What do you do if your god is attacked by atheists?

Well, if you’re Hector Avalos and your god is Richard Dawkins, and if Jim West, the atheist denier of Dawkins, attacks your god, well…you threaten…

On a recent post, West, Jim West, attacked Dawkins to which Hector Avalos, former Pentecostal faith healer (there is a connection there, believe it or not…) to which Hector responded with a threat

Either retract your statement, or you may find yourself featured in an essay on the hypocrisy of Jim West’s research. You criticize Dawkins for his research, but don’t have the integrity to see that you also have blatantly told an untruth, and you are not willing to give us a precise source.

Oh my…. this is what militant Dawkinianity will get you… it always leads to violence and the end of personal freedoms. Dawkinianity is a pox on humanity and one day, when we all open our eyes, we’ll see all the problems that Dawkinianity has caused.

You Might Also Like

14 Replies to “What do you do if your god is attacked by atheists?”

  1. West refutes the Dawkins Foundation research with a No True Scotsman fallacy (“First, Christians (who are really Christian) do in fact want the values they assert to influence society”) and an Ad Hominem fallacy (“Trusting research by Dawkins is like trusting satan to tell the truth.”) Hardly good research…

    I would be more interested if someone actually took a minute to look at the research methods, and then decide if they are viable or not, or *gasp*, conduct some actual research themselves that might show different results. But resorting to nothing more than fallacies to ‘refute’ someone that you disagree with? Yeah that might be hypocritical…

  2. Your writing is poorly-structured and barely comprehensible.  I guess that’s the quality expected from someone with a Master’s degree in make-believe. I would say it’s sad but, after seeing this, it’s just ironic.

    And “Dawkinianity”?  Really? You couldn’t make up a more awkward word?

  3. A cursory search uncovers a fair amount of criticism of the “poll”. Perhaps Dawkins and his institute should release the methodology and questions. But, I dont think they will.

      1. Because you accepted uncritically a decontextualized quote from West that made it sound as if my requested retraction was about Dawkins.

        It was not. The requested retraction was for a very specific statement that West made about my reasons for atheism. A claim for which West refused to provide a source or documentation.

        If you had read my response to West by now, you would understand that fact.

        1. I have read the response. I disagree with the response. Psychoanalysis is a common method of delegitimizing Christians, something Dawkins tries to do. (Although, I admit, I would like to see this performed on both Calvin and Luther due to their father issues).

          I think that anytime a a threat such as yours is made, it needs to be answered, regardless of hurt feelings.

          1. Again, you are not representing the reason for the retraction and your post does not clarify that this retraction is not about Dawkins.

            The requested retraction was for West’s claims that I am one of those
            “who turned from their faith because God didn’t heal them (Avalos)”

            Not only is this untrue, but West refused to provide a source from me that would support his claim.

            Thus, he has MANUFACTURED a very specIfic reason for my conversion to atheism.

            Since people have a right to correct the record concerning their biography, that is why I requested a retraction.

            Your initial post says nothing about this manufactured biographical claim by West.

            So why didn’t you mention that this was the claim for which I requested a retraction?

            And why not clarify it for your readers, if you read my response?

          2. I think that you are offering the clarification, if one is actually needed, and I don’t believe that one is.

            Dawkins is a merism for all atheists, and I happen to agree, that most atheists turn from faith because their faith was misplaced. As I noted in my initial post, I believe that there is a connection between your present atheism and your former pentecostalism.

  4. So, if I said that you became a Christian because you
    got angry at Zeus for not healing you, then that could be also represented as an unchallenged biographical fact on my blog posts?

    And, you did not do your readers a favor by not giving the actual reason I gave for the requested retraction in your initial post. Why not at least mention that?

    Making it seem as though I am requesting a retraction for something West said about Dawkins in your initial post is simply not very accurate, regardless of what you believe my reasons for conversion are.

    1. well you could, but since I’ve never mentioned Zeus… don’t you usually say that I became a Christian because I was born in a Christian culture? That seems pretty undocumented.

      I figure, again, that by giving you a place for rebuttal, that’s all I really need to do. I mean, how many times has Jim allowed you to do that?

  5. Dear Joel,
    I do appreciate you allowing me to post a rebuttal on
    your blog.

    My point about Zeus is that it simply would not be fair or honest to manufacture a reason for conversion that is historically inaccurate in your biography.

    Actually, in attempting to link any supposed connection between pentecostalism and my atheism, you at least would be chronologically correct. My pentecostalism came before my atheism.

    West, however, was not chronologically correct because I experienced any chronic illness AFTER I became an atheist.
    That is already recorded in some of my published biographies.

    Even by your rules of historical reconstruction, I hope that a later event cannot be used to explain the causation of an earlier event.

    That is what West is doing, and so, at the very least, I hope you agree that is just not good history on his part.

    Thanks again for allowing me to post this clarification on your blog.

    1. Dr. Avalos,

      I realize my response comes much later than your last post; however, I felt compelled to reply as I find your biography to atheism interesting. As a graduate of Iowa State University in 2000, I remember you being a guest speaker in my religious studies class around ’96 or ’98. At that time, I found these things to be interesting 1) You wore dark brown tinted glasses that hid your eyes 2) The professor of that religious studies class had never settled on a religion as he openly admitted to transitioning from Protestantism, to Catholicism, to Buddhism, to being a Hare Krishna, to Agnosticism and 3) you were an Atheist that didn’t believe in the authenticity of scripture but taught New Testament theology.

      I’m not sure why those things have stuck in my mind, but as I have journeyed in my Christian walk, I have contemplated why so many people, like yourself, have left the faith. I have read many of your assertions and would agree with you, to a point, in certain areas: 1) Many of the healings in church today are easily washed down the drain, 2) Many people who “believe” do so because their parents believe, and in that same vein, 3) one cannot use psychoanalysis to determine why one believes and another doesn’t.

      So, while you’re defending yourself in these posts, asserting that the author was manufacturing reasons for your atheism, you never divulge the actual reason of why you don’t believe. So, what is the reason? I’ve read your past history and you have claimed it is due to logic. Although we would disagree on the validity of the Bible, I believe it declares why you don’t believe and it is because God hasn’t chosen you to. As I stated, I agree that psychoanalysis is not the problem because that leaves it to man while faith leaves it to God. As illogical as that may sound to you, here is a small snippet of logic of why I can’t believe in Atheism:

      When a simple-celled organism is formed, it is not self aware nor is it externally aware as it has no knowledge. It is dumb and it is blind. Light is emitted from the son. Light is by definition electromagnetic radiation–visible light rests in the wavelength 380 nanometres to about 740 nm. Light knows not darkness nor is it self aware nor externally aware. Light is dumb but also blind like the simple-cell. So, how did the simple-celled organism come to know light? How did it come to see? Did it knock on light’s door to ask how it could utilize its properties or did light knock on simple-celled’s door and introduce itself? How did simple-cell come to know that light existed at all? The analogy may seem foolish, but ask a blind child to explain the physics of light and it is not possible; thereby negating their ability to evolve the very sight they were designed to have. The only way the child will be able to see is if some external and able entity chooses it to see like a doctor for example. We could use this same logic with all of our senses (hearing, touch, etc).

      So, again, why don’t you believe? Maybe it’s not because of your illness like you say, but is it possible that God hasn’t chosen you to believe and thus, you remain blind to him?

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.