The Atheist’s Teeny-Tiny Naturalistic Straw Man

Atheism_The Case Against GodContinuing the critique of George H. Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God, he does what all atheists do in his attempt to deny what he knows is true—namely, that God exists—by erecting a straw man.

Except his straw man is so teeny-tiny, because of the naturalism it is based upon, that one feels great pity for George for erecting it in the first place.

Smith tells the reader, “I shall use the term ‘god” generally to designate any supernatural or transcendent being, and when I claim not to believe in a god, I mean that I do not believe in anything ‘above’ or ‘beyond’ the natural, knowable universe.”

In other words, unless he, as well as all atheists, cannot measure the supernatural or transcendent by naturalistic means, then George is not going to believe it, because it just cannot exist by his standard of knowing anything.

He then goes on to cite two well-known, but very poor, “Christian” examples to make his case, along with a few unknowns, who he thinks are irrational, yet representative of Christian thought: Liberal theologians Paul Tillich and John A. T. Robinson.

His effort is tantamount to someone citing The Watchtower or Book of Mormon as representative of Christian thought, and then criticizing those sources because they just do not fit the person’s preconceived notions of what he believes is Christian.

Smith’s whole schtick is to try and convince the reader that the only means by which to judge reality is through naturalistic means.  And just what would that entail?

It means that unless Smith can see something with his own two eyes, taste something with his tongue, smell something with his nose, feel something with his body, or hear something with his ears, then that something—in this case the supernatural, transcendent, God—cannot be known.

And if something cannot be known, then it does not exist in the natural realm.  It is irrational to even speak of such a non-entity, since there is nothing intelligible by which a person can relate to even have a discussion.  Smith wrote,

“Supernatural” tells us what a god is not—that it is not part of the natural universe—but it does not tell us what a god is.  What identifiable characteristics does a god possess?  In other words, how will we recognize a god if we run across one?  To state that a god is supernatural does not provide us with an answer.

He later continues, “The belief that god is basically unknowable is the most important epistemological element of theistic belief.”

The problem with Smith’s argument is that it is such a monumental straw man, that if it ever caught fire, it would burn for days.First of all, to say that God is supernatural or transcendent is not to say something negative about Him, but something that is positively characteristic of Him, although not exclusively so.  What does that mean?God infinitely exists above the fallen natural Psalm 139_7-10condition of all humans, but remains immanently present and aware of all that goes on in the natural world.  It is why the Psalmist would write,

Where can I go from Thy Spirit?  Or where can I flee from Thy presence?If I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there (Ps. 139:7-8).

Such as statement, though, is not an endorsement of pantheism.  Pantheism teaches that all things are of the same essence as God.  Rocks, trees, your car, et cetera.The Bible makes it clear that God is distinct from His creation.  God created all things, but God is not all things.Second, just because God is “supernatural” does not mean that He is unknowable.  That is the old deistic heresy, which basically says that God created all things and then walked away and let the universe do its own thing; God cannot be known since He has removed Himself from the scene.Well, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—or Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate—is not the God of Deism.  How do we know this?  Because as the writer to the Hebrews put it,

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (Heb. 1:1-2).

In other words, God is knowable simply because He has revealed Himself; He has spoken to humans “in many portions (lit. “many times”) and in many ways,” but especially through the person of Jesus.And when one adds the advent of the Holy Spirit, who impressed upon certain holy men from God to write down His message, then we have additional testimony of just who God is, what He is like, and what He expects from those who He has created (Jn. 14:26; 2 Pet. 1:20-21).God is knowable!Finally, to answer Smith’s question about how would one recognize a god, if one came across those claiming to be Him, is simply to compare what they say with what God has revealed.God has made it clear that He is it; there are no other gods besides Him.

“Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me” (Isa. 44:6).”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:1, 14).

