Science focuses on that which is detectable and its method is doubt. It is the skeptical adult approach rather than the gullible childish approach to an issue that if a god existed he would be pleased with. If God is not detectable and if he cannot be apprehended by such an adult attitude then I can't help him.
I want to thank everyone who donated to help me get a new computer. I bought a tower that cost me $425. It’s a Dell Inspiron 560 with a dual core processor and a dvd/cd writer. It has a whopping 320 gig hard drive! I’m getting it to where I need it, but this is a joy. Thanks so much!
And yes, that's my pool table. $10-$50 a game anyone? I need some more money. ;-)
Ugh... there's just so much wrong with the Jesus story. You have to be indoctrinated, skilled in apologetics, and unwilling to ask yourself a lot of questions even to try and get it to make sense. Link.
Vic, you get your "priors" from your upbringing. With different priors you would be defending something else. LinkAdmit it Vic. You get your "priors" from your upbringing. This is undeniable. We were all raised as believers. Whatever our parents told us we believed. That's your starting place. Sure, we question them as we go, but we don't upchuck them all.
1) We don’t provide a united front. We are a diversified bunch of people. Some of us support different atheist organizations, subscribe to different atheist magazines, while others don’t support or subscribe to any at all.
2) We have no leaders. While there are certainly some standouts in the atheist community there are always disagreements on who we regard as our intellectual heroes.
3) We cannot agree on anything else but religion. We can’t even agree on what to call ourselves. We disagree on such things as the basis for morality (or lack thereof), on politics, and on whether or not Jesus existed (and if so, what we are to think of him).
4) We have no agreed upon causes. Some focus on the separation of church and state, others on politics, others on science, and still others on specific kinds of religion and/or paranormal claims.
5) We cannot agree about tactics. There are the friendly atheists, spiritual atheists, evangelical atheists, and others who merely want to educate, not necessarily persuade, believers.
We are human beings of every age, shape, gender, skin color, health, wealth, education and social social status. We simply do not believe. We think for ourselves based on solid evidence and good reasons. We cannot be herded like believing sheep. Nor can we be fleeced.
But this is our strength. We are everywhere. We are the wave of the future. There is no turning back the hands of time. We cannot be ignored any more.
.
[Written by John W. Loftus] Although there are so many to chose from let me highlight five of the most asinine types of Christian arguments I’ve seen:Not only is fundamentalist Christianity the greatest threat in the United States to science, tolerance, and social progress, but it is also the most prevalent form of Protestant Christianity to be found in our nation, whether you like it or not. It is the fundamentalist religious right that holds the reigns of the Republican party (which currently controls the nation, in case you didn't realize), and it is this same fundamentalist religious right that lobbies for the teaching of lies in public school and fights against funding for embryonic research that could potentially save the lives of millions.If you’re a liberal, existential or Catholic believer then we just might share some of the same criticisms of that which we take aim at, so join us in this goal, just like James McGrath does from time to time. Otherwise, start a Blog titled “True Christianity,” and invite all professing Christians there to hammer out your differences. If you can come to a consensus then come back here and we’ll debunk that consensus (lol). But don’t be so ignorant as to do that here. We know the differences. We just target a specific kind of Christianity because that’s the only way to be effective in debunking any of them. And don’t kid yourself, either. There are some aspects to our debunking that debunk all religions and all Christianities. Many of the beliefs we debunk are affirmed in the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian creeds. So to you I say, if the shoe fits, wear it; if not, then don’t.
Whether you like it or not, it is this flavor of Christianity that makes the loudest, most obnoxious, most dangerous impact on the world today, giving us plenty of good reason to direct the brunt of our attacks in its vicinity.
concerning the 10th one, where he writes: This Commandment was never intended to prevent envying another's possessions, but rather to avoid the evil consequences of "coveting" in the magical sense. Coveting was not mentioned as an undesirable trait to be avoided because it is unethical, immoral or antisocial; it was recorded and made part of the Decalogue because the superstition prevailed in Hebrew tribal society that envious thoughts would bring ill luck and misfortune, through sorcery and witchcraft, to the person against whose property the "coveting" was directed. Covetous desires, they believed, would call into existence the malevolent spirits of the "evil eye," which by devious and diabolical methods would cause the loss of the coveted possessions. Link.
Positivism refers to a set of epistemological perspectives and philosophies of science which hold that the scientific method is the best approach to uncovering the processes by which both physical and human events occur.LinkThere is something to positivism these apologists have overlooked. We cannot offer a logical DEDUCTIVE proof that science is the only game in town. To criticize positivism as if it did is to knock down a straw man. Yes, the positivists did make sweeping statements so they fell prey to some criticisms. But what we really want to say is that it's very probable science is the only game in town. That cannot be refuted. And that is all we need to say. If they want to continue hanging their hats on what is "possible" time and again, have at it. That's the definition of faith. We will keep insisting on that which is probable not that which is possible.
