. He did what was necessary to protect his life. He made a bad call but was not ever disciplined because it what he did was within the realm of his responsibilities. While bad, it was an accident. Kassie acts like American's are incapable of mistakes. Many troops in every war have dies as a result of friendly fire incidents. Mistakes happen, except to Kassie, because she claims to have never been morally compromised. These pilots in the video are talking casually but that is because no one can be tense for the entire time they are deployed. How do you expect them to talk? Better yet Kassie, why don't you tell us how they should talk? Since you have served and know what war is like first hand, how should they act Kassie? Thought so. Have you ever been in stress for 6-18 months straight with no break, in the middle of the desert with the nearest family member thousands of miles away? Then shut the fuck up. Since you think this only happens in the military, how many times have you heard this exact story about cops? A cop thinks he sees a gun and it they waste a kid, only to find out it was a candy bar or sandwich. Does that mean that all cops are serial killers? Why aren't you bashing them? Oh because your professors and the internet only brainwashed you to hate the troops, not real societal problems.
More ad hoc excuses about secret meetings and alleged intelligence about the area in question. Most of those guys' hands were clearly empty and one of them was a reporter with a camera, not a weapon! This has been confirmed. The man's name was Saeed Chmagh. It was hard to tell in the video but the other man who was clearly carrying something may or may not have been armed. And he appeared to be the only person even holding anything in the group that was fired upon! I saw the man with an RPG peeking out from behind a building but that's not who they fired upon! I never even saw that guy again. They fired upon several unarmed men in the front of the building!
Then he rants about Dill liking cops but not the military, but I'm sure she dislikes cops just as much as the military. It just wasn't the subject of her video.
When he says, “These pilots in the video are talking casually but that is because no one can be tense for the entire time they are deployed. How do you expect them to talk? Better yet Kassie, why don't you tell us how they should talk? Since you have served and know what war is like first hand, how should they act Kassie?” I'm not sure what he's referring to. She never mentioned anything about “how” those in the military should “talk.” Likely he was just hallucinating again...just as he hallucinated that this response was any kind of a challenge.
Speaking of which, who are you to talk about the military anyway? You have never served nor have you fought in a war. What gives your opinion so much credibility? The biggest reason Kassie pisses me off is because she says all troops, like we are all replicas from the exact same mold. We come from all over the world. Yes Kassie, people without an American birth certificate can join the U.S. military. She says stupid phrases like all troops are dumb and love to kill, blah blah blah. Well Kassie, less than 1% of the entire military is in an occupation that is designed for combat only. Infantry, grunts, Special Ops, Recon, Green Berets, SEALS, etc are only a tiny, tiny portion of the military. In fact, most service members will never fire a hostile shot or ever see an enemy. Many service members never even leave the U.S. Therefore, this entire video is vapid and trite. You are talking about maybe 1-3 people in all of the military. Compare that to the thousands of rapists, killers, child abusers, etc that run rampant through America. If you don't believe me, go to familywatchdog.us again. There are probably more sex offenders in your state than there are total active duty members in the entire U.S. Military. So maybe civilians should be the ones getting bashed. Why can't you control each other? Those number are outrageous. How is it that you attack the troops when everyone around you is way more fucked up?
Given the fact that there are numerous cases of members of the military abusing and murdering people his figure of “1-3” people in the entire military who love to kill is completely ridiculous. Yes, there are many people who join the military who do not see any battlefield, however, they still willingly joined an organization that kills innocents and I would consider many of them to be accomplices to murder in many cases.
My favorite part of the whole tape is when she says, and I quote, "You're given a badge of honor, and this is true...you're given a badge of honor for stabbing someone to death who did nothing." On what planet does someone get a medal for that. This woman says it is true! That one statement alone is all you really need to know she is a fucking idiot.
This is probably the only true statement this guy has written throughout his entire rant. I couldn't find any information about this alleged incident. However, his calling her a “fucking idiot” because of a few mistakes (like he said himself above people are human and make mistakes... don't be a hypocrite now...) he dismisses everything she said. Well, I looked up each of her claims and all but three I verified as factual.
Then she says she has veteran friends. She told these friends that if she could save their lives, she wouldn't because she doesn't believe in what they do. Some friend huh. I can already tell she is lying. No Real Man or veteran would ever be friends with such a fucking idiot.
She never said any such thing. What she actually said was, “I have friends that have joined the military; it's been against my wishes. I said, you know what, as a human being, as your role as a friend, whatever, I support you, but your role in this, in what you're doing, your role as a soldier, no I don't support you. If you get into a bad situation because of it I'm not going to help you out; I want nothing to do with it.”
Did she say a damn thing about not saving anyone's life?! No. I'm not sure what she was referring to but she didn't say anything that can be construed as allowing someone to die. Throughout this stupid, brainless rant Viceroy Magnus has repeatedly put words in Dill's mouth and I find that to be highly immoral. He is lying about this woman.
You may have noticed that she said there are three types of people that join the service. Well, in the video she only names two (another reason why she is dumb). She says we make the choice to kill. We are unethical and evil on purpose. Then she jumps on the holier-than-though express and proclaims that she has been in morally compromising situations a lot and never bowed to pressure. Sure. If that is so, let's see how intact that hymen is. Thought so bitch. Gotcha!
This comment is disgusting. It's also ridiculous because just because a woman doesn't have an intact hymen doesn't mean that she's “loose.” Jackass... And who is the stupid one here? His other lapse of thought here is that Dill did state three reasons. She said her categories were that those who join the military are 1) Dumb; 2) Evil; or 3) Morally Compromised. Viceroy Magnus obviously didn't watch the video very carefully. Either that, or he's the dumbass and can't count.