Therefore, that in itself ought to tell the person that whomever is a liar to be claiming to be God.  Moreover, Jesus said to beware of those who would come along claiming to be him as well (Matt. 24:5, 23).  They were to be considered “false prophets.”The whole point is, God has provided explicit, concrete, objective data as to who He is and what He is like, as a “supernatural,” “transcendent,” knowable person and being, and atheAtheism and Evidenceists like George H. Smith do not have a leg to stand on, especially when they prop up straw man arguments to claim otherwise.The question becomes, why ignore the data or the “evidence,” if you will?  Is that not what the atheist is constantly clamoring for: the “evidence”?God has said.  Is it His fault that the atheist refuses to listen?But, then again, teeny-tiny men made of straw are so much more appealing and firm than is the infinite God of the universe’s self-revelation, is it not?

10 Comments

Filed under Atheism, God's Existence

Barak Obama: The Islamic State’s Best Friend

President Obama ISIS SpeechLast night Barak Obama addressed the nation on what his strategy was going to be to counter the Islamic militant group known as ISIS or ISIL in Syria and Iraq.

What a joke that turned out to be!

Obama showed about as much enthusiasm over getting rid of ISIS as most college football fans would be enthused about giving up their fix on Saturday afternoons.

Oh, it’s not that a couple of ISIS soldiers will not be killed and couple of bombs will not go off here and there.  There will be both.

But, when it comes down to really dealing with the Islamic problem—and don’t kid yourself, because the problem is Islamic—Obama is definitely not its worst enemy; he is conceivable is one of its best friends.

The evidence for drawing such a conclusion comes via his speech itself.

Yes, I laboriously sat through and listened to every word he spoke, hoping to hear something that might be different.  Not only was I sorely disappointed, I was not surprised either.

Three statements did stand out like sore thumbs which clearly indicate just where Obama’s real allegiance seems to lie in this whole ISIS conflict.

The first and second statements came early-on in his speech when he said, “Now let’s

If it walks like a duck…

If it walks like a duck…

make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic.”

What????  The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant is not Islamic???

You mean, the offshoot of al-Qaida militants—that even Obama admitted to in his speech—who have been wreaking havoc throughout the Middle East, North Africa, Yemen, and Somalia are not driven by Islamic ideals as taught by the Islamic warlord, Muhammad, and found in the Koran and Hadith, is not Islamic?

Well, pray tell, what ideology drives these clowns if it is not Islam?

Oh, that’s right; they are Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus.  I forgot.  Please forgive me.

Obama followed up that stupid statement with, “No religion condones the killing of innocents.”  Again, really?

What about the religion of Islam, Mr. President, and its “Verse of the Sword,” found in 9:5 of the Koran?

It tells the Muslim to “kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”

Or what about Surah 5:33, Mr. President, which instructs the followers of Islam to engage in revenge upon those who reject its message, “that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.”

Or how about the Hadith (Bukhari 4.159.271) which recorded Muhammad as saying, “Who is ready to kill Ka’b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew).”  Muhammad bin Maslama replied, ‘Do you like me to kill him?’  The Prophet replied in the affirmative.  Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say what I like.’  The Prophet replied, “I do (i.e. allow you).'”

Clearly, if one religion in human history condoned indiscriminate killing of the innocent, as outlined it in its holy books, it is Islam.

And just what has ISIS or ISIL done on a regular basis, except to follow Muhammad and the Koran’s commands, Mr. President?

So, ISIS is not just a terrorist organization, “pure and simple;” it is rooted in Islamic ideology, thereby making it an Islamic terrorist organization.

But, Obama’s stupid comments aside, he made a comment later on in his speech that amounted to tipping his hand as to where his real allegiance is.

After giving a few lines of his usual campaign rhetoric—does this guy ever stop campaigning?—and giving himself credit for his leadership prowess, he made this statement: “And it is America that is helping Muslim communities around the world not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity and tolerance and a more hopeful future.

Excuse me?  Why the qualification that America is helping Muslim communities around the world?  Why the qualification that America is fighting for Muslim opportunity and tolerance?  What happened to everyone else, regardless of what they believe?

