RSS

Tag Archives: delusion

Navy Vet, Dad Craig Scarberry Lost Custody of Kids for Being Agnostic? Probably Not.

Craig Scarberry, 29, of Indiana maintains he lost joint custody of his 3 children because of his agnosticism. As evidence, he cites statements alluding to his irreligious views written by presiding Judge George Pancol which state Scarberry “did not participate in the same religious training as the mother…the father was agnostic…when the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.” Following Scarberry, liberals, atheists and agnostics have quote mined Pancol’s comments, spinning them for their political and what can be seen as nothing short of a fear mongering agenda, insisting not only this man lost custody due to his agnosticism but that this represents religion encroaching upon the fundamental rights and freedoms as established by the First Amendment. These people have used Pancol’s words, in a sense, as a call to arms for all irreligious to unite to fight this supposed encroachment before we become a full-blown theocracy. This is perfectly exemplified by the reaction of the The Young Turks.

Pancol’s statements, however, merely relay the fact of how the couple’s relationship operated cohesively when both shared the same religious perspective. Scarberry claims he and his lawyer have gone through the decision, concluding it was based on religious considerations. Of course his irreligious brethren agree. No where in Pancol’s comments does it state, or even imply, religious considerations are a part of the court’s ruling, and Pancol maintains his decision is based on the children’s best interests. Unless irrefutable contrary evidence surfaces, it is irrational and illogical to assume otherwise.

What those who are assume otherwise, and the irresponsible media which is refusing to clarify the matter, are ignoring is the evidence presented in court pointing to the more probable reason his joint custody has been revoked. As reported by the Herald Bulletin, this evidence, which was used by Judge Pancol in his decision, shows Scarberry to have anger management issues, used “profanity in front of the children” and harassed his ex wife with excessive amounts of text messages. Further, in April, 2010, his ex wife had gotten a restraining order against Scarberry for trying to beset and frighten her at her workplace “with abusive language and profanity” and random and unexpected stops by her home “at different hours of the day and night.” Scarberry claims that evidence has been presented in court which purport to refute these latter allegations; as far as I know, as of now, no evidence of such refutation is available to the public and thus I do not know if his claims are true.

Theoretically, though, even if religious considerations had played a part in this decision, it must be determined whether or not they were the sole or dominant criteria on which the decision is based. So long as they do not dominate the decision making process, religious considerations are allowed in custody cases where contesting parties have competing religious interests, and are a normal part of such cases. If Scarberry had been denied custody due to his agnosticism, the judge would have certainly further denied him the right to teach or expose his children to other religious or irreligious perspectives, as happened in MacLagan v. Klein in North Carolina in 1996. In that case, the father, Klein, a Jew, was awarded full religious authority over the couple’s daughter. The court reasoned that since the child had been raised Jewish from the time she was born, it would cause her harm if she was to be introduced into another religion, that being her mother’s Methodism. Scarberry, though, has no such limitations and is free to teach and expose his children to other religions or philosophies, like agnosticism.

Thus, there is more to the court’s decision than these atheists, agnostics, liberals and the media are admitting, considering, investigating or of which they are even aware; it seems these people are motivated by demagoguery and/or paranoid delusions of encroaching theocracy and thus are solely able to focus on the judge’s comments about Scarberry’s irreligious views, spinning them to fit these motivations by ignoring or rewriting the reality and wider context behind the court’s decision. They are further side stepping the reality of custody battles in America where, for perfectly legitimate reasons, it is normal for religious considerations to be a part of a court’s decision.

Advertisements
 
6 Comments

Posted by on December 7, 2010 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Atheists Redefine Atheism Rather Than Admit Defeat

As most philosophy dictionaries and encyclopedias, like those published by Routledge and Stanford, clearly state, TRUE atheism is the belief or view that affirms there is no God or Gods. Labeling yourself an atheist but failing to make this claim means you are not an atheist. The passage of time has proven such an affirmation logically untenable. Whatever integrity and legitimacy atheism may have historically had has been utterly and completely destroyed; its best supporting arguments demolished by a revolution in theist thought beginning in about the latter half of the 20th century, led by intellectuals like Michael Behe, Francis Collins, William Lane Craig, William Dembski, John Lennox, Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, John Polkinghorne, Hugh Ross and Richard Swinburne, to name a few. Rather than admit their belief indefensible and defeated, most atheists today, especially the “New Atheists,” play a deceitful and dishonest game of semantics, championing a revisionist atheism defined simply as the lack belief in God. Atheism thus turns from an intellectual position whose primary contention is the positive claim of God’s nonexistence to a trivial, nonintellectual psychological state whose adherents make no such claim but rather simply do not believe, hold no belief or lack belief in God, and which can tell us nothing about whether or not God exists. In fact, atheism under this new definition becomes neutral on this issue. Those holding to this revisionist atheism do not, in reality, simply lack belief in God; rather, they adorn this revisionist meaning believing it allows them to advance the traditional claims made by true atheism but without the need to intellectually and epistemically support them.