So to those in the English-speaking world who consider themselves Christians, my recommendation is this: stop complaining about the "de-Christianization" of a holiday that we ourselves stole (sorry, borrowed) from others and successfully hijacked for more than a thousand years. Link.
Biblical Beings- Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Tetramorph, and others..
Serpents & Dragons- Dragons, Amphiptere, Amphisbaena, Basilisk, Chimera, Cockatrice, Hydra, Gorgon, Wyvern (also Lindworm), and others...
Part-Human Creatures- Centaur, Harpies, Ipotane, Lamia, Manticore (and Catoblepas and Leucrocuta), Moon-Woman, Satyr, Sphinx, and others...
Winged Beasts- Caladrius, Gansas, Griffin, Goose Tree, Hippogriff, Martlet (and Bird of Paradise), Opinicus, Pegasus, Peryton, Phoenix, Roc, and others...
Land Beasts- Bonnacon, Bunyip, Cerberus, Gulon, Ibex, Lamb Tree, Mantygre, Mermecolion, Musimon, Salamander, Su Unicorn, Yale, Yppotryll, and others...
Sea Creatures- Devil Whale, Kraken, Nereid, Mermaid, Scylla, Siren, Sea Bishop, Sea Monk, Sea Horse, Sea Lion, Sea Serpent, Siren, and others...
Link
As I have argued elsewhere (see my essay in The Empty Tomb), I do not think that we have enough information to establish ANY account about what really happened during "Easter Week." If I had to conjecture, I would imagine a scenario (and a scenario is all we can have) something like this: Click here for more.
has been reviewed by the Library Journal:Taking on a highly volatile subject with admirable objectivity, Eller (anthropology, Community Coll. of Denver; Cultural Anthropology: Global Forces, Local Lives ) has written a thorough academic study of religious violence from an anthropological and sociological perspective. Drawing extensively on examples from the history of various religions around the world, he covers the full range of religious violence, going well beyond the current hot topics of war and terrorism to include sacrifice, self-injury, persecution, and ethno-religious conflict. He even devotes a chapter to nonviolence and religion. Overall, his argument is highly nuanced and avoids any temptation to oversimplify the complexities of human violence and its relationship to religion. VERDICT Eller makes a commendable effort to avoid taking sides or focusing too heavily on one particular religious tradition. Those seeking either a spirited defense of religion or a ruthless attack on it should look elsewhere. This book is ideal for those studying or teaching anthropology, sociology, and religion and looking for a scholarly and objective overview of a complicated subject. Brian T. Sullivan, Alfred Univ. Lib., NY.
has been out for awhile. Based upon the Christian responses I've seen on Amazon and other blogs, here are the top ten ways to deal with it:Well, I am (was) a five-point Calvinist, Reformed Baptist type, who recently lost my faith thanks to the two books by John Loftus (see? I didn't make it very far into the challenge). Losing your faith hurts a lot, and frankly, has made me angry because it feels like something very precious has been taken away from you. Then you think about it more, and it makes you even angrier and ashamed to be deceived into believing something so totally false and unworthy of the time and talents wasted on it. Then after some time, anger leads to depression. But I see a bright, glorious light at the end of the tunnel, and as far as I can see, it is not an oncoming train like the theists assured me I needed to fear. So, thank you, Mr. John Loftus. It's hurt like hell, but so far it's all been worth it! Link
Christians have developed so many ways to escape the force of the evidence that it’s frustrating to those of us who are trying to reason with them. I’ve written about several of them before. There is the big one I call The Omniscience Escape Clause. Another one I haven’t quite developed yet I call The Faith Trump Card, which is leaping beyond the actual probabilities of the evidence itself. No reasonable person can leap beyond what the evidence calls for. If Christians conclude it’s 51% probable Jesus arose from the dead then they simply cannot conclude they know he did. That’s an unjustified leap. If I thought it’s 51% probable the Colts will play in the Super Bowl and win it this year (fat chance) I would be ignorant to say I know this will happen, especially enough to bet all my meager life savings on it (which is zilch).