Could it be, Mr. President, that it is YOU that is committed to the Muslim cause more than anyone else, aside from those attending the mosque on Fridays, and that you are using American personnel and resources for that cause, and in turn against Americans worldwide?

If not, then why the Muslim qualifying statements?

After last night, if anyone has any confidence that Obama is going to do anything against the Islamic State, he would have to be a fool.

Otherwise, where was his strategy for protecting Americans on American soil?

Where was his commitment to seal the borders and start rounding up militant Muslims in American mosques?

And what about the literally thousands of Muslim terrorist wannabes serving life sentences in our prison system?

You see, Mr. Obama, if you don’t take care of the terrorists at home, then dropping a bomb or two on trucks moseying down a dirt road, which may or may not contain ISIS terrorists, doesn’t mean squat.

Clearly the President of the United States has no clue what he’s doing, he doesn’t care, or more than likely, he is in bed with the terrorists.

MuslimsAnd what we saw last night was simply another one of his dog-and-pony shows that was served up not to do anything meaningful to punish the Islamists where it really hurts, but to let them know he has their best interest in mind.

After all, isn’t that what a good friend does for his friends?

5 Comments

Filed under Barak Obama, ISIL, ISIS, ISIS, Islam, Islamic State

Atheism: The Belief of Convenience

While sitting here reading through George H. Smith’s older book on atheism, Atheism: The Case Against God, I was struck by just how irrationally convenient atheism is for the person naive and foolish enough to embrace it as a worldview.

Atheism DefinedAfter giving the reader his definition of theism he emphatically wrote, “Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief,” and then goes on, “Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief; it is the absence of belief.  An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.”

But, is this really what the atheist believes or is it simply an irrational statement of convenience to keep carrying out his long war against something he says he does not believe in?

For example, Smith says that atheism “is the absence of theistic belief,” but if that is true, then why only a few pages earlier does he make a distinction between the “generic” form of “god” and the specific “God of Christianity”?

Surely if there was this so-called “absence,” then there would be no need to make such distinct categories in what one did not believe existed, right?

One could simply say, I have an absence of belief in a god and leave it at that.  But, Smith does not do that.  He knows there is a difference.  But, why?

A genuine absence of belief entails an absolute absence of knowledge.  One cannot accept or reject the belief in something without first knowing something about that which is accepted or rejected.

Otherwise, one is accepting or rejecting whatever out of a purely prejudicial or bigoted state of mind, which is irrational.

But, the atheist claims his worldview is predicated purely on reason and is rational.  Well, if that’s so, then to say that atheism is an absence of theistic belief would contradict his predication of reason and rationality.

So, which is it?  Is atheism reasonable and Red_Flag_Warningrational or contradictory and convenient?

Now, given that the atheist is a know-it-all, which includes times, places, peoples, and events, then to say atheism is the absence of theistic belief would make no sense.

He must know something about that which he rejects as true, otherwise his omniscient knowledge would soon be discovered to be less than omniscient.

Instead of being an arrogant human being, he would be humbled to the condition of an ordinary human being, like the rest of us—with limited knowledge of just about everything.

Yet, if he claims that he is not omniscient—that that is something those dastardly theists have falsely pinned on him to try and smear the atheist non-belief system—then how can he be absolutely certain that God does not exist?

Would he then not have to change his definition of atheism to include belief?  That atheism is a belief about God’s non-existence; not an absence of belief?

Surely Mr. Smith, and other atheists who cling to this manufactured definition of atheism, has painted himself into a corner that he cannot get out of.

On the one hand he wishes for his audience to believe that he lacks belief, while on the other he wants his audience to believe in what he believes is true, simply because he believes it; namely that God does not exist.

It is a classic maneuver of wanting to burn the candle at both ends, hoping that no one will notice, especially himself, that there a big problem waiting for him in the middle.

No, atheism is not a belief in what is absent, but a rejection of Who and what is present.  The atheist knows God exists, which is why Mr. Smith makes the distinctions, and because God has revealed Himself in the person of the atheist.

