Swedish Jews Leaving Their Homeland

Dennis Prager reads from an older article by the JERUSALEM POST, in which a family is interviewed about why they left Sweden. Here is an excerpt that caught my eye:

  • “The politicians, the media, the intellectuals…they all played their parts in pandering to this dangerous ideology and, sadly, it’s changing the fabric of Swedish society irreversibly.” Karla, who’d sat passively, occasionally nodding in agreement at Dan’s analysis, then interrupted, saying, “If you disagree with the establishment, you’re immediately called a racist or fascist, which we’re definitely not. At times I felt that this was what it must have been like to live in the old Soviet Union.”

Ingrid Carlqvist Discusses the “State of Sweden” (Dennis Prager)

Dennis Prager interviews Ingrid Carlqvist from the GATESTONE INSTITUTE (1-11-2016). Her works can be found here, at GATESTONE. I was tipped off about this interview via an upload from Prager’s show yesterday. A very interesting call happens after the midpoint.(12:25).

The Continuing Rape of Sweden

Dennis Prager reads from a 2014 article by the Gatestone Institute entitled, “Sweden: Rape Capital of the West,” by Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard (http://tinyurl.com/hkkg43r). Near the end of the audio Pragers asks who has skewed the numbers… that’s easy. The Swedish government and court system. (Some examples after the audio.) The other mention of the German politician misreporting her own rape can be found here:

This month, all major Swedish media reported on a brutal gang rape on board the Finnish Ferry Amorella, running between Stockholm and Åbo in Finland. Big headlines told the readers that the perpetrators were Swedish:

✦ “Several Swedish Men Suspected of Rape on the Finland Ferry” (Dagens Nyheter).
✦ “Six Swedish Men Raped Woman in Cabin” (Aftonbladet).
✦ “Six Swedes Arrested for Rape on Ferry” (Expressen).
✦ “Eight Swedes Suspected of Rape on Ferry” (TT – the Swedish News Agency).

On closer inspection, it turned out that seven of the eight suspects were Somalis and one was Iraqi. None of them had Swedish citizenship, so they were not even Swedish in that sense. According to witnesses, the group of men had been scouring the ferry looking for sex. The police released four of them (but they are still suspects) whereas four (all Somalis) remain in custody….

(Gatestone)

Swedish police will no longer be able to give descriptions of alleged criminals for fear of being seen as racist. According to an internal letter, police in capital city Stockholm are instructed to refrain from describing suspects’ race and nationality, according to news website Speisa. Local newspaper Svenska Dagbadet reported it had seen the letter, which it said outlined how officers should now notify the public of crimes.

[….]

The letter specifies that, for everyday crimes such as burglary, basic information such as ethnicity, nationality, skin colour and height should not be given.

(Independent || Breitbart)

…The Swedish government is no longer collecting sensitive statistics from nationality and crime in the governments deliberate intent of social engineering….

…Interestingly, between 1995-2006, the Swedish government tracked gang rapes, identifying a drastically increasing trend. Unbelievably, after discovering the problem, it then adopted an ostrich-like “head in the sand” approach, terminating any further studies on them . Apparently the government’s fear of being labeled Islamophobic proved greater than its concerns about warning Swedish women about the threat. While no studies on gang rape have been conducted since 2006, one can assume these numbers have continued to rise…

(The Muslim Problem || Daily Caller || Daily Caller)

Two Swedish police officers stepped forward in February discussing the scope of migrant crime in Sweden and attempts by the Swedish government and media to cover the crime wave up.

The first police officer, Peter Springare, is now reportedly under criminal investigation for “incitement to racial hatred.”…

(MRCTV Blog)

Other commentators have mentioned — specifically — Sweden as well. See my favorite atheist, Pat Condell:

(11-2015)

(12-2010)

There’s lots to experience in Europe. Germany has bratwurst and migrant camps, France has baguettes and terrorism, and Sweden has… mostly rape. Heaps of it, actually. In recent years, Sweden has been living up to its name as the rape capital of the west (see Liberal Utopia Sweden: Where Murder and Rape Are Easy To Do… and Sweden’s Open Islamic Immigration: Now Officially the Rape Capital of the West). The latest in Sweden’s goings-on? Two men live streamed their vile rapescapade to “Facebook Live” for all to see. #Memories

By the way, those two slimebags? They’re migrants. Surprise…

Police rushed to the scene after they were tipped off by someone watching the live stream in horror. An online witness said the victim had her clothes pulled off by armed men and was sexually assaulted before cops arrived and turned off the camera.

The two men, aged 18 and 20, who are both from Afghanistan, were arrested in the city. The [suspects], who cannot be legally identified under Swedish law, have not been charged.

In Sweden a person suspected of a serious crime can be detained without being charged with the approval of a court. But this is only if there is a risk they will flee the country.

The men deny the accusations.