Sometimes, despite holding to this new definition of atheism, some atheists will still directly claim God does not exist; as done by the American Atheists, for example. Most times, however, this assertion is made indirectly, primarily by proclaiming God affirming arguments and beliefs, often the weakest ones at that, whether religious or not, and those who hold them, illogical, irrational and wrong, and/or similar terminology. Even philosophically neutral positions, like agnosticism, is not spared such scorn. However, such declarations can hold any validity only if God’s existence is entirely implausible or if God does not exist but are invalid if God’s existence is plausible or if God exists. Something can only be irrational, illogical or wrong to affirm true or possibly true if it is shown to be implausible or untrue in some way. This can be achieved in numerous ways and does not have to be, as many atheists contend, solely through direct, mathematical and/or scientific evidence; for example, it can be done utilizing the same type of logical inference a detective may use to prove his case. Atheists who insist that only the former type of evidence is acceptable have lost the game for they, if they are to be logically consistent, must prove such evidence to be the only acceptable evidence, using the same criteria they demand from others. At this point, these atheists’ standard of evidence proves to be self refuting.

In short, atheists claim God affirming beliefs are irrational, illogical and wrong; this is, if not equal to the direct claim that God does not exist, at least a strong argument of the implausibility of His existence. Either way, such a contention requires a reasoned, valid, intellectual defense if it is to be considered or accepted as a legitimate philosophical, intellectual positions beyond the individual or group level, to whom it is an already obvious truth regardless of evidence. Such a defense is something most atheists are uninterested in developing, much less providing. Instead, these atheists will usually just make their statements then resort to angry, vitriolic, hyperbolic attacks against those who do not hold those same sentiments, including agnostics. Such attacks, however, do not validate these atheists’ claims or beliefs; they can, in fact, be said to prove the opposite. If these atheists had indisputable evidence that they are completely, unquestionably right they would present it rather than resorting to such tactics. Tactics that can rightly be called pseudo intellectual and juvenile.

In answering the question of God’s existence, the burden of proof falls, as it does in other areas of intellectual discourse and academic study, on whomever makes the claim, be it positive or negative, and thus it falls evenly between those who directly or indirectly affirm He does or does not exist. Thus it falls evenly upon the theist and atheist. Those who hold to revisionist atheism, however, say they make no claims that God does not exist and thus are absolved of any intellectual and epistemic responsibility for logical, reasoned, valid arguments defending their (non) positions. This is just atheists engaging in empty posturing and rhetoric, duplicitous word games and mendacious attempts to redefine terms and debate rules to shift the burden of proof solely onto those who hold God exists enabling these atheists to make any claims they want without intellectually and epistemically supporting them. This is a dishonest, invalid and fallacious strategy, and makes atheists look cowardly, weak and defeated and atheism an untenable, empty position and worldview. Whether directly or indirectly stated, the atheist IS responsible for providing some type of reasoned, valid, logical argument for his positions, claims, arguments which, despite their word play, they do make.

When you do not have evidence in your defense, sometimes you may resort to any measures at your disposal to not admit you are wrong, especially when the alternative is a reality you sorely detest and want not to exist. They may not admit it, but atheists probably know God is not only logically possible, but that He does indeed exist. Something they do not want. As I stated, advancements in modern theist thought, and in philosophy and science generally have made acceptance of and belief in God’s reality more rational and logical than ever before. Even Dawkins has had to admit a strong argument can be made for a deist God. This is quite the concession from an atheist of his stature. Atheists may proclaim their rational, scientific and intellectual superiority but in reality their approach proves them the opposite.

 
6 Comments

Posted by on November 26, 2010 in Atheism

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hello, a brief introduction to me

Hello, my name is Christian and, yes, I am a Christian, conservative, many would say old fashioned, gentleman, and very happily married. I am not on here to berate, denigrate, demean anyone or anything. My presence here is an extension of my off line activities through which I strive to proselytize and defend God’s Word and offer a Christian perspective on current events. When able, I also try and help people better themselves and overcome problems and difficulties in their lives. My supreme goal is to better my community, country and world, which I contend can only be fully achieved through the widespread adoption of Christianity. Producing disciples of Christianity is thus one of my major goals. Many of you nonbelievers may claim that this sounds like I want to force my beliefs on people but this is far from the truth. I do not want to force anything on anyone, and neither do most Christians. The hypocrisy of many nonbelievers is they charge us religious people with trying to “force” our beliefs on people, on society yet they are the ones guilty of this very thing. Sam Harris, for example, a major intellectual leader in the anti-religion movement, says religion should not be tolerated as that is dangerous and equates religious belief with mental illness (see his book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason). Have a nice day and God Bless you, and check out my youtube channel.

 
5 Comments

Posted by on July 5, 2009 in About me

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,