Romans 1_19“…because that which is know about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them,” wrote the Apostle Paul (Rom. 1:19).

But, the atheist suppresses that knowledge and then expects God to come and bow before the atheist in abject submission, saying “Here I am; will you please believe in me now?”

Thankfully, God has just a wee bit more nobility and honor than to kowtow to such cavalier expectations.

So, atheism is not about an absence of theistic belief; the atheist has plenty of that.

Rather, atheism is a belief of convenience.  He makes up his own rules and definitions, and then expects everyone to open and swallow his irrational concoctions without ever thinking about it.

It is the next thing to being his own little god, with or without the absence of theistic belief.

15 Comments

Filed under Atheism

The Atheist: Quintessential Relativist & Sociopath?

Quintessential—2 the pure, concentrated essence of anything  3 the most nearly perfect or most typical manifestation of a quality or thing (Webster’s College Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1194).

Relativismn. Philos. any theory of ethics or knowledge based on the idea that all values or judgments are relative, differing according to circumstances, persons, cultures, etc. — relativist n. —relativistic adj. (1226).

Atheistn. a person who believes that there is no God (89).

Sociopathn. a person suffering from psychopathic personality, whose behavior is aggressively anti-social (1379).

Relativism BeckwithRecently I came across a comment which defined a person who is a relativist as “The quintessential…sociopath, one with no conscience.  This is what relativism produces”—Beckwith and Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (1998), 31.

The discovery came in lieu of an accusation by an atheist who insinuated that I really did not know what relativism was.

So, after posting several definitions from some highly recognized philosophy dictionaries and encyclopedias, I came across Beckwith and Koukl’s comment.

What got me to thinking, though, was how easy it would be to either juxtapose alongside of or simply replace atheist for the term relativist.

The atheist is a relativist and no relativist could possibly be a true believer in God; by God I mean the God of the Bible or Jesus Christ.

Atheism proffers absolutely no objective basis for its moral or ethical determinations.

Relativism bases its morals and ethics upon the whims of the individual or culture.

Nothing is absolutely right or wrong; if it feels good, then do it, is the logical conclusion to both isms.

That being the case, sociopathic behavior or psychopathy is next in line; anti-social behavior without a legitimate care in the world who gets hurt along the way.

Elliot Rodger

Elliot Rodger

Only a couple of months ago we witnessed the much publicized acts of Elliot

Rodger.

When it was pointed out that his behavior was reminiscent of that of a practical atheist, the atheists went bonkers trying to refute the alignment.

In the end, though, all they did was reinforce it.

Today another sociopathic group is garnering all kinds of attention by decapitating American journalists.  That group is called ISIS (or simply IS, for Islamic State, to be more correct).

Of course, IS claims to be doing their devilish deeds under the pretense of following Allah.

But, anyone with any amount of theological acumen knows that Allah is an idol, which means that when followed to its logical conclusion, it produces atheism!

Idols are not gods, and neither is Allah.

ISISISIS or IS and atheism are two peas of the same pod, and their relativistic behavior proves it.

The Muslim militants associated with IS behead women, children, and journalists at whim, and the Elliot Rodger types commit murder and mayhem at whim on city streets and on college and high school campuses.

Of course, this does not mean that all atheists become blatant sociopaths who take up guns and knives to commit gratuitous murder.

But, the psychotic sickness is in place, in the mind.  All it takes is a little provocation to make it fester and blossom unto fruition.

So, can relativism and atheism be juxtaposed ?  Without an objective moral or ethical compass to guide either ideology, why not?  What is to stop the relativist from being an atheist?  Moreover, what is to prevent the atheism from being relativist?  Above all, what is to prevent either from becoming full-blown sociopaths?

11 Comments

Filed under Atheism, ISIS, Practical Atheism

Why the Atheist Just Can’t “Get It.”

Athesim logoThis past week been an interesting one in terms of the number of atheists that have chimed in to give their specious objections and opinions in reference to a couple of articles written on the Huffington Post site and my response to them.