You’d think it a simple case. Somebody recorded evidence of their own crime, so the job’s already been done for the police. Easy peasy. Still, one can’t help but see this ending sans justice. After all, Sweden is notoriously sucky at pressing charges when it comes to rapists… Or migrants. Pick one. The two are practically interchangeable by now (see SWEDEN: Muslim Refugees Gang Rape Two Girls. No Punishment…).

(Louder with Crowder)

My Thoughts on Milo Yiannopoulos… Post-Script Added

(Jump to the POST-SCRIPT if you wish)

The title could have been called, “Heroes vs. Zeroes” — in other words, if Milo was a Leftist… he very well may be the apple of the Left’s eye.

Milo Yiannopoulos has said some things in the past that has caused consternation (and rightly so). This got his dissented to C-PAC. But honestly, what should have got him NOT invited in the first place is his repeated admission he is not a conservative. (The latest time was his appearance on the Bill Maher Show.) In case you missed it, C-PAC stands for CONSERVATIVE Political Action Conference.

Here is the offending comment from an old documentary:

“This arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys the understanding that many of us have of the complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. People are messy and complex, and in the homosexual world particularly some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and, sort of, a rock.”

[….]

“In the gay world, some of the most important, enriching, and incredibly life affirming, shaping relationships between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys.”

Later Milo tried to correct what he says was his unclear language:

  • I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That’s perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to pre-pubescent boys. (Young Conservatives)

(See his full apology HERE.)

In the gay community this is an issue. Years ago one of my favorite gay authors I follow and read, Tammy Bruce, noted:

… and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left’s moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today…

[….]

Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood — molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is,* instead of the “coming-of-age” experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS.

Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 90, 99.


* By the age of 18 or 19 years, three quarters of American youth, regardless of their sexual orientation, have had sexual relations with another person. Gay males are more likely than heterosexual males to become sexually active at a younger age (12.7 vs. 15.7 years) and to have had multiple sexual partners. The ages at the time of the first sexual experience with another person are closer for lesbians and heterosexual females (15.4 vs. 16.2 years).

(New England Journal of Medicine)

Some articles I see as connected,

Likewise, another gay commentator/professor noted, without exception every gay person she knows has issues from their childhood. She goes on to say that the natural default is heterosexuality, and that being gay is fighting nature. One commentator goes on to note that,

  • Ms. Paglia reminds us that within homosexual circles there still exist some critics with clear minds, capable of rational thought, and the ability to express such critical thought clearly, coherently, and entertainingly. (iDolphin)

In a gay private group on Facebook for gays, their friends and family to meet and discuss various topics, I asked a question relating to if the men had homosexual encounters as a young, prepubescent boy with an older family member or some other acquaintance. Almost all the me did. One gay man I worked with was very public about it. Another close gay friend was private bout the issue but confirmed that he had an older family member molest him, repeatedly.

George Takei, of Star Trek fame, is very public about a 19-year old molesting him at camp when he was thirteen-years-old.

George proceeded to recall that he was 13 at the time, and he was with “an experienced” counselor who was in his late-teens. When George recalled his counselor’s “blond forearm,” Artie insisted he was still comfortable sitting next to him. George went on to say his counselor came to his cabin while he was alone, and the two began kissing before exchanging “hand jobs.” (Gay Patriot)

Mind you, while this equation may be the norm [abuse of some sort], there are acceptations that I think Camille Paglia’s commentary fits well with:

Every single gay person I know has some sort of drama going on, back in childhood. Something was happening that we’re not allowed to ask about anymore… I can see patterns that are similar in my background to that of other women I know who are lesbians, but the biggest patterns are in gay men. Every single gay man I know had a particular pattern where for whatever reason, he was closer to his mother than to his father, and there was some sort of distance between the mother and the father, so that she looked to her son as her real equal or friend, as the real companion of her soul. Sometimes these women were discreet and dignified. Other times, they were very theatrical and in a sense they drafted their son into their own drama. But now, you are not allowed to ask any questions about the childhood of gay people anymore. It’s called “homophobic.” The entire psychology establishment has shut itself down, politically…

Even the gay Leftist hero, Harvey Milk was a victim of this and continued his victimization of other boys. GAY PATRIOT notes this in his quick response to the Milo thingy, saying that Milk [a hero] actually did what Milo merely mentioned:

One of Milk’s victims was a 16-year-old runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street.

[….]

Harvey Milk was notorious in his day for preying on teenage runaways in the Castro District in the 1970s. The difference is, Harvey Milk, because he was a left-wing Democrat, is forgiven for being a pederast. He has a holiday celebrated in his honor in California. He is an honored martyr, who even had a US Naval Vessel named in his honor.

Which makes me believe that all the left-wingers who are suddenly up-in-arms because Milo may have said something outrageous about his days as a catamite may be somewhat insincere in their outrage.

