Victor Reppert Now Claims He's a "Graduate of the OTF"

Reppert has been thinking and responding to the OTF longer than any other informed believer I know of, so if you are a believer and you object to the OTF then learn from him. When first confronted with the OTF Reppert criticized it as embracing too radical of a skepticism. Then over the years as I explained it to him further he now says he's a graduate of the OTF and wants a diploma. Cute. As far as I can tell most believers criticize the OTF when they first hear of it. Then they go through the same stages Reppert has gone though, by subsequently embracing it in the face of my arguments, basically wanting their diplomas too. Should I start printing them off and signing them just because they say so? First, here is what Reppert recently admitted:

What Is Faith?

Faith is pure wishful thinking, nothing more and nothing less. It offers a person a leap beyond what the probabilities actually lead us to think. For if something can be known to be the case we wouldn't need faith. Faith therefore is not a virtue when it comes to knowing the truth about anything. Skepticism is.

Vic Reppert's "Argument From Reason" is Against a Strawman

Yep, he does not deal with what scientifically minded skeptics actually think.

An Open Question to Victor Reppert About the OTF

I just cannot seem to disabuse him of his inconsistent position. He said:

What is the Outsider’s Perspective?

Almost all of the objections to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) are red herrings placed in the road to sidetrack us from getting at the truth. They do not understand the perspective of an outsider, or they grossly misrepresent it in favor of faith. Since I like beating my head against the wall, let me try again.

Flannagan Versus Westbrook: Understanding the Problem

Why Dr. Flannagan is still Wrong

The End of Christianity is Here!

Amazon is now shipping my anthology The End of Christianity. I hope the effort was worth it. Let me know as you get your copy. It'll surely be hotly contested on Amazon and elsewhere. The reaction should prove to be intense. Stay tuned.

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science, by Chris Mooney

Head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever. Link.

Dr. Flannagan Denigrates Science, Why Am I Not Surprised?

[Written by John W. Loftus] This is getting ridiculous and predictable. So let me get this straight, okay? In order to believe, Flannagan must denigrate science. Get it.? What utter rubbish. This alone should cause believers to question why they believe what they do based on their upbringing in a Christian culture. Science is the only antidote to how easily we can believe and defend what we were taught on our Mama's knees.

Why Dr. Flannagan Fails History, Dr. Hector Avalos Responds

Dr. Flannagan's use of sources shows some careless scholarship.

Dr. Matt Flannagan, of the MandM blog, has directed a few criticism at my chapters (“Yahweh is A Moral Monster” and “Atheism was not the Cause of the Holocaust”) in The Christian Delusion. Those criticisms rest not only on a basic misunderstanding and misreading of my arguments, but also on a very selective and uncritical reading of the sources Flannagan cites for support.

Believers Really Ought Not to Argue Against the OTF

Because by doing so only makes my arguments stronger, and they were already strong enough. One continuing objection is to turn the OTF against non-believers, that we ought to subject our non-beliefs to the skepticism of an outsider. I've addressed this ad nausea. But let's see with a thought experiment why this does not work. Let's say there are no non-believers at all, none. Everyone on earth believes in a religion of some kind. Let's say no skeptic ever proposed the OTF either. Christian, how would YOU propose to assess religions fairly without any double standards? This is how you do it now. Surely at least one believer would come up with the thought that since he already uses the OTF in examining other religions then why not use it to examine his own faith? This reveals that if there is any inconsistency at all in the OTF it is how believers themselves assess truth claims. As I've said, it should only take a moment’s thought to realize that if there is a God who wants people born into different religious cultures to believe, who are outsiders, then that religious faith SHOULD pass the OTF.

What Jesus Christ Had to Say About the Outsider Test for Faith!

This is my chosen title for a guest sermon I'll be preaching for the "One True Church of Jesus Christ That Has Ever Existed in History." The preacher is away on vacation. This church meets in a little building on "Faith" Street in a town called Saint Paul, Missouri, the "Show Me" state (never-mind the oxymoron). They have a membership of 10 people, all related to each other in some way. Here are my chosen texts. How should I develop my sermon?