One of the objections that keeps popping up deals with the atheist contention that he has an objective starting point in his denial of God’s existence, or for even being able to determine what is right or wrong morally in the world.

One atheist tried the “if it doesn’t harm anyone” angle as the object for why humans should love one another.  Although appealing to all the witches, WICCA, and followers of Aleister Crowley, when he was questioned about it, his appeal immediately fell apart and he abandoned the conversation.

Another atheist propped up the universe as the basis of objectivity.  We observe the universe and voila!  Not only is there no God, but we know the truth, since we interpreted the impersonal universe to be as we see it.

Such blithering nonsense is the epitome of the fallen human condition.  Kick God out, insert human inanity, and the call it “logic,” “reason,” and “free thought.”  In actuality, it is none of those things.

The fact of the matter is, and I’ve stressed this before, when God, as the object, is given the boot, then the only starting place left to form any kind of system of truth, philosophy, or morality is humanity itself.

But, because humanity is severely limited in what it can and cannot do, not only in the world, but the universe itself, then whatever final determinations humanity makes about anything, is going to always be short-sighted and stilted.

The atheist may shout from the rooftops, temper tantrum2“There is no God!” but he cannot know that with any amount of certainty, because he is not big enough to make such a claim.

He argues that logic and observation prove that God does not exist, but whose logic are we talking about and who interpretive grid are we using when it comes to the observed data.  Why, the atheist’s, of course, and that makes things so.

Well, it doesn’t make anything, since that is the very subjective opinion that leads to all the irrationality of the atheist position, if not all the contradictions and self-refutations.  They are hardly standards to determine the truth about anything.

The reason the atheist just doesn’t “get it” when it comes to God’s existence, truth, and objectivity is that he believes he is the measure of all things.  That the universe revolves around him and his opinion.  If he has not seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched whatever, then it cannot exist, be true or rational.

Human brainWhen the atheist is asked, “Okay, when was the last time you saw, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched your brain?” he provides a non-sequitur response by changing the subject to what “the doctors” have observed in other people.

Such is the nature of the person who rejects God as his starting point to determine the truth, even about himself.

Rather than deal with the question asked, he deflects to something he would rather answer, which turns out to be an evasion and a non-answer.

What he is struck with, though, is the reality of just how contradictory his system is, for if he truly wanted to follow his “logic” to its end, he would have to admit that he doesn’t have a brain, since he has not done any of those things he believes are necessary to determine reality.

But worse than that, even if he was able to do any of those things, he would still be left in a quandary of contradiction, for all it would take is for someone else to come along and say, “Hey, I’ve never seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched your brain,” and the atheist contention would be sunk.

One opinion would conflict with another one, and since a vast majority of people have never seen a human brain, then it could easily be concluded by convention, that since a majority of people have never empirically verified that the atheist had a brain, then by using atheist “logic,” he did not have one.

The only way the atheist could prove himself is by actually yanking out his own brain and then saying to everyone, “See, I told you so.”  But, once again, even that could be denied by convention, which is what many atheists base their argument and hopes on anyway.

No, the atheist refuses to “get it,” when it comes to God, truth, reality, logic, morals or whatever, not because they do not exist objectively, but because he rebelliously wants to live in a fantasy world of subjectivity, where he can be is own god and make up his own rules as to how things should be.

Little does he realize, or care, Fall of Manthat that delusional world he lusts after is tainted by diabolic trickery and cunning that began in the Garden of Eden when Satan first queried Eve with the the infamous question, “Has God said?”

Eve, who is the first model atheist, or at least practically so, agreed with the devil, she ate, and the rest is history.

Of course, the atheist rejects such a connection, since to him that is nothing more than a fantasy story itself.  So be it.  Let him think that.  In fact, he should think such a thing, given that he lives in a fantasy world of self-exaltation.

The question then becomes, if God did not say, and all of that recorded in Genesis is nothing but a fantasy, then why is it that the atheist cannot come up with an object to hang his hat on to determine the objective truth about anything?