Before getting to more about Harvey Milk, I wanted to note that it is the progressive Left that is all about promoting pedophilia. From Obama’s school czar,  Kevin Jennings, to the Left’s marches on Washington — of which, here are a couple examples I note in my post on PEDOPHILIA:

In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes:

  • “Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” (SavageSchlaflyMore)

She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today.

1993 “Homosexual” Platform

  • The implementation of homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
  • The lowering of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
  • The legalization of homosexual marriage. Custody, adoption, and foster care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
  • The redefinition of marriage to include the full diversity of all family structures.
  • The access to all programs of the Boys Scouts of America.
  • Affirmative action for homosexuals.
  • The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health care plan.

1972 “Homosexual” Platform

  • Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons, equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.
  • Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
  • Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one’s personal demesne.
  • Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
  • Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.
  • Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
  • Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

You see, this is why Salon Magazine promoted this sickness ~ U-N-T-I-L THAT IS ~ Milo was caught speaking from the truth of a sizable portion of the gay community. Leftists are now stuck between a rock and a hard place. SALON hates Trump soo much that is scrubbed it’s site from previous articles supporting pedophilia in order to clear a path to attack Milo [a perceived conservative]. TWITCHY says it all in their headline:

Will they scrub praises for Harvey Milk, and the many famously gay-Leftists who took advantage of boys? Or icons of the Left that abused underage girls? I somehow doubt it.

Here is more on Milk:

That’s why almost no one in the gay community bats an eyelash when they hear about Harvey Milk’s sexual history (yes, I’m talking about the slain political leader who has taken on iconic status in our culture). To be specific, according to acclaimed gay journalist Randy Shilts, at age eleven, Milk began attending performances of the New York Metropolitan Opera, where he met with “wandering hands” and soon was engaged in “brief trysts [with grown men] after the perfor­mances.” While still in junior high, he “dove headfirst into the newly discovered subculture,” and by fourteen, Milk was “leading an active homosexual life.” As he grew older, the pattern reversed itself to the point that, at age thirty-three, Milk hooked up with a sixteen-year-old named Jack McKinley, one of a number of younger men with whom he was intimate.

Has this tarnished his legacy? Not at all. Why? Because it is not that unusual. 

As gay journalist and radio host Michelangelo Signorile explained:

[W]e’ve been so focused in recent years on how we’re all the same [meaning as heterosexuals]—we want many of the same things in life, including a job, a home, a relationship—that we’ve obscured some real differences in how we’ve constructed our community and our relationships. Historically, gay men have engaged in inter-generational sexual encounters, brief romances and long-term relation­ships—among consenting adults—probably much more than straight people have.

And those “consenting adults” were often men in their teens. (The situation that Signorile was defending involved Hollywood screenwriter Dustin Lance Black, age thirty-nine, and British diving champion Tom Daley, age nineteen. Other gay leaders were critical of the relationship.) That’s why it was not surprising to hear that Terry Bean, one of the founders of the influential HRC—and a major player in Democratic politics and gay activism—was arrested on November 19, 2014, “on charges of sex abuse in a case involving a 15-year-old boy. [Bean was 66 at the time.]… The arrest comes after a five-month investigation that began with allegations Bean secretly made video recordings of men having sex in his bedroom.”

As argued by conservative journalist and law professor Matt Barber, “The cases of Bean and [Larry] follow a long-established pattern as old as the ancient Greek bathhouse. It’s not just homosexual priestly predators on the prowl in the Catholic Church. From pedophile “LGBT” hero Harvey Milk, to high-profile “gay activists” like Duke University’s Frank Lombard and USC’s Walter Lee Williams, the homosexual lust for young flesh seems insatiable”

In support of this statement, which some would find extreme and unfair, Barber cited Harry Hay, the iconic pioneer of the gay rights movement, who (in)famously said,

“It seems to me that in the gay com­munity the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA [the North American Man/Boy Love Association] are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.”

Michael L. Brown, Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide (Washington, DC: WND Books, 2015), 151-152.

GAY PATRIOT hit the nail on the head years back when he VtheK noted that since “marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined.”

If “love-is-love,” then the Professional Left has a Mack Truck with a payload of reality headed their way.


POST-SCRIPT


One last note. The Left has for YEARS denied what everyone knows, that in the gay (esp. male) community, there is an abuse of younger boys… because the male sexual nature by default wants variety, and wants it often. I will explain a bit more with a portion of a letter I wrote to a cyber-friend whom had announced that he was gay (it actually turned out his Facebook was hacked):

We need all the gay conservatarians we can get! Just know, however, I am here for anything you need.

Adult men fight their nature. Typically we fight against lust (men want variety), and anger issues. I have had to fight my anger issues, which are the predominate issue for me, and I saw the same in my father.

With our sexuality, women help temper this in most men. But this is an additional layer a gay man must acknowledge and battle against. If you ever need encouraging in this area or someone to speak to, I can surely stand in if you need it. I realize we are “cyber-friends” and you may have a strong group of allies to help keep you accountable… but if you ever need to bounce something off my chest, feel free to do so. Mind you that I realize that while I am only-now knowing this, you have lived with it much longer obviously.

