Sunday, August 19, 2012

Center for Inquiry, Jesus Project, Athiest Orgnaization


Once upon a time I wrote an article called "cracking the Jesus Myther's Phony Scholarship code." It was about things like the Jesus project which appears to be a true scholarly endeavor but is just a front for Jesus myth propaganda. Another good example of that is Religious It poses as a sight about religious tolerance but is really about how evil Christianity is.
This will be like a fourth "Quest for the Historical Jesus" (or fifth or sixth, depending on how you count), with two major differences that shall define the Project:
  1. It will exclude all theological and dogmatic bias--conservative or liberal (none attending were sympathetic to either the Jesus Seminar or conservative apologetics). It will instead attempt to develop objective methods (which won't inherently favor any pet theory) and establish the facts independently of theory before moving forward. All the scholars present agreed every past Quest had (and has) consistently failed to do either.

  2. It won't rule out anything just because someone attending thinks it's fringe. They will hear all the Dohertys, Tabors, Eisenmans, MacDonalds, Q-deniers, the lot. Hoffmann is intent on maintaining a wide and critical diversity of scholars in the Project. As his press release says, "Participants represent a wide variety of perspectives, ranging from Tabor's argument that there is substantial evidence that the tomb of the family of Jesus has been located, to the view that the evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical figure is not persuasive." What we will require is an objective methodology from anyone who intends to argue anything to the group. It won't be a soapbox society. You will either explain how your conclusions can be proved to everyone's satisfaction, or you'll be shown the door.

In other words, Jesus myth propaganda. They "project" is ran form the stand point of convincing the world that Jesus didn't exist and selling that book. I'm sure the faitful wont see it that way. they are good honest secular minded God haters trying to spread the truth.

They mention Tabor who was attacked assiduously by the Jesus myth crowd. Even though he had a thesis that claimed to prove that Jesus was not divine and that Jesus' mission was just to put his family in power, he at least did seem to prove that Jesus existed as a man in history so they had to oppose it. This was so obviously a special collequy called for the pupose of putting Jesus mythism on a par with the Jesus seminar. That would give it a pretense of scholarship it has failed to obtain even today. Jesus mythers are more at war with scholarship.

When I wrote that old article there were an atheist who mocked and ridiculed me saying "He’s obsessed with linking the Jesus Project to Skeptical Inquirer magazine, a magazine..." We find that there is an organization called "the center for Inquiry." They run a blog called "The Jesus Project." Under "advocacy" they list:

The Center for Inquiry advocates for science, reason, freedom of inquiry and humanist values through the following specialized policy and political programs:

The Office of Public Policy

The Office of Public Policy (OPP) works on three levels:

  • At the grassroots level, the OPP works with CFI Centers and Communities on policy within the state and at the state level on federal issues. The OPP trains Friends of the Center to influence state and local level legislation, take part in political campaigns, and run for office.
  • At the federal level, the OPP lobbies the U.S. Congress and the Administration in three areas: science and reason; secularism, and humanist ethics. The OPP also cooperates with powerful coalitions to influence legislators through individual and group communications.
  • At the international level, the OPP supports the work of CFI at the United Nations by lobbying Congress and the State Department on UN-related issues.

CFI at the United Nations

The Center for Inquiry is a non-governmental organization (NGO) with special consultative status under the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It maintains official representation at UN headquarters in New York and UN offices in Geneva and Vienna, where it works to defend the secular, scientific outlook in the international community.

Legal Department

The Legal Department files amicus briefs in cases involving First Amendment rights, reproductive freedom, assistance in dying and other issues of importance CFI and its supporters. Where appropriate, the Center or one of its affiliates, such as the Council for Secular Humanism, may file its own lawsuit. In addition, the Legal Department will also consider offering free legal assistance to individuals who believe that their constitutional rights are in jeopardy or that they have experienced discrimination because they are not religious.