Quote of the Day, by Articulett

I agree wholeheartedly with his assessment of the OTF:

Debating Critics On The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF)

[Written by John W. Loftus] I have had several debates in defense of the OTF. This post will serve as the key resource for these links.

First look at The Outsider Test for Faith, along with a link embedded within that post.

In no particular order here are several debates I've had about the OTF with several people:

Chris Gadsden who obfuscates on The OTF

Cameron Bertuzzi of "Capturing Christianity" .

EricRC, a Ph.D. student in philosophy, On the Fundamental Objection to the OTF.

Dr. Matthew Flannagan.

Dr. Randal Rauser.

Dr. Steve Lovell.

Dr. Thomas Talbott.

Dr. Victor Reppert.

David Marshall.

Thrasymachus.

Rev. Phillip Brown.

Steve Hays and Jason Engwer.

Paul Manata.

Is it over yet?

The Ledge, a Pro-Atheist Movie to be Released July 8th

Here's a clip with the standard Christian responses to reasoned arguments:

Dr. Flannagan Just Does Not Get it, The OTF Again and Again and Again...

[Written by John W. Loftus] Christian philosopher Matthew Flannagan wrote a review of The Christian Delusion for Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He offers nothing but canards against the OTF. Was he not paying attention?

On Rejecting the Gospel Because of Sin

That's the Christian claim, that non-Christians reject the gospel because we prefer to sin (or do wrong). Let's try to put this canard to rest.

For the Love of God: Or Hell as a Tool for Secular Morality

Written by TGBaker:

I developed this ditty from a Facebook spat with a friend of mine who is a Christian Philosopher, Dr. James F. Sennett. I had never really thought about this area before. But I think it produces another problem with the omni-attributes of a proposed god.

Good without gods

This video is from QualiaSoup:

"The End of Christianity," My Biggest Problem, and My Promise to You

I have received some copies of The End of Christianity already. Prometheus Books is in the process of distributing them. It has the look and feel of The Christian Delusion, my previous book. From the planning stage to the final production TEC took a year and nine months of hard work. It is much easier to grab already published material and place it in a book than in getting new essays from scholars. The chapters in both books are new essays. They both took a lot of work.

And they are both great books, as the recommendations tell us coming from both Christians and skeptics who agree. There are several chapters worth the price of the books themselves. Which ones might only depend on your own particular interests. Even though I read and re-read them several times, editing and going back and forth with the authors, Richard Carrier, the copy-editor and production staff, I am reading it again in hard copy format wondering if the decisions made were good ones, and trying to locate any typos we may have missed. I just re-read Jaco Gericke's chapter titled: "Can God Exist if Yahweh Doesn't?" That chapter alone is worth the price of the book. It's awesome. I can only guess how Christians will try to gerrymander around it, since he closed all the loopholes they might want to use in escaping his conclusion, that God doesn't exist because Christians no longer believe in Yahweh, a tribal god among others in the Israelite religion.

Here's Your Chance to Vote on the OTF

Someone is using the OTF in a debate. You can vote on whether he did a good job with it. Check it out. Use it in your own debates.

Keith Parsons on Ethical Naturalism

He is a moral realist defending moral norms, something that Richard Carrier defends in the last chapter of The End of Christianity. See this post, and then see the postscript.

The Psychological Pull of the Christian Story

There is just something about the Christian story that makes me want to believe it. I know of no other story like this one. In fact, when I watch music videos of the Christian story I feel its psychological pull on me, and I'm a former believer who has rejected that story. So how much more does the story have a great amount of psychological pull on the hearts of others, especially believers, whose faith is confirmed whenever they ponder it. Case in point are the three videos below:

The Outsider Test: Pretend You're Hearing the Gospel for the First Time

This is just one of many ways to take the OTF:

Is Thomas Talbott a "True Skeptic"?