There are some gay men who have honed their values well that the unrestrained nature found in the Leftist values of men (gay or straight) bewilder them. VtheK is one of them, for instance, he recently noted as such here. [While I do not know V, I suspect religion has had an influence in his life.]

I will add you to my prayer list of men and women in the gay community whom I dig and want the best possible life for….

Yep, mature men need to fight their nature. But this denial of the issues discussed above by the Left has harmful consequences for children. For instance, in a few states now it is against the law for teachers or school counselors to even begin to suspect anything wrong with a young child starting to exhibit behaviors that they are now told they must accept as the child being “gay.” In other words, if a 9-year old (whatever-age) boy starts to show some effeminate activity, this may very well be the boy trying to cope with sexual abuse in the home by a family member or someone the family knows. It is the natural way a male child will act out.

But this type of reasoning, found for instance in California’s Assembly Bill 1266 (as well as Senate Bill 1172), signed into law by Jerry Brown, ties the hands of counselors to deal with an obvious sign of abuse. I gave some links above, but here are some excerpts from a few studies, controlled as well as anecdotal:

But schools are not allowed to ask questions in the most liberal states that start from the idea that a boy (or girl) shouldn’t be acting out like this. If a boy acts out violently because that is how he is internalizing the issue, a counselor can probe… if a boy starts to act effeminately because that is how this particular boy is internalizing it — hands off! In fact, the school must enable such feelings.

THIS is a great example for when Dennis Prager says “everything the Left touches it destroys.” This includes buffers to protect children from the most heinous crimes against them. AGAIN, this puts them [Leftists] between a rock and a hard place… do they acknowledge that such abuse exists and thus through therapy gay men and women can deal with the abuse of their past — and become heterosexual again? Like any therapy helps victims of violence. Or do they wholly reject this idea of childhood abuse in the gay community (while simultaneously speaking about male priests who are gay abusing boys) and cover-up any deleterious affects on all genders who are sexually abused at such a young age?

BTW, dealing with a destructive abusive past works even for transgender persons.

What Is Faith? Is It Blind? Or Is It Trustworthy? (Updated)

I just wanted to update the below a bit with a great explanation of how theists view evidential propositions about God as compared to agnostics and atheists. Tim Stratton makes a great short example of what is being discussed in the below — but clearer: “ATHEISM: LACK OF BELIEF OR BLIND FAITH?

Many atheists claim that their atheistic beliefs are just as viable as my theistic beliefs. Typically, the following scale (or something similar) is provided:

1- God exists (100% certainty)
2- God probably exists (51%-99% certainty)
3- Neutral Agnostic (50%/50%)
4- God probably does not exist (51%-99% certainty)
5- God does not exist (100% certainty)

I have claimed to hold to proposition (2) as a theist. Because of a cumulative case of coherent reasons (backed up by evidence), I believe theism is probably true with extremely high degrees of certainty (say, 97% certainty). Although I am not 100% certain (but have justification to believe God probably exists), it is quite reasonable to put my faith in what is probably true. This is why Christian theism is a reasonable faith.

Many atheists ignore the plethora of arguments and evidence for God and attempt to make the same move on the other side of the scale. However, they run into the same problems I discussed above. If they claim to hold to proposition (4), then they need to provide coherent reasons (backed up by evidence) as to why they think atheism is “probably true.” Why has the belief needle moved from (3), neutral agnosticism, to proposition (4)? If there are no logical answers then the atheist holds this view for no good reason at all (especially while ignoring the cumulative case for the existence of God). Indeed, their commitment to this definition of atheism is still nothing but a blind faith.

I reside when discussing apologetics with persons in category two. If I feel moved to pray a sinners prayer with a person, I am speaking from category one, and the person who is inviting the Holy Spirit into their life is falling into that category as well. “… fundamentally, the way we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit.” Tim’s whole post is worth reading


How Atheists View Christian’s Faith


Dawkins Faith Atheist 330

  • Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument. ~ Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York, NY: Marine Books, 2008), 347.

  • Faith in the prayer-hearing God is an unproved and outmoded faith. There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, the immutable [i.e., unchangeable] truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes. ~ John Dewey

John Dewey, “Soul-Searching,” Teacher Magazine, September 1933, p. 33.

  • There are those who scoff at the schoolboy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the schoolboy who said : “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” ~ Mark Twain

Caroline Thomas Harnsberger, Mark Twain at Your Fingertips: A Book of Quotations (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2009), 116, cf. faith.

