The “real” Wile E. Coyote was well known as a hapless failure who persisted in defeat even after his own incompetence was demonstrated repeatedly. It was not for no reason (aside from his tagged state of residence) that I designated “Arizona Atheist” (AA) with this moniker. Like Wile E., he is insensate to his own incapacities, and continues to blow himself up with TNT time and time again.
From here on, however, a change is made. Answering AA’s foolish arguments is of no moment, but it takes time for me to craft surrounding narrative, and I do not feel he is worth the time of a carefully crafted narrative retort. Thus from here on, I shall answer any material of his in bullet format.
AA continues to evade what he calls “side issues” which are in fact essentials which define Christianity Whether he likes it or not, such things as the hypostatic relationship of Jesus (Wisdom) and the Father are essential to the identity of Jesus, and thus the Christian faith. That he is too ignorant to know this is not an answer.
AA whines that I provide no “scholarly definition” of Christianity. That’s too bad. It’s not my job to do his homework for him, or make his arguments for him. Furthermore, it is what he calls “side issues” and ignores that I use to create a scholarly definition. So I have provided all he needs, and he has no excuse for staying with defining “Christianity” for his own convenience, which has essentially been, “Anything, as long as it includes Hitler.”
He claims to have found Avalos reliable. He isn’t. I have several articles on Avalos demonstrating his incompetence. I did not “ignore” what AA said about eugenics. Rather, I pointed out that he needs to prove that David had awareness of eugenics, which is an impossible hurdle, since no one until Galton and Mendel even did any work to prove or develop the idea. AA would have us believe that 2000 years ago, David was practicing eugenics, and was aware that killing tall Moabites would prevent more tall Moabites from being born; and then, no one knew anything about eugenics until Galton in the 1860s. Such a ridiculous idea deserves much more support than AA can or will provide.
Let us remember that the essential of eugenics is to affect future offspring. The most that could be realistically said is that David was killing taller warriors because of their potential present threat: Tall warriors had certain advantages in combat of the day (e.g., reach with a spear). But if David knew eugenics, he would have also killed tall Moabite women, not just the male warriors, and also killed the children of the tall warriors. AA deserves ridicule for such bumbling foolishness.
Adding the foolishness, he now quotes Sevasti Trubeta (despite hinting that such is a fallacious argument from authority) as saying that, “advocates of Jewish eugenics saw the Bible and the Talmud as containing eugenic legislation.” It’s nice that AA knows how to use Google Books so well, but he needs critical thinking to go with it. Who are these “advocates” any why should we think they are right? Trubeta cites as his source a study by Uzarczyk, which is an essay in a book titled “Blood and Homeland.” The advocates, as it turns out, are 20th century people. So AA is simply citing here people who make the same foolish mistake he does.
The harsh reality is, there is no “eugenics” in the Bible or the Talmud, because the science was unknown until the middle of the 19th century. And even AA’s own source, Trubeta, makes this clear. AA dishonestly quotes as follows:
Trubeta continues to argue how “historian A.G. Roper […] has shown that infanticide was practiced (mostly for religious reasons) in several historic cultures worldwide.” (Physical Anthropology, Race and Eugenics in Greece (1880s–1970s), by Sevasti Trubeta, Brill, 2013; 207)
But here’s what the full quote is:
In other words, Trubeta essentially agrees with what I have to say, immediately after the quote used by AA. This is also important because Roper was not a scientist – he was a historian – and he also clearly did not have any idea what “eugenics” actually was, or else, how it should have been applied. Infanticide by itself is not “eugenics.” Ancient people had no idea that they were changing the gene pool by abandoning infants. Their only concern was, as with David, the present effect of disposing of a child that they thought would affect their present survival. AA should keep in mind that serious research involves more than just a Google search of “Jewish eugenics” and grabbing the first thing that seems to support what you want to be true.
The fact that Gandhi did not believe in an interventionist god is beside the point. For one thing, Gandhi did believe in some gods that intervened; as a Hindu, indeed, he would have believed in millions of such gods. Islam believes in an interventionist God – is Islam Christianity? Is Allah a Christian God? Muslims also hold Jesus “in high esteem” – are they Christians? As usual, AA’s only goal is to adopt any definition of “Christian” that includes Hitler – not actually define it.
The further quote of Isaac only proves my point that the “environmental theory” of racism is not strictly racism at all because it does not make race itself the root cause of an alleged inferiority. Issac’s quote cites climate as the primary cause of human characteristics. Racism cites race as the primary cause. So that’s not racism. AA’s inability to grasp this, or to use sources beyond Google Books, Amazon preview, or other such tools, doesn’t change the fact that he lacks a full orbed understanding of these issues.
We will make any further replies as addendums to this entry.