Vox Popoli

dlcarroll seeks clarity:

can you please give succinct definitions of the difference between ‘god’ and ‘God’ as you have used them lately?

This is pertinent for understanding; you have correctly and completely labored to show the blindness of the atheist with regard to spiritual things, but those same comments also tend to muddy the distinctions between Satan/Yahweh/Zeus/Moloch/Molech/ Asterah/Asherah/Baal/Beelzabub as like unto differences of (potentially) equally powerful football teams.

However much the Bible speaks of other gods, it is clear that historic Christianity is monotheistic (in the sense that there is one supreme God who is infinitely mightier than the sum of all other entities) and it seems disingenuous to suppose otherwise without qualification. To also assert that said Supreme Being is also at war with the lesser being(s) and has ordained that we enlist in His service does not contradict that.

Fair enough. An agreed-upon understanding of terms is always helpful when seeking to harmoniously grok in the fullness. I see it thusly:

1. god = a powerful supernatural being that is capable of interacting with the natural realm and is worshipped by humans or other supernatural beings. Examples: Satan, Moloch, Quetzalcoatl etc.

2. God = the Creator God of the Bible. Also known as Yahweh, Jehovah, the Lord God of Israel and numerous other appellations. At war with some of the aforementioned gods, worshipped by others.

3. false god = an imaginary being that may or may not be worshipped by human beings; while it may have a natural manifestation, it has no supernatural existence. Examples: The Great Spaghetti Monster, wooden idols, Shub-Niggurath, thunder.

4. mythical god = a being of historical legend which may or may not exist on the supernatural level. It is either a god or a false god, but as they are unworshipped and are not known to manifest today it is difficult to have an opinion on their existence. Examples: Zeus, Tyr, Morrigan.

Interestingly enough, it is difficult to condemn the atheist too harshly for his inability to understand the difference between belief and worship, especially given that in this case it appears to be built around the concept of monotheism. My two favorite online dictionaries give two similar, but significantly different definitions:

Oxford Online: Monotheism – the belief that there is a single god.
Dictionary.com: Monotheism – The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

As should be clear by now, the difference is rather important.

cZja doesn’t get it:

My point is that your argument assumes a distinction that the athiest doesn’t make or acknowledge. And that’s why I think it’s a weak argument.

And thus your point is wrong, because my critique merely demonstrates how that particular atheist witticism is both silly and Biblically ignorant. As the atheist rejects the supernatural, the reference to “one less god” clearly indicates a belief in any supernatural being that is worshipped by men. It says nothing about the characteristics of that particular being. Meanwhile, Christians believe in many supernatural beings, no few of whom are worshipped by pagans. Therefore, the critique can hardly be described as weak given how it eviscerates that particular criticism and reveals the critic to be uneducated on the matter.

The atheist doesn’t make the distinction between God the Creator and Zeus, Moloch or Satan. To him, they are all “gods”. Therefore, it is patently false that the Christian does not believe in more than one god, unlesss that Christian also denies that Satan exists or that there are those who worship him, in which case that Christian would be as Biblically ignorant as the godless wit himself. Which can, of course, be the case.

Now, I do agree that as an argument against atheism, my “argument” is very, very weak. This is mostly because it isn’t one.

Harry cites a bunch of verses from Isaiah:

Isaiah 43:10–…before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:6–…I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God….

Repeating those verses that state there is one God and ignoring the many, many references to lesser gods not only fails to prove a case for monotheistic Christianity, it makes one look dishonest at best.

Renee puts her trust in the majority for once:

Most Christians will tell you that there is only one god. Some of them don’t even believe in the devil. If they don’t believe in Zeus, and they know why they don’t believe in Zeus, then it is probably for the same reasons I don’t believe in God.

Are you sure they are not telling you that there is only one God? I’ve noticed that those who are taking exception to my point are very free with confusing the concept of god and God. But the atheist quote refers only to gods, and as I have demonstrated, the Bible refers to many sorts of gods who are not God, from false gods made by man to the mighty gods of the assembly to the evil god of this world.

If there were no other supernatural powers, if there were no other gods, then there would be no need for God to command that there be no other gods before Him. Jesus Christ’s temptation in the desert would mean nothing, for without a god of this world, there was nothing with which to tempt him nor would that god’s desire for Jesus to worship him make any sense. Finally, how would sin and death hold any claim on humanity, why would Jesus Christ’s death be necessary, if they did not grant some god a hold on fallen man?

Finally, if we have an Advocate, who is part of the Triune God, what can the Accuser be if not another god?

UPDATE: Brody risks muddying the water in an attempt to clarify:

This is always the topic I tend to comment on, because I am really trying to comprehend what it is I could be missing. I think the atheist quote in believing in one less god than you do is not as well explained as you would have liked. But its basic gist is that you do not believe in Allah, or Buddha, or Wiccan Witch of the West.

That gist is incorrect. The atheist’s witticism expressly posits a notion that the Christian believes in only one more supernatural being than the atheist, due, I suspect, to the atheist’s reliance on the term “monotheism” instead of an actual knowledge of Christian theology.