Betrand Russell 330

  • I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue. The harm that is done by a religion is of two sorts, the one depending on the kind of belief which it is thought ought to be given to it, and the other upon the particular tenets believed. As regards the kind of belief: it is thought virtuous to have Faith—that is to say, to have a conviction which cannot be shaken by contrary evidence. Or, if contrary evidence might induce doubt, it is held that contrary evidence must be suppressed. On such grounds, the young are not allowed to hear arguments…. The consequence is that the minds of the young are stunted and are filled with fanatical hostility both to those who have other fanaticisms and, even more virulently, to those who object to all fanaticisms. ~ Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (New York, NY; Simon and Schuster, 1957), vi.

(See response to Russell’s “induce doubt” portion at bottom)

According to the A Manual for Creating Atheists, faith is:

  • “pretending to know things that you don’t know”
  • “belief without evidence”
  • The author calls faith “an unreliable epistemology”
  • a “virus”
  • and calls for a process and agenda that will “ultimately eradicate faith”.

(Bullet points via The Confident Christian)Boghossian Atheist 330

Two Definitions of Faith

The words we use are important. They can help us see clearly, or they can confuse, cloud, or obscure issues. I’ll now offer my two preferred definitions of faith, and then disambiguate faith from hope.’

faith /fāTH/

1. Belief without evidence.

“My definition of faith is that it’s a leap over the probabilities. It fills in the gap between what is improbable to make something more probable than not without faith. As such, faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities.”

—John W. Loftus, “Victor Reppert Now Says He Doesn’t Have Faith!” (Loftus, 2012)

If one had sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a particular claim, then one wouldn’t believe the claim on the basis of faith. “Faith” is the word one uses when one does not have enough evidence to justify holding a belief, but when one just goes ahead and believes anyway.

Another way to think about “belief without evidence” is to think of an irrational leap over probabilities. For example, assume that an historical Jesus existed and was crucified, and that his corpse was placed in a tomb. Assume also that eyewitness accounts were accurate, and days later the tomb was empty.

One can believe the corpse was missing for any number of reasons. For example, one can believe the body arose from the dead and ascended to heaven, one can believe aliens brought the body back to life, or one can believe an ancient spirit trapped in the tomb merged with the corpse and animated it. Belief in any of these claims would require faith because there’s insufficient evidence to justify any one of these particular options.

Belief in any of these claims would also disregard other, far more likely possibilities—for example, that the corpse was stolen, hidden, or moved.

If one claims knowledge either in the absence of evidence, or when a claim is contradicted by evidence, then this is when the word “faith” is used. “Believing something anyway” is an accurate definition of the term “faith.”

faith /fāTH/

2. Pretending to know things you don’t know.

Not everything that’s a case of pretending to know things you don’t know is a case of faith, but cases of faith are instances of pretending to know something you don’t know.’ For example, someone who knows nothing about baking a cake can pretend to know how to bake a cake, and this is not an instance of faith. But if someone claims to know something on the basis of faith, they are pretending to know something they don’t know. For example, using faith would be like someone giving advice about baking cookies who has never been in a kitchen.

As a Street Epistemologist, whenever you hear the word “faith,” just translate this in your head as, “pretending to know things you don’t know.” While swapping these words may make the sentence clunky, “pretending to know things you don’t know” will make the meaning of the sentence clearer.

To start thinking in these terms, the following table contains commonly heard expressions using the word “faith” in column one, and the same expressions substituted with the words “pretending to know things you don’t know” in column two.

Faith Columns - Peter Boghossian 680

Peter Boghossian, A Manual for Creating Atheists (Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2013), 23-26

  • I regard faith as religious belief which is held without evidence. If someone thinks that a bus will arrive on time per its schedule, then that person has trust or confidence, not faith. I don’t use the word faith except to mean non-evidential religious beliefs. I work hard to identify the evidence, so faith for me is an lazy, easy way out.

~ Logicel

(See the response to “has trust or confidence” portion of Logicel’s definition at the bottom)

faith_full

~ The Good Atheist

(See a professor comment on this definition at the bottom)


Letting Christians Define Faith


faith 1. Objective body of truth in the Bible, the creeds, the definitions of the universal councils, and/or the teachings of the church. 2. Positive, subjective, and personal allegiance to and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Faith exists in constant tension with three other elements: works, reason, and knowledge. In Protestant scholastic theology, faith is viewed as a threefold process: notitia (knowledge of what is to be be­lieved), assensus (intellectual acceptance of the truth of what is believed), and fiducia (personal commitment to that truth).

The first involves reception of the message of the gospel. The second involves objective accept­ance of certain theological concepts and historical events. Theologians call this fides quae creditur (the faith that is believed), comprising erkennen (recognition) and assensus (assent). Assensus includes confidence in God’s promises and trust in the events recorded in the Scripture. Peter Lombard pointed out that assensus alone is fides informis (incomplete faith).

