A hat-tip to the Friendly Atheist blog, which comments on megapastor Rick Warren’s latest effort to rehabilitate himself after his previous excursion into stupidity, which as it turns out, became yet another example of exactly the same phenomenon. This time he spewed his drivel on Hugh Hewitt’s show (as related by the Friendly Atheist based on transcripts):

Watch how Warren explains New Atheism: …

HH: What do you make of the new atheism, whether it’s Lobdell or Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, and all the attention they’re getting?

RW: Well, first place, they’re making a ton of money, okay?

The implication is that making money reduces one’s credibility. People can make money publishing the truth, however, so Warren’s implication is false. Not only that … the last I know, Warren’s “Purpose-Driven” publishing franchise is a multi-million-dollar-a-year operation! So who the hell does Warren think he is to whine about someone else making money on books?

Fucking hypocrite.*

As usual, Warren veers into two very old, tired, and thoroughly invalid apologetic whines about atheists:

I’ve debated Hitchens and I debates [sic] Sam Harris, and I told Sam, I said Sam, to be honest with you, I have never known an atheist who wasn’t mad, who wasn’t angry. And he got angry about it. But the truth is, every one of them have a thorn.

This is the old “discredit atheists by labeling them as ‘angry'” tactic. Unfortunately, like his “they’re making money” remark, this too is fallacious. Not only can he not demonstrate these guys are “angry” (at least, no more or less than any other human being, Warren included), even if they were, their anger does not make them wrong. Angry people can be, and sometimes are, correct. The second old apologetic whine Warren tries is:

I could have gone up, stood up and said the fact of life, and for instance, far more people were killed in the 20th Century by atheist regimes than all of the people ever killed in religious regimes put together in history. When you take Mao, Stalin and Hitler, there’s no comparison the genocides that have been caused by atheists.

The Friendly Atheist reveals this complaint as bogus:

The whole argument about Mao and Stalin has been debunked repeatedly. While they may have been atheists, they didn’t kill in the “name of atheism.” Hitler was a Christian.

Having spewed these trite — and invalid — apologetic whines about atheists, he proceeds to regale Hewitt with a third one, which is new to me, if no less asinine:

Paul Vitz, who is an author with New York University, wrote a very fascinating book called Faith Of The Fathers, in which he went and studied the 72 most well-known atheists in history, the Bertrand Russells, the Voltaires, the Freuds, and the only thing he could find in common with every one of them is they all hated their dads. Every one of them. They had distant dad, demeaning dad, a dead dad, they had no relationships with their fathers.

So atheists are atheists because they had problems with their fathers, if we take Warren at his word. This is even more laughable than dismissing atheists as “angry.” What’s more, Warren knows he cannot prove that all atheists had problems with their fathers … so when he offers this theory, he is lying. Yet another lying liar for Jesus.

Not to mention, even if these people’s opinions were flavored by (bad) relationships with their fathers, that still does not mean they must be wrong. Even people with bad parental relationships, can be and often are correct about things.

I wonder when the rational Christians out there are finally going to summon the courage to do what they know ought to be done, and come up with some way to quiet Warren down, or else, drown out his crap somehow? (Answer: It will never happen. Christians do not criticize each other publicly. Ever.)

* Note that Warren — like virtually all other Christians who have ever lived — forgets that Jesus Christ himself explicitly, clearly, and unambiguously forbid his followers ever to be hypocritical. But that’s an old story.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.