Legal departments hire lawyers that takes money. It takes money to do all of this and money is indicative of organization. While they try to laugh off the connections to Organized propaganda it's quite obvious have have a have a huge moneyed propaganda machine. Follow the records on any one of their publicans and you can see they have all kinds of things, a huge structure. Look what it says about the "federal level" They have lobbyist! you think that doesn't take money?

under outreach they say:

The Center for Inquiry isn't just a think tank—we're a world-wide movement of humanists, skeptics, freethinkers, and atheists, all working together at the grassroots level to advance scientific and secular values where we live.

From social events to educational lectures, community volunteering to national advocacy, CFI members are living proof that there are good, ethical alternatives to religious and paranormal worldviews.

How many atheists have told me it's not a movement? Atheist always say 'it's not a movement." But here they say it's a world wide movement. Well that doesn't prove they are athiest, these are "Free thinkers." Look what they say then:

Whether we identify as atheists, freethinkers, humanists, secularists, or skeptics, we all share basic values rooted in inquiry, naturalism, and the scientific method—values that urgently need to be demonstrated and advanced in the broader culture.

There must be a system that can unite all of our voices when success requires our voice to be strong. That system is the new CFI Network.

Not only is it a movement but they are seeking to organize it and control for their agenda. They include atheists in their identification.

their announced goals include:

Fostering a secular society requires attention to many specific goals, but three goals in particular represent the focus of our activities:

  1. an end to the influence that religion and pseudoscience have on public policy
  2. an end to the privileged position that religion and pseudoscience continue to enjoy in many societies
  3. an end to the stigma attached to being a nonbeliever, whether the nonbeliever describes her/himself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker or skeptic.


Anonymous said...

Absolutely apalling. More people need to be aware of this. I'm so sick of atheist propaganda.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

you and me both man!

JBsptfn said...

Those Atheist groups are about tearing apart morals and values. Here is an example from Jime's blog:

The world needs to stand up to these bullies.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

thanks man. here's your link:


Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...


The Stoogemaniac said...

Typical: a tiny loud mouthed minority attempting to force their atheist tyranny on the majority by pushing their way into positions of power where others might ignore their presence.

Even their credo is condescending.

Why is it we're the only ones that are expected to show any tolerance?

The Stoogemaniac said...

Typical: atheists organizing to force the tyranny of the minority on the rest of the planet.

It would be nice if they swallowed their condescendence and showed some of the tolerance they demand from everybody else.

JBsptfn said...

Another thing: They say that there is a stigma attached to being a nonbeliever? Not as much as there is to being a believer in God.

And, they want to take away stigma on them, but put it on other people by lies and deceit. These people are the biggest bunch of frauds going.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I am always Leary of people who have a 'we aer always surrounded" mentality. Depends upon who is doing the stigmatizing. The majority of Americans are still religious (in fact self identified Christians) and so in the general public there isn o stigma on being a believer. There's a stigma on being thought a fanatic and that probably unfair in some ways.

Although I am Leary of actual fanaticism. that's largely in the eye of the beholder.

atheism as a movement as a schizophrenic reaction: on the one hand they want to actually pretend they are in the majority and they constantly blow their figures out of all proportion to do that.

(1) they count anyone who is the least bit angry with organized religion as an atheist.

(2) they count all Buddhists as atheists.

(3) I've seen some try to count Hindus as atheists even though they clearly have gods.

(4) one nut case on carm who tires to make it sound like each individual christian is a cult unto himself/herself becuase we all have different concepts of God, however slightly they differ.

(5) atheist also use cheats like "we are all born atheists" to try make themselves seem more the majority.

Then on the other hand they relish their self-pity thing about "we are so put upon and oppressed."

JBsptfn said...

Quote"(4) one nut case on carm who tires to make it sound like each individual christian is a cult unto himself/herself becuase we all have different concepts of God, however slightly they differ."Quote

I feel bad for you if those are the people that you debate with on CARM every day. Those people seem lost and confused. They aren't currently finding truth through Atheism, and I don't think they ever will.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

well yea. there are more intelligent ones but the level of discourse is always being brought down to the lowest common denominator.