Authentic faith must include a second aspect—a personal commitment to Jesus Christ. Theolo­gians variously call this fides qua creditur (faith by which one believes), fides formata caritate (faith formed by love), bekennen (acknowledg­ment), and fiducia (trust in what is believed). Fiducia also involves obedience to God’s Word, perseverance in God’s will, and love for God’s people (John 3:36; Rom. 5:1-5; 1 Cor. 13:2; 1 John 3:1o). Thus Christians not only live because of faith but they also live according to the faith (Rom. 1:16-17). Faith is in one sense a human act, but it is also at the same time a divine gift.

George Thomas Kurian, ed., Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), cf. faith, 292-293.

  • I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They may even wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought. But if God in whom they believe created them with intellectual and rational powers, that imposes upon them the duty to try to understand the creed of their religion. Not to do so is to verge on superstition.

Morimer J. Adler, “A Philosopher’s Religious Faith,” in, Kelly James Clark, ed., Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 207.

  • Certain words can mean very different things to different people. For instance, if I say to an atheist, “I have faith in God,” the atheist assumes I mean that my belief in God has nothing to do with evidence. But this isn’t what I mean by faith at all. When I say that I have faith in God, I mean that I place my trust in God based on what I know about him.

William A. Dembski and Michael R. Licona, Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2010), 38.

  • Faith is not a leap in the dark; it’s the exact opposite. It’s a commitment based on evidence… It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding intelligent discussion.

– John Lennox

Personal saving faith, in the way Scripture understands it, involves more than mere knowledge. Of course it is necessary that we have some knowledge of who Christ is and what he has done, for “how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?” (Rom. 10:14). But knowledge about the facts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection for us is not enough, for people can know facts but rebel against them or dislike them. (Rom. 1:32; James 2:19)….

In addition to knowledge of the facts of the gospel and approval of those facts, in order to be saved, I must decide to depend on Jesus to save me. In doing this I move from being an interested observer of the facts of salvation and the teachings of the Bible to being someone who enters into a new relationship with Jesus Christ as a living person. We may therefore define saving faith in the following way: Saving faith is trust in Jesus Christ as a living person for forgiveness of sins and for eternal lift with God.

This definition emphasizes that saving faith is not just a belief in facts but personal trust in Jesus to save me…. The unbeliever comes to Christ seeking to have sin and guilt removed and to enter into a genuine relationship with God that will last forever.

The definition emphasizes personal trust in Christ, not just belief in facts about Christ. Because saving faith in Scripture involves this personal trust, the word “trust” is a better word to use in contemporary culture than the word “faith” or “belief.” The reason is that we can “believe” something to be true with no personal commitment or dependence involved in it. I can believe that Canberra is the capital of Australia, or that 7 times 6 is 42, but have no personal commitment or dependence on anyone when I simply believe those facts. The word faith, on the other hand, is sometimes used today to refer to an almost irrational commitment to something in spite of strong evidence to the contrary, a sort of irrational decision to believe something that we are quite sure is not true! (If your favorite football team continues to lose games, someone might encourage you to “have faith” even though all the facts point the opposite direction.) In these two popular senses, the word “belief” and the word “faith” have a meaning contrary to the biblical sense.

The word trust is closer to the biblical idea, since we are familiar with trusting persons in everyday life. The more we come to know a person, and the more we see in that person a pattern of life that warrants trust, the more we find ourselves able to place trust in that person to do what he or she promises, or to act in ways that we can rely on. This fuller sense of personal trust is indicated in several passages of Scripture in which initial saving faith is spoken of in very personal terms, often using analogies drawn from personal relationships. John says, “To all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (John 1:12). Much as we would receive a guest into our homes, John speaks of receiving Christ.

John 3:16 tells us that “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Here John uses a surprising phrase when he does not simply say, “whoever believes him” (that is, believes that what he says is true and able to be trusted), but rather, “whoever believes in him.” The Greek phrase pisteuo eis auton could also be translated “believe into him” with the sense of trust or confidence that goes into and rests in Jesus as a person. Leon Morris can say, “Faith, for John, is an activity which takes men right out of themselves and makes them one with Christ.” He understands the Greek phrase pisteuo eis to be a significant indication that New Testament faith is not just intellectual assent but includes a “moral element of personal trust.” Such an expression was rare or perhaps nonexistent in the secular Greek found outside the New Testament, but it was well suited to express the personal trust in Christ that is involved in saving faith.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction To Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 709-711.

Although suffering as a prisoner for proclaiming the gospel, Paul was not disillusioned or in despair. Why? Because of his faith. As he testifies to his faith, its essential elements become clear. “And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because Iknow whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I haveentrusted to him for that day” (2 Tim. 1:11-12). Truth about God can be known. Zeal for God without knowledge (of the Redeemer) did not suffice for monotheistic and moral Jews (Rom. 10:1-2). Neither did worship of an “unknown God” atone for the cultured Athenians (Acts 17:23-31). In contrast, Abraham was “fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised” (Rom. 4:21).”