One day I was at a Barnes and Noble browsing around. I got to the Philosophy section, and picked up The Christian Delusion
It appears that American evangelicalism is finally coming into its own as a subject of social research and academic attention well beyond the scope of those who identify with it as insiders...Yet as soon as evangelicalism becomes a subject, it splinters and splits. Indeed, taken together, recent studies by more-or-less outsiders show there is no such thing as evangelicalism. The term represents a broad range of significantly different theologies, practices, and religious movements within Christianity, and there are often tensions among and within them. Which is no revelation at all to most more-or-less insiders, who call themselves evangelicals, however qualified, and who argue as much with others who do the same as with those of us who don't. LinkApparently even among people who claim the Bible is God's word it's like herding cats!
Anyone who fails to believe in God by the end of his lifetime does so only by a stubborn resistance to the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing that person to a knowledge of God. On the biblical view people are not like innocent, lost lambs wandering helplessly without a guide. Rather they are determined rebels whose wills are set against God and who must be subdued by God’s Spirit....The unbeliever is like someone dying of a fatal disease who refuses to believe the medical evidence concerning the efficacy of a proffered cure and who rejects the testimony of his doctor to it and who, as a result, suffers the consequence of his own stubbornness. He has no one to blame but himself. Question 191.And to think, some skeptics here are blasting poor little Debbie for saying the same kinds of things. I wonder where she gets these platitudes? Bill exhibits a stubborn refusal to actually listen to us as real people with real doubts, choosing to believe the Bible instead. What nonsense! Bill is the one who stubbornly refuses to see the truth written on our faces.
The following is what he emailed to me about it:. Other required texts are How to be a Good Atheist
by Nick Harding, and The Portable Atheist
edited by Christopher Hitchens. He'll probably also require students to listen weekly to Dan Barker's and Annie Laurie Gaylor's Freedom From Religion podcast. He tells me he's very excited, as am I.Come on Theists, just admit it, you're a little curious. We know it. You know it. You wouldn't be here otherwise.
Just come out and admit it. It's okay. We're not bad... not really. ;) If you're a Theist and are spending time lurking on /r/atheism or Pharyngula or Debunking Christianity or any of the other Atheist websites out there, you're almost one of us already. If you're a Theist and are spending time actually COMMENTING on Atheist websites, you're just a half step away from being a full fledged baby-eating scourge of humanity. Link
[I]s naturalism itself a scientific thesis? I think the right answer to this question is that naturalism is not a thesis at all, but an approach. The naturalistic philosopher is the Neurathian sailor, working within science to understand, clarify, and improve science... Link
He presents a compendium of well-reasoned arguments (wrapped together nicely in a steadily developed “cumulative case”) against the central beliefs of Christianity...Loftus’s arguments are not the easily-refuted caricatures so often offered in Bible college textbooks and Sunday school materials. They are the genuine article – clear, well-articulated statements of plausible arguments by one who finds them overwhelmingly convincing. I dare say very few preachers, teachers, and Bible students have its likes on their shelves. And it should be there.
The natural world is all that we can detect with our 5 senses and instruments used to interact with those senses when the scale of perception surpasses the limitations of those senses. The supernatural world then would be that which we cannot detect with senses or instruments (at the present time). This means that at the present time there is no evidence which we can discern supporting the supernatural. If and when we become able to detect the supernatural, it will have moved into the realm of the natural, as we can then detect it.
is massive and sure to be a good one. Be sure to get it. I plan on doing so.
. His talk can be found there as well. He talked for a bit about sex and the triggers that cause people to believe. In my talk I mentioned Robert Price's essay on sex. Here it 'tis. This was an amazing convention and I highly recommend it for all skeptics. Don't miss it next year. It's put together very well. The people are awesome!While growing up, Avalos' zealous belief in God ignited an intense study of the Bible. "Most adults, up until recently, usually end up in the religion they were raised in," Avalos said. "It's not because they came to that religion through a long period of study or research, but they were just raised that way. To me that was not satisfactory. I wanted to know whether it was true or not." "I started by trying to defeat the arguments of the other side," Avalos said, "and in the process I realized that my own arguments were not very good." "One thing led to another, and I realized that I did not believe in Christianity or that the Bible was the word of God, or that the Bible had any kind of divine origin." Link
I and many others are in Christian eyes little lost sheep. I look forward to being found by the good shepherd!!! He has not found me yet though and does not seem all that interested in looking either! (I am sure he is busy, washing his hair or something).
"I am an atheist," says "Jack," a Southern Baptist with more than 20 years in ministry.
"I live out my life as if there is no God," says "Adam," who is part of the pastoral staff of a small evangelical church in the Bible Belt.
The two, who asked that their real identities be protected, are pastors who have lost their faith. And these two men, who have built their careers and lives around faith, say they now feel trapped, living a lie. Link
Physicist Milton Rothman examines the relationship between science and religion and the extent to which a scientist should apply his belief in realism to all aspects of our knowledge of the universe. Link.