On pages 11-15 of his critique of the OTF Christian philosopher Thomas Talbott discusses “The Presumption of Skepticism.” According to him there are three “different kinds of skepticism.” There is “the skepticism of disbelief,” which sometimes requires “a kind of dogmatic certainty.” This is my kind of skepticism he opines, and he implicitly suggests I come across as a “closed-minded dogmatist.” The second kind of skepticism is that of “suspended belief,” which is his kind of skepticism that is “incompatible with dogmatic certainty and sometimes arises when one has the humility to recognize the limits of one’s own knowledge.” Since this is so he says of himself, “I am a true skeptic.” *cough* The third kind of skepticism is “merely the opposite of being overly gullible,” which is a “healthy skepticism” that everyone should have.

The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is Not Hard to Understand

When believers criticize the other faiths they reject, they use reason and science to do so. They assume these other religions have the burden of proof. They assume human not divine authors to their holy book(s). They assume a human not a divine origin to their faiths.

Believers do this when rejecting other faiths. So dispensing all of the red herrings about morality and a non-material universe, the OTF simply asks believers to do unto their own faith what they do unto other faiths. All it asks of them is to be consistent.

The OTF asks why believers operate on a double standard. If that's how they reject other faiths then they should apply that same standard to their own. Let reason and science rather than faith be their guide. Assume your own faith has the burden of proof. Assume human rather than divine authors to your holy book(s) and see what you get. If there is a divine author behind the texts it should be known even with that initial skeptical assumption.

So the OTF uses the exact same standard that believers use when rejecting other religions. If there is any inconsistency at all it is not with the OTF. It is how believers assess truth claims. For it should only take a moment’s thought to realize that if there is a God who wants people born into different religious cultures to believe, who are outsiders, then that religious faith SHOULD pass the OTF.

If Christians want to reject the OTF then either they must admit they have a double standard for examining religious faiths, one for their own faith and a different one for others, or their faith was not made to pass the OTF in the first place. In either case all of their arguments against the OTF are based on red herrings, special pleading, begging the question, the denigrating science, and an ignorance that I can only attribute to delusional blindness.

To read more on the OTF click here.

Thomas Talbott Replies

I have found most of the criticisms of the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) are asking it to be something that it is not. The rest are based in a lack of understanding, probably because of the need to believe and defend what cannot be defended. The OTF is expressed to believers that they should examine their own faith with the same level of skepticism they use when examining the other religious faiths they reject. This has annoyed believers, since what it asks is that there should be no double standards when evaluating religious faiths, one for your own culturally inherited religious faith and a different one for the other religious faiths you reject.

The Idea of an Outsider, a Further Critique of Thomas Talbott, Part 1

On pages 15-20 of the paper written by Christian philosopher Thomas Talbott, “The Outsider Test for Faith: How Serious a Challenge Is It?,” he critiques the idea of an outsider. Let me begin with pages 15-16.

First let me say that whenever it comes to defending any argument critics will offer objections that the author may not have initially considered. This comes as no surprise since authors cannot usually anticipate everything. Even if they can anticipate additional objections they cannot say everything they know in an initial article or chapter. It’s an ongoing dialogue of learning as we go, in making the best case in light of new objections, in responding to these additional objections, and in refining or revising the argument in light of them. That’s why many articles in the journals end up being made into whole books. It looks as if that will happen with my OTF someday too.

The End of Christianity Takes Place This Week!

Well, the book has been printed and is being shipped out anyway. Order it now. While you're at it tell your "peeps" and/or get the other books below. This is a good time to do it since if you buy two or more the shipping is free. *ahem*

William Lane Craig: "This is a Delightful Brainteaser"

Craig agrees with and "wholeheartedly endorses the bizarre...conclusion that the universe had a beginning and yet there was no time at which the universe did not exist.” What is this delightful brainteaser?