How is what the atheist is saying today any different than what the serpent proposed to Eve when he convinced her that on the day she rebelled, “you will be as gods”?

HypocriteThe fact is, it is not different, even though it is a paradox.

The serpent convinces the atheist that there is no God, and then has him rely upon his senses to determine what is “good,” delightful, and desirable; and then become what he says does not exist—a god.

Is it any wonder the atheist can’t get it?

9 Comments

Filed under Atheism

The Ice Bucket Challenge: Raising Awareness or Simply a Big Rip-off?

Bostonians bucketed and bilked.

Bostonians bucketed and bilked.

The latest fad sweeping America is the Ice Bucket Challenge.  You’ve probably seen persons from around the country, from celebrity to peon, hoisting large buckets of ice water above them and then dumping it on their heads.

Supposedly it is to raise awareness about ALS (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) or Lou Gehrig’s disease; a slow, progressive disabling of a person’s neuromuscular ability that eventually reduces him/her to a shell of his/her former self, and then the person dies.

Those taking the challenge not only get a temporary shock from the ice water plunging down upon their heads and backs, but then are supposed to also fork over ten bucks to the ALS Founation or MDA (Muscular Distrophy Association) to spur on research to find a cure.

For those unaware, MDA is something that comedian Jerry Lewis has been a big part of, particularly around Labor Day weekend telethons, whereby he spent 24-hours on the television helping rein in funds from donors to find a cure for muscular distrophy.

According to a Forbes online magazine article, in the month of August 2014 alone, the Challenge has supposedly raised $100 million dollars.  Not bad for a fad.

While I am all for finding ways to cure disease and alleviate human suffering, there is something about this whole gimmicky campaign that makes me wonder if a vast majority of the people know what they’re doing, or if they even know that a vast majority of the money they are pledging is not even making it to those doing the researching to find the cure.

First of all, how many of those CDCcaught up in the frenzy realize that ALS is not a major disease?  But, because of some emotional hype, it is being treated like it is one.

According to the ALS website, only about 30,000 people in the United States suffer from ALS.  Do they realize that that is less than 1% of the U.S. population?

Comparatively speaking, according to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), over 130,000 people in the United States were diagnosed with colorectal cancer in 2013 (with over 50,000 of them dying), about 5 million people suffer from Alzheimers, and nearly 27 million Americans have some form of Osteoarthritis at varying stages.

Do you know of anyone taking the bucket challenge and making a pledge for those persons and maladies?  They are much more problematic and effect by-far more people than does ALS.

In fact, many of you reading this article probably have one of the aforementioned diseases or know of someone who does.  Have you dowsed yourself or has someone else dumped a bucket of cold water over their heads and paid research ten bucks in your behalf?

Secondly, it has been passed around the Internet that of all the proceeds that the ALS organization takes in, only about 27% of them goes to research.  In actuality, that number is too high.

ALS DonationsAccording to a financial statement provided by ALS, which is a not-for-profit organization, only about 15% of the monies it brings in goes to research.  In fact, “salaries and related expenses” are more than double that of contributions to research.

In 2013, of the net income of just over $3.1 million, $437, 279.00 went to research, while a whopping $2.7 million went to salaries, rent, office expenses, etc.

In layman’s terms, for every $10 contributed to his hokey campaign, only $1.50 of it ever makes it to the researcher trying to find a cure.

Or to make it even bigger and clearer, if the ALS is consistent, of the $100 million donated in August, about $85 million of it will go into the pockets of those running the ALS Foundation, along with whatever office expenditures they might have.

It is not a great investment.  Rather, it is a rip-off, if not criminal, by IRS Code.

So, the next time you see one of those funky ads showing someone willfully dowsing themselves with a bucket of ice water, just because someone else did it, stop and think who is really benefiting.  Is it someone suffering from ALS or someone in New York operating a non-profit organization that is really raking in the bucks now because a whole lot of people chose to turn off their brain before taking on the big chill.