The faith that saves is directed away from human educational, cultural, and religious achievements to the Creator, whose redemptive plan has been preserved and publicized in Scripture. Faith comes by hearing the message of special revelation now affirmed by the written Word of God, the hearer being convinced that “Jesus is Lord” and trusting in him (Rom. 10:4, 8-11, 14). Faith involves knowledge (notitia), persuasion (assensus), and commitment (fiducia). These three elements of faith are operative, not only when one first believes the gospel and trusts the Savior, but also in a growing faith throughout the Christian life.

Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demerest, Integrative Theology, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 168-169.

  • There is more than enough evidence on every hand from every department of human experience and knowledge to demonstrate that Christianity is true… It is the faith of the non-Christian [that] is externally and internally groundless.  They are the ones who leap in the dark.  Some, like Kierkegaard, have admitted this

Robert Morey, Introduction to Defending the Faith (Orange, CA: Christian Scholars Press, 2002), 38.

  • When I was undertaking my doctoral research in molecular biology at Oxford University, I was frequently confronted with a number of theories offering to explain a given observation.  In the end, I had to make a judgment concerning which of them possessed the greatest internal consistency, the greatest degree of predictive ability.  Unless I was to abandon any possibility of advance in understanding, I was obliged to make such a judgment… I would claim the right to speak of the ‘superiority’ of Christianity in this explicative sense. 

“Response to John Hick,” by Clark Pinnock, in More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, Revised ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), 68.

See also: 

 Click To Enlarge

Faith Geisler 1

Faith Geisler 2

Faith Geisler 3

Faith Geisler 4

Faith Geisler 5


Misc. Responses


Here is the response to Russell’s position:

Often, however, the cause of our doubt isn’t what you might think. It isn’t necessarily the strength of the arguments that rattles us, but the way they resonate with the unbeliever in each of us (what the Bible calls the “old self”). We hear Tokyo Rose’s voice and she seems to make pretty good sense sometimes. Yet more often than not, if we look closely at the atheist’s arguments, we find that there is little substance. Seeing this can change the argument’s frequency and therefore break its spell.

Believers often worry that their doubts signify the rapid approach of full-blown unbelief. But as pastor and author Tim Keller puts it,

Faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it. People who blithely go through life too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions about why they believe as they do will find themselves defenseless against either the experience of tragedy or the probing questions of a smart skeptic.

All thoughtful believers—even those whose faith is mature—encounter doubt. Not a single person has had unadulterated faith.

In any case, it certainly won’t do to ignore your doubts, and defusing them will only strengthen your faith. To be sure, doubts can be strong enough to become a trial in your life; but like all trials, they’re meant to refine faith, not stifle it.

Mitch Stokes, A Shot of Faith: To the Head (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2012), xvii.

Here is the response to Logicel’s position:

…faith isn’t a theory of how to know things: “Faith is not an epistemological category. It is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something.

“Faith is trusting in that which you have reason to believe is true. Once you have come to believe that something is true, using reliable epistemological means, you can then place your faith or trust in those things.”

~ William Lane Craig (Christinaity Today)

Here is the Comment from Professor Gray:

The definition above of faith is ha-larious! Thanks for posting it. I’m using it to show how ignorant people are about the term, faith. It is totally opposite of the real meaning that it makes quite a contrast. Faith is the substance of things believed based on evidential material, eye witnesses reports, and logical reasons to hold something as true. Those who have “faith” without the evidence are deluded and would believe anything. It is like someone believing that one species evolves into another species without any transitional evidence. Even with no evidence they continue to believe its true! Now that fits your poster’s definition. Anyway, thanks for the post. I am getting a lot of laughs by using it in my presentations.

Some Great Observations via Brad Torgensen

This is some excellent observations via Brad Torgensen, who is a geek extraordinaire. Full-time nerd, part-time soldier, night-time science fiction writer:

A few statements, then I am going to really, really, REALLY try to disconnect from the endless cyclone of Trump Derangement Syndrome which presently dominates social media.

Profanity ahead. You were warned.

I don’t think Trump is awesome. I actually think he’s rather problematic. But I am willing to be convinced otherwise, by the dividends of his actions; not the hyperbole of his detractors.

I felt the same about Obama, too.

Didn’t vote for either of them.

Meanwhile, if you must live in mortal fear of the President, at least be afraid of something he actually does, not something he’s never said he wants to do—but you think he’ll do it anyway, because he’s an emperor with unlimited power (even though he’s not) and besides which, all the best progressive clickbait sites say he’ll do it. Just because he’s Republican. And as everyone knows, all Republican Presidents are Literally Hitler.

Sorry, hashtags and pussyhats don’t fight Literally Hitler.

Madonna and Ashley Judd both talking insanely, don’t fight Literally Hitler.

Sarah Silverman mistaking utility markings for swastikas, does not fight Literally Hitler.

Throwing rocks through the window at a Starbucks, does not fight Literally Hitler.