The Idea of an Outsider, a Further Critique of Thomas Talbott, Part 2

On pages 15-20 of Christian philosopher Thomas Talbott’s “The Outsider Test for Faith: How Serious a Challenge Is It?,” he critiques the idea of an outsider.

Not to Beat a Dead Horse But Victor Reppert Does Not Know What it Means to Poison the Well Either

I think he's feeling the heat. For a person to commit the fallacy of "poisoning the well" no argument is made except that which is against the person. I made an argument against him dismissing a book I had recommended. Now people can judge for themselves whether they can trust his judgment on other matters, but for me and my household I don't. Link. It's about probabilities. If a man does not know what an ad hominen fallacy is and if he does not know what it means to "poison the well" can we trust his Argument From Reason if he does not know basic college level logic?

Quote of the Day

All religions have the same faith-based foundation. When faith is a foundation anything can be believed. --John W. Loftus

On How Easily We Can Be Fooled: Victor Reppert Again

Victor, an evangelical philosopher (no surprise!) tells us about a paranormal event in his life:

When I was in the seventh grade, I won the District Spelling Bee. The defending champion, somewhat to my surprise, went out when there were six people left, stomped off the stage, and went crying to his mother. After winning the Bee (and qualifying for the state finals), I was asked to provide a picture for the newspaper. As it happened, my violin teacher had a Polaroid camera, and my parents and I knew this, so we visited him. He told me that he had been thinking about my spelling bee, and at one point had an awareness that my rival had gone down, and that he was very upset about it. He had this awareness at about the time when my rival went down. He said that he had sometimes had episodes of clairvoyance. Link

Michael Shermer: The Believing Brain

Victor Reppert is Blind as a Bat and I Can Prove It

I'll let you read this exchange between Vic and myself for yourselves. Do you see what I do? I said what I wanted to say there although I'll duplicate it below.

Look Inside My Book, "The End of Christianity"

I can't believe how many pages you can read for free when looking inside the book, but it's now available for preview. The price on Amazon is amazing: $13 for a $21 book. Buy two of them (one for a Christian friend) and the shipping is free. ;-) Or you can buy one of my other ones with it instead:

Talbott's Anticipated Objection to the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" Scenario

This post anticipates what Thomas Talbott might say to my suggestion that he should get behind the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance.

Talbott on Progressive Revelation Versus My Claim That Theology Evolves

I have been faulted for starting my critique of Thomas Talbott's essay at the end. The claim is that I have not dealt with the substance of his critique of the OTF, and that it is found in the earlier portions of his essay. If so, then Talbott himself was wrong to title his last section as "A Fundamental Inconsistency in the Loftus Approach." (p. 20) For what does it mean to use the word "Fundamental" if it is not Fundamental? In any case, I'm going through his essay with a fine toothed comb and will get to it all, so hold your pants on.

To Thomas Talbott on Rape, a Material World, and the OTF

If I cannot convince a person who argues for a rape ethic that he is wrong, then maybe we should just lock him up in advance. And if I cannot convince a person that there is a material universe, then maybe he should be under intense psychiatric care. In either case, people like them have abandoned reason and science to a delusion that stems from a religion. The OTF seeks to evaluate religion fairly according to reason and science. Tom, you intuitively know your faith does not pass the OTF. So you attack the test. But please tell us why you prefer a double standard, one for evaluating your own culturally inherited faith (with modifications, I know) and a different one for evaluating the faiths of others. This is the point, Tom. Why the double standard? Why? I cannot imagine this in our court system; that fairness means asking the judge to be unfair??? I can hear Tom before a judge now, "Your honor, I humbly request that you decide my case by ignoring the scales of justice in my favor." This is what Tom wants, and he's a Christian philosopher! No wonder I say he gives the philosophical disciplines a bad name, and I am serious, dead serious. Either adopt the same standard for judging all religions or you have been exposed as a deluded person not interested in the truth.