2 Comments

Filed under ALS Bucket Challenge, Social Issues

What Really Happened to James Foley?

It is a question I’ve been pondering the past few days.  According to all of the media hype he was apparently decapitated by the Sunni Muslims known as ISIS, but there is no verifiable evidence that the event actually occurred.  So, what really happened?

You might be asking, “What do you mean, there is no verifiable evidence?  Of course there is: there is a video.”

The problem with the video that keeps getting circulated is that it is fragmentary, if not simply fake.

James FoleyOh, there’s a person who kind of, sort of looks like James Foley, and there’s another guy dressed up like one regularly sees as a Muslim thug with what looks like knife in his left hand.

There’s even what appears to be a final deceased body with the head of James Foley resting on its back.

But, it’s when one starts looking closely at the details that it just does not make sense.

First of all, the person acting as James Foley is close in appearance and speech, but the differences are obvious, if one is paying close attention.  Just look at some earlier pictures and listen to some interviews he had done previously.  They do not match.

James Foley beheaded

James Foley or Hollywood movie prop?

Second, in the final still scene in the circulated video, the skin tone of the head does not match the skin tone of the exposed left arm or right leg.  Moreover, the amount of blood that has exited the body at the point of decapitation is not consistent with the amount of blood lost during other full-length videos where Muslim idiots have decapitated other innocent victims.

James Foley knifeThird, when one looks at the knife itself, it hardly resembles what one regularly sees being used to behead others.

Most of them are either 12-inch hunting knives with a wide blade designed to cut through bone or the executioner’s scimitar, that is three-feet long and heavy.

With one stroke the head goes rolling like a bowling ball down a bowling alley.

The knife pictured to allegedly kill James Foley, though, looks more like a paring knife.  If it was used to cut off Foley’s head, it must have been exceptionally brutal, if not time-consuming.  While these Islamic nutjobs are merciless, and it certainly is not beyond their capacity to commit murder in such a brutal fashion, using a paring knife is not their style.

Just yesterday several news outlets are now coming to the conclusion that the video and his apparent death were staged after the edited video version was released.  If that is true, then several questions come to mind.

  1. If the video was staged, then how can anyone be absolutely certain that James Foley is dead?
  2. Since all anyone has ever seen is the bogus video, does that mean that there never was an actual full-length video of his execution?  If so, how is that consistent with other Islamic executions, where the Muslim unabashedly parades his deeds in forums like YouTube for the world to see?
  3. If there is no verifiable evidence that James Foley has been executed, then why are so many people, including James Foley’s parents, worked-up in a frenzy to report on and lament over something that very well may not have happened at all?  Is such reporting tantamount to pulling a ruse or misleading the public, which bowls in the favor of every militant Muslim alive today?
  4. Government officials have supposedly positively identified the Muslim thug in the video as British rapper Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary.  Really?  If the video is bogus, which would include the actor playing the part of James Foley, then how is it possible to positively identify Abdel Bary?  Moreover, what difference does it make?
  5. Why has James Foley’s apparent demise all of the sudden become such a centralized focus of attention, with the prospect of the United States becoming involved in a military conflict in Syria and Iraq fighting ISIS, when very little, if nothing is being said or done about the same kind of Islamic ideology within its own shores?  In fact, media and government officials bend over backwards to appease the Muslim contingent, even though Islamic ideology is antithetical to American ideals.

Is James Foley really dead?  If one is honest, one cannot rightly say.  He may be.  Who really knows?  But, he very well may be still alive and still held captive somewhere, especially if all one has is the cheesy video production that the media and government officials keep alluding to, to prove his death.

Flight 777

Missing Flight 777

Time will eventually tell.  But without being a conspiracy theorist it seems that something else is going on behind the scenes, so to speak, that only a few are aware.  What that is, one can only speculate.  What is certain is that it cannot be good.  Another 9/11 event keeps coming to mind.

Leave a comment

Filed under ISIS, James Foley