I certainly believe in Buddha. I see no reason to doubt that he was a historical man. I do not, however, worship him. In like manner, I believe in the god Lucifer and the god Moloch; I do not worship them either.

Kean University political scientist Gilbert Kahn said a tougher stance by Jewish groups makes sense in today’s environment.

“There is a need for the Jewish community to adopt a more vigilant approach to monitoring the activities, statements and actions of these fundamentalist groups because they’re so clearly on the ascendancy in this country,” Kahn said.

What a great idea! Perhaps they could even lobby Congress to pass a law forcing Christians to wear yellow crosses so that the jewish community could more easily monitor their activities, statements and actions.

NRO’s Corner cites Steve Steinlight, a former policy director at the American Jewish Committee: “Reality is dawning on many American Jews that something is amiss, although it seems lost on some of the country’s most venerable Jewish organizations. There’s a sad, if comic irony associated with the fact that employees at organizations like ADL, the American Jewish Committee, and the Presidents’ Conference must pass through a gauntlet of concrete barriers, armed guards, metal detectors, and double bulletproof anterooms as they come to work each morning to protect them from radical Islamic terrorists, in order to spend their days studying and disseminating reports on the “threat” posed by Evangelical Christians.”

It clearly isn’t dawning on their so-called leadership, unfortunately.

Renee, in the course of posting a few relevant quotes, brings up a favorite of atheists who think they’re being clever:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
– Stephen Roberts

There’s is a fundamental flaw in Mr. Roberts’ idea, namely, Christians believe in many gods. We not only believe in an evil god who rules this fallen world as its prince, but we are consciously at war with him. Apparently Mr. Roberts, for all his attempt to position himself as intellectually superior to those he wrongly supposes to believe in only one god, does not understand the difference between “believing” and “worshipping”.

One need not be a Biblical scholar to understand this, after all, the very first of the Ten Commandments states: “You shall have no other gods before me.”

Belief is irrelevant. “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”

Anonymous Deweysh Bag advocates the global gulag:

This Vox character has a twisted, tweaked, and, militant understanding of “citizen.” He’s frightened (as he should be) that with a public school education, our nation’s young can not grow to become the Christian Right. The libertarians are just scary, and applying that economic philosophy means that no one ever has to learn anything that their parents don’t want them to learn.

I subscribe to John Deweys’s philosophy of education and believe that we have a responsibilty to educate our children to be knowledgeable citizens of the world with responsibilities and skills that allow them to participate in global discussions.

As usual, we have massive projection here. I’m not the least bit afraid of public school educations, I am simply completely contempteous of them precisely because I was public schooled for seven years. Clearly, I have firsthand knowledge of the fact that our nation’s young can and will grow to become the Christian Right regardless of how they are schooled. Totalitarians of ADB’s sort always think that they can brainwash and kill enough people to keep the masses in line; they never seem to grasp that their repression creates the very opposition it is designed to eliminate.

ADB then goes on to prove my point of the purpose of public education:

Here’s something I pulled off a website to outline the issues:

Understanding of a citizen’s responsibilities to others, to society and to the environment:

Understanding of ethical behavior in personal, professional and public life:

Knowledge and skills for involved responsible citizenship at the local, state, national and global level:

Don’t see a lot about reading, writing and arithmetic there, do you? Just a lot of propaganda about being a good little fascist worker-bee global citizen.

From the Daily Telegraph:

The Brazilian man shot dead by police in the mistaken belief that he was a suicide bomber was killed with a type of bullet banned in warfare under international convention, The Daily Telegraph has learned. The firing of hollow point ammunition into the head of Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, is believed to be the first use of the bullets by British police.

Their issue was sanctioned after research suggested that they were an effective close-quarters ammunition for use against someone about to trigger a suicide bomb.

It is believed the decision was influenced by the tactics used by air marshals on passenger jets – where such bullets are designed to splinter in the body and not burst the fuselage. They have been assessed as posing less risk to people around the suicide bomber than conventional bullets but the effect on victims is devastating.

Like the overall Kratos policy, the decision to make dum dum-style bullets available was taken in secret. However, it is understood that the Home Office became aware three years ago that police were considering their use.

Ironic, isn’t it? The police state never has a problem using things like poison gas and hollow-points against its own citizens that it would never dare to use in war. The fact that the UK police did this secretly demonstrates that they are perfectly aware of how appalling their decision was.

The only thing I don’t understand was how the cretins involved could possibly think it wasn’t going to come out in time. I suppose they assumed that the discovery would coincide with the heroic killing of a suicide bomber, not the murder of an innocent man, and would therefore be accepted as a necessary evil.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz… what? Okay, the public schools can’t teach kids to read, write or do math, but you’re worried about something that combines philosophy, geology, theology and biology? Yeah, right. Ask a high school senior to explain evolution to you.

“Um, so, like people used to be, like, fish, you know, when they climbed out of the water, or something. Like, fish with legs. It was a long time ago. I don’t know.”

If you care what your kid is learning, then keep them out of the public schools. And if you can’t bother to do that for one reason or another, they’re not going to learn anything academic except by accident anyway, so what difference does it make whether ID or evolution is on the educationsts’ nominal curriculum?