Lastly, she says that we view others as less than us which enables us to kill terrorists, children and innocent people all the same. To us, Iraqis are lesser people and they don't love as strongly so it is OK to kill them. This is what she says and believes. Can it be any worse than this type of person? Don't you love people you have a never ending flow of diarrhea pouring from their mouth and none of it has any real substance. They might as well be tape recorders, regurgitating verbatim, all the propaganda they hear off liberal extremist sites.
This idiot didn't even engage her statement. It's a fact that the military dehumanizes those it will fight in battle. This is why in the military the “enemies” were called “gooks,” “Krauts,” or “Nips.” “In Vietnam this process was assisted by the 'body count' mentality, in which we referred to and thought of the enemy as numbers. One Vietnam vet told me that this permitted him to think that killing the NVA and VC was like 'stepping on ants.'” [22]
First hand accounts prove that degrading the “enemy” is a tactic that has been used throughout military history and could even be witnessed in the “Collateral Murder” video.
We service members do not need your approval, or your support. We do not need your thanks, care packages, or yellow ribbons. People do these things as a way of saying thank you. It also honors those who have fought for over 230 years for our country. People do these things because it feels good. I doubt any service member has ever asked someone to thank them or asked someone to clap for them on a plane. I have never gone to a bar and asked a guy to buy me anything because I was a troop. We volunteered to do this job because it is the right thing to do. Serving your country reaps no better reward, even if you never leave American soil. Doing your part is what makes America so great. Why is it that when John F.. Kennedy Jr. famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" everyone freaked out and wanted to help the country in anyway. Whether right or wrong, they stood together. The rest of the world saw this and became terrified of us. In fact, that unity is one reason why no major conflict happened as a result of the Cold War. Now, we have people like Kassie. People do not want to support our troops or country, yet want to enjoy all of the freedoms associated with it. If you look throughout history, every time we are in a conflict and support for the troops and war is low, our economy and country has been in the crapper (Vietnam, Iraq I and II, Afghanistan). Our nation was glorious when JFK said those famous words and during other conflicts (WWI, WWII, Korean War, Revolutionary War). These wars showed the highest support of troops and coincidentally enough, our economies were pretty good. Hell, WWII even ended the Great Depression. Now, people like Kassie leach off the system until we can't pay our bills, we are in a long recession, our credit rating dropped, and more people are unemployed now more than ever. You do the math. History doesn't lie.
This is just ridiculous. The fact is wars create wealth for the top one percent in a country but everyone else still suffers. That's the historical reality. [23]
I could write more but what is the point. These people are so jaded that nothing can undo the damage that their civics professor did in the first place. Weak minded people are molded easily, like fresh play dough. The rest of us are solid and unscathed, like titanium. Kassie, what have you done to better the world other than sit on your hemp bean bag chair and talk? Go out and contribute to the world. Seriously, what has all your protesting time accomplished? We are still at war and nothing has changed. So thanks for wasting your life while the rest of us continue to make America the beautiful, illustrious place we all know and love. ALso, if you don't like America, GET THE FUCK OUT! It is that simple.
Ah, yes, the good 'ol “love or leave it” nonsense. The fact is that all governments act in this manner so where are people like me and Kassie going to go? If we moved we'd just be speaking out against the atrocities of another government. So he can shove that crap back up his ass where it came from. And he can shove the rest of this pathetic rant right up there along with it.
Funny stuff. The people who are molded like “play dough” are people exactly like ignorant and hateful old Viceroy Magnus here and other people like him. People like me and Kassie are true freethinkers who speak out against hate, needless violence, unfairness, war, unchecked government power and abuse, and the list goes on. People like Viceroy Magnus seem to think all this is OK; that it's for our “safety” or some such nonsense. What's nonsense is this propaganda Viceroy Magnus and people like him blindly swallow and it's sickening. Absolutely sickening. As I've shown Kassie and I are the ones with the facts on our side. It's Kassie and I who hold the moral high ground. And it's Kassie and I who try our best to educate simpleminded buffoons like Viceroy Magnus about what's really going on, but they continue to trot out the same nonsense and propaganda that people like Kassie try so hard to dispel.
With his last paragraph Viceroy Magnus proves just how much of a sexist asshole he really is when he writes,
P.S. Kassie, In all fairness, I wanted to tell you about this organization that was around in 2003. You might be very interested in it and you actually fit the profile to a T. It is called "Operation Take One For The Country". It involved women who would go to bases where men were about to deploy and they would have sex with them and a way to say thank you and good luck. No strings, no diseases, just guilt free, mutual, casual sex. Just a thought. I'm sure there are some guys who would love to try to fuck the stupid out of you.
Perhaps, Viceroy Magnus, someone needs to knock the stupid out of you? If ever that were possible...
Conclusion After going through this entire waste of gray matter I've learned that Viceroy Magnus can't write for shit. He's highly illogical and hateful. He's proven himself to be a sexist, wannabe macho man asshole, who needs to take a long walk off of a short cliff. He's a symbol of everything that's wrong in this country and is a poster boy for the stupid, ignorant, patriotic people who support the government, the wars, and the troops.
I've shown that Viceroy Magnus has not even come close to adhering to the standards of facts and evidence that he demands of others. He is an unethical murderer, and is also a sexist racist. It's sad that we have so many of these illogical, morally compromised, racist, and sexist individuals living among us. No wonder this country is going down the drain... We have immoral war mongers running the government and we have immoral, racist, dullards in the general population!
Your “challenge” has been met and completely destroyed....jackass.