I propose that each debate consist of 750 words arguing the affirmation, 750 words arguing the denial. At that point we exchange our brief opening arguments and then write 100 word rebuttals. Then we exchange those brief rebuttals and write 50 word closing statements so that a single debate is about 1800 words total. With an introduction and 20 debates that would put us at about 38-40,000 words which is a nice little 160 page book.So we're going to begin by writing on three questions each. Here they are:
is one I heartily recommend (see my review at Amazon). Time magazine interviewed him recently about it.This is Ken's wife. My husband passed away suddenly and unexpectedly yesterday from a massive heart attack. I thought you would like to know. He was 50. CherylThis was Ken's Facebook page. This was his Blog page.
Our modern perception of the Roman Catholic Church as the janitor of old buildings and the provider of a different geriatric every few years to amuse us with his favourite tricks whilst hiding behind bullet proof glass, is in itself a testament of the degree to which we have separated ourselves from the theocratic oversight of this institution. None of the twenty thousand who were slaughtered at the Massacre of Béziers by Papal instruction could have dreamed of a time when the Holy See’s authority would be reduced to a symbolic figment of an ignorant past. Yet the indoctrination and violent imposition that shaped dark age Europe and resisted the development of our secular modern societies so violently still retains much of its grotesque authority.
Indicative of a larger pattern, atheist and agnostic students will return to campus this fall with a better chance than ever of finding groups of like-minded young people. The Secular Student Alliance (SSA), a national organization devoted to supporting nonreligious student groups, reported having a record 219 campus affiliate groups, up from 159 in 2009 and 100 in 2008.
Monotheism in ancient Israel was a late(r) development, certainly not part of early Israelite religion. Within this article, the basic biblical and epigraphic evidence is employed, with frequent reference to seminal secondary studies. Link to a pdf.
was a page turner for me. Not only is it about two of my favorite subjects *ahem* but it is a one stop shop to learn about a complete range of sexual issues in the Bible by a biblical scholar. We learn about sexual terminology in the Hebrew culture like "hands" "feet" "flesh" "nakedness" and "to know." When Ruth uncovered Boaz's feet (Ruth 3:7-8) guess what she was probably doing folks, yep, probably giving him some head--Yeahhhh baby!!!!This is a review of The Human Faces of Godby Thom Stark. It's also a request to Christians: admit that the Bible is a mess and stop passing on its toxicity to us.
Thom Stark begins his book like this: "In the beginning was the Argument, and the Argument was with God, and the Argument was: God. God was the subject of the Argument, and the Argument was a good one. Who is God? What is God like? What does God require of us?"
Stark shows that the Bible isn't just self-contradictory on a few historical details but that within the pages of the Bible is an argument and not just an argument with the outside world: The Bible is an argument with itself.
If you want to be informed about what the Bible really says and how Christianity came into existence -- if you want to know how to respond to Evangelicals trying to convert you to their brand of fundamentalism, read this book. If you're a former Evangelical, or a former Christian, who gave up on faith because you just couldn't reconcile your moral and intellectual integrity with the mythology and immorality-touted-as-righteousness that is pervasive throughout the Bible, then read this book. Link
Q. Who is the Yahweh of the Israelites?
A. Well as scholars like Frank Cross, Chris Rollston, Mark Smith and others have demonstrated and have known for some time, the earliest texts in the Hebrew Bible give a strong indication that the early conception of Yahweh was that he was an ancient Near Eastern tribal deity. As I argue in my book, following Rollston, the Song of Moses in Deut 32 indicates that Yahweh was believed to have been one of the children of the Canaanite deity El Elyon (God Most High). The song describes how the nations were originally formed, and what it says is that the peoples of the earth were divided up according to the number of El Elyon’s children (the junior members of the divine pantheon). Yahweh, Israel’s patron deity, was one of Elyon’s children.
The best evidence suggests that Yahweh did not begin as the “only true God” of later Jewish monotheism; he did not begin as the creator of the world. Yahweh began as a young, up-and-coming tribal deity whose prowess among other gods mirrored Israel’s aspirations vis-a-vis surrounding tribes and nations.
Randal believes that the Christian god would have his bible written by people so that it is indistinguishable from any other book that people have written - full of contradictions, depicting the flawed human knowledge of the time, unclear, employing the same technics that people use when they write, like irony, etc.
In fact, Randal believes that the Christian god didn't even interfere in any way with the actual writing and compilation of the Christian bible - that was all done by people and people alone. Randal has written that he believes that the Christian god, when he created the universe, did so with the full foreknowledge that people would evolve billions of years later to independently write exactly the book that the Christian god would want them to write, full of human flaws and appearing as an all too human creation, as his bible.