Let’s face it, there isn’t another nation on Earth that regularly does this sort of thing. I suppose maybe the Australians would, if they weren’t so busy drinking. The best part is the bit of text at the end:

“I’ve tried searching through the weapons laws and could not find anything specifically mentioning a flame thrower….”

Homeschooling moms, here’s a project sure to interest your young boys.

I have been remiss in not linking to Fred’s excellent post on media mendacity. As it happens, one example he cites is quite appropos in light of the fears of a few regarding homeschooling:

The hemorrhaging circulation of the paleomedia gratifies me better than bubblegum. Lord I love it. The tube worms of the network suites have discovered that lo! Fewer of the citizenry sit nightly before the flickering propaganda modem. The readership of newspapers yet falls. This dereliction they ascribe to declining literacy, the lack of public spirit, and indeed anything but their own uselessness….

I suggest that the reasons for the loss are otherwise and several. Permit me a few thoughts:

What are the topics of most fascination in the United States? Of most importance? Certainly among them are race, sex in the social sense, crime, and immigration. Now, let’s see whether we can name four subjects about which the media speak with calculated mendacity obvious to everyone one. How about…oh, say…race, sex in the social sense, crime, and immigration?

Race, for example:

A story on the site of ABC News led with the lurid headline, “Young Singers Spread Racist Hate.” Now, if young singers have ABC’s bowels in a racial uproar, you can be sure that the singers are white. We all understand that hate is what white people do. Thus it was. A pair of very young girls, calling themselves Prussian Blue, say that they want to maintain the purity of the white race. (Why this is precisely hate eludes me.) Various authorities are quoted as to the effect that they are shocked, appalled, disappointed, and so on.

At about the same time, I found the account of a black man, one Dr. (of what, I wonder?) Kamau Kambon , who while speaking to a panel at the law school of Howard University (a black school in Washington, DC) said that the white race should be exterminated.

This is not my interpretation but rather his explicit, repeated statement. I quote: white people “have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that, in my estimation, is the only conclusion I have come to. [sic] We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.” He wants to kill me, my daughters, and my friends.

This produced from the media…near silence. From Howard University…silence. From professional blacks…silence.

As Fred has hammered home the media point with all the force of mighty Mjolnir, I shall content myself with highlighting the irony of people who worry about a woman teaching her pretty blonde daughters that she would like them to continue the line of pretty blonde people – and I must say, the world would be a sadder and uglier place without pretty blondes – whereas these same people remain completely unconcerned that a Professional Educator teaching other people’s children that the white race must be exterminated, even though they are paying for him to do so.

As it has been affirmed by numerous courts that the expenditure of taxpayer money on behalf of an educational institution is evidence of a government establishment, the fact that the nominally private institution received $182,348,000 in federal funds in 1996 suggests that the extermination of the white race is a federal government-approved policy.

Therefore, it is clear that the concerns of the Prussian Blue mother regarding the survival of her race, however overwrought, are not entirely unfounded. Upon second thought, irony does not suffice to describe the position of those who suggest that she should be forcibly prevented from teaching her children by the very institution which pays 65 percent of Professor Kambon’s salary to teach genocide.

UPDATE: Apparently Fred confused the venue for the job as Professor Kambon actually teaches at NC State. Neverthless, the point remains. (For those who can’t read, the institution referred to in the paragraph above is the federal government, not the professor’s employer.) Instead of $1.20, most Americans are only contributing $.046 to the pool that pays the professor’s salary, although North Carolina taxpayers are on the hook for $10.82 more.

In which Scott Adams – THE Scott Adams – informs one of my occasional critics that she’s completely full of equine ejectus:

This blogger, who calls himself PZ, is evidently a highly educated scientist, extremely informed on the topic of evolution, and quite passionate. But for reasons that fascinate the trained hypnotist in me, that brilliance doesn’t extend to comprehending The Dilbert Blog….

When people misrepresent the views of their opposition, and attack the misrepresentation, they lose all credibility with me. Both sides in the evolution debate do that with gusto. Why would I believe people who prove to me they are either dishonest or biased or worse?

PZ’s misrepresentations of my views are incredibly clever. (He’s a smart guy.) And he uses quotes from my writing to make it seem impossible that he’s misinterpreting me. Here are just a few examples.

I said it’s POSSIBLE for scientists to have herd mentality. PZ interprets that as if I’m saying scientists DO. Then he attacks the misrepresentation. (How much credibility can you have if you argue it’s not POSSIBLE for scientists to have herd instinct on this issue?)

Now, I could have told Scott that Pharyngula, or as I prefer to think of her, Pharyngurl, was a run-of-the-mill, intellectually dishonest, little left-wing academic at a sub-par state school. But it’s so much more enjoyable to watch him discover this for himself.

However, the funniest thing with regards to this episode, yet, is how it has led Orac to conclude that Scott Adams is a “wingnut”, that favored term of disapprobation meant to indicate wild extremism among the lunatic, bed-wetting left. At this rate, within thirty years, the meaning of the term “extremist” will be reversed, not unlike that of the word “liberal”, and will serve to indicate an individual whose views are shared by at least 75 percent of the populace.