The last time Americans fought Literally Hitler, they did it by literally jumping out of C-47s over France, and literally wading into the teeth of German MG fire at Utah Beach.

Literally Hitler literally shot himself in his bunker, in 1945.

He’s literally dead.

Speaking of which, how about we start calling all these little Antifa clowns, Literally Stalin? You remember Stalin, right? Koba the Dread? Socialist father of the people? Sent millions of Soviet citizens to their deaths? Actually racked up more confirmed kills than the Nazis?

Look up the Holodomor. Now there’s some literal genocide for you.

Do they teach the college kids about the heinousness of Uncle Joe?

How about the bloodthirsty madness of Uncle Mao? Uncle Fidel? Uncle Pol? Uncle Ho?

If not, they should.

Because I don’t blame people for falling in love with socialism, I just blame them for not recognizing what history has taught us about socialism’s ultimate ends. And no, the United States is not going to magically get it right this time. I don’t give a fuck what Bernie Sanders promised you.

Nobody has a right to anybody else’s labor.

Would you work for free, just because the government told you to?

How about, would you work a job you didn’t like, making money that didn’t rise to the level of your ability, just because the government told you to?

We abolished that crap after Vietnam. It was called the draft.

Too much fucking socialism, and we’re going to be drafting motherfuckers for all kinds of shit. Do you want your dentist to be somebody who hates his job, and could care less about your pain level? How about your surgeon? Your eye doctor? The people helping you with your cancer treatments? Assuming the cancer has not killed you already, because the waiting list is so damned long, or some bureaucrat in the nationalized health network decided you weren’t worth the effort.

Think that’s insane? A joke?

Keep agitating for Marxist reform of the American free enterprise system. We’re halfway there already.

When you ultimately try to climb over the wall—the one they will build to keep you and your family in, not keep the Mexicans out—I hope you remember your love for socialism. As the guards start shooting.

That’s why Trump got elected in the first place, you know. Because millions of Americans were afraid that we’re headed down the wrong track, and they didn’t trust Hillary Clinton to fix it.

Maybe Trump does suck, but for God’s sake, when is somebody going to hold the Democrats accountable for flunking what had to be the easiest no-brainer Presidential election we’ve yet seen in this century?

It wasn’t Trump’s job to lose, it was the Democrats’ job to win!

Instead, we got the dumpiest, most lackluster, least exciting (D) run since Walter Mondale’s in 1984.

No, California’s popular vote doesn’t count for shit. And even if we change the Electoral College so that every state’s EC votes are divided up commensurately by population, Trump still walks with 303.

Argument Ad Populum is a logical fallacy, not a platform for successfully reckoning with the gargantuan mess that is the Democratic Party in the United States at this time.

The DNC leadership ought to be run out of town on a rail, for letting Hillary Clinton strong-arm herself to the candidacy.

Because until (or unless) Trump does something technically and provably egregious, he won’t be impeached. Impeachment is hard. They don’t impeach dudes just for being assholes, no matter how much you want them to. So, we’re stuck with Trump for at least four years. Maybe eight? Depends on how well the Dems can clean up their act.

Alas, the DNC is busy deciding it’s too male, too white, too hetero, and too cis. Because identitarianism and Social Justice Zealotry will really, really work next time. Just gotta call people deplorable TWICE AS HARD. That’ll win ’em over.

When all you have is a hammer, everything else in the world looks like a nail.

Has it ever occurred to the present crop of Democratic “thinkers” that maybe what Middle America wants most, is to be left alone? In peace? To tend to their own lives, in their own way, without burdensome regulatory overhead, punitive taxation, or some purple-haired genderqueer activist nitwit screaming in their faces?

Maybe California should secede?

Bye now! Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out! Oh, and take some of these hipster-choked urban pockets with you.

No, we won’t go to war to keep you in the Union.

We just might go to war to keep you out, though—when you’re finally gone.

Your refugees, fleeing your Marxist utopia, will be legion. Once they realize that the Golden State is following Venezuela.

Oh, that reminds me. Uncle Hugo? His “model” for the world? Do they teach that to the college kids too? Including the lack of toilet paper, clean running water, and families eating their pets; just to survive?

Venezuela has the resources to be the richest country in South America, with the highest standard of living.

Oops.

Well, when we finally do it in North America, it won’t be that bad.

Because reasons. And stuff.

But Trump is the real enemy. Oh yes. He is the ultimate doom. He is Beelzebub. Iblis. The Evil One. His bronze hair-do makes babies cry all night. Every time he cuts an executive order, God kills a kitten. That kind of thing. We have never seen anyone more awful than The Donald. Even though he’s been a New York Democrat all his life, and will go back to being a New York Democrat when he’s done playing with the Presidency.

Phone me when Trump’s brownshirts put you into the camps.

Do I sound cynical? A bit harsh?

This is why I have to withdraw from the storm.

I can’t make it not be crazy.