Articulett, A Woman, Responds to Talbott and Reppert on Rape

Watch out now boys! Get ready for this smack-down:

Another Response to Thomas Talbott, Informing Him Why Rape is Wrong

In a section titled “A Fundamental Inconsistency in the Loftus Approach,” Talbott says I have no reason to think rape is wrong based on the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF), and claims Victor Reppert’s “previously expressed arguments are pretty decisive in my opinion.” (pp. 20-21) One of these so-called decisive arguments has to do with why we think there is a material world, something I've already addressed. If I'm harsh with Talbott and Reppert then let it be said I don't appreciate Talbott's demeaning attitude toward me. If he can dish it out he should be able to take it.

Another Response to Talbott on the Existence of a Material World

This is funny but what I think:

Responding to Thomas Talbott: On Why I Think There is a Material World

Christian philosopher Thomas Talbott recently criticized The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) in what looks to be an article he might submit to a philosophical journal. I would hope if he does, the editor would include my response if he wants to fully inform his readers. I plan on responding in some detail to his essay in a series of posts. This is the first one.

Is It Faith? The Demon, Dream, and Matrix Conjectures

[Written by John W. Loftus] I've initially examined Timothy Keller’s argument with regard to faith. But there's more.

Again, Keller argues skeptics should “doubt your doubts.” He claims: “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternative beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B.” Writing to skeptics he claims that “The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B. Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith.” [The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Riverhead Books, 2008), p. xviii]. We have faith, he opines, whenever we accept something that is “unprovable,” and all of us “have fundamental, unprovable faith commitments that we think are superior to those of others.” [Ibid., p. 20]. So he argues skeptics likewise “must doubt your doubts.” [Ibid., p. xix].

It's Time Once Again Boys and Girls for The Outsider Test for Faith

[Written by John W. Loftus]
Let's try this one more time shall we? This time in short numbered points for the reading impaired:

How to Debunk Christianity

[Written by John W. Loftus] As you can see from this chart of denominations the Church of Christ is represented as the true church. I have not tried to verify the facts, but it’s roughly accurate I suppose in representing when they started and such. Notice that every denomination is part of "Babylon the Great Whore" depicted in the book of Revelation except those in the “Restoration Movement” “non-denominational” conservative middle branch of the Christian Church/Churches of Christ, of which I was once a part. In the lower right hand corner there is a strict warning that people in these other denominations will probably be doomed. A lot of other Christians in various denominations think the same way about the Church of Christ and condemn them as heretical.

God cannot know that he is omniscient

Theists, the world over, claim that God is omniscient. However, this is not an easy claim to make for a whole host of reasons, one of which is worth looking into here. I want to look at the idea that in many instances, you cannot know that you don’t know something. If there is a situation where you cannot know something, then if it is claimed that you are omniscient, this would invalidate that claim.

For example, there could conceivably be something that God does not know. Conceivably, perhaps another dimension run by another God exists that does not coincide at all with this dimension. If one eternal God can exist, why not another in an entirely different dimension and unbeknownst to the first God? Now, it is unimportant as to whether this is possible or not. What is important is that God could not know that he did not know this by the very nature of not knowing it!

Quote of the Day, by the Cynical Cipher

I agree with the evangelicals about almost nothing, but I do agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with humanity - but not for the reason they think.

When Atheists Should Side with Jehovah's Witnesses

As an atheist I often quote from the Jehovah's Witness New Testament. Why? Because their translators are not effected by certain doctrines like Trinity. They rely on the most likely version of the Greek text under consideration. Most believers look at John 1:1-4 to argue for Jesus as God.

I Do Not Believe in Atheism

This is a response to a previous thread but I think it important enough to post as a main article.

The Three Most Visited Articles on "Bible and Interpretation"

This is a good site I recommend.

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, by Mark S. Smith.

Did David and Solomon Exist?, by Eric H. Cline.

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood, by Robert R. Cargill.

The Cross and Blood Magick: Food for Thought

Jesus is portrayed as a sacrificial lamb and a propitiation for sin in the New Testament and Christianity in general. He is seen as a sacrifice that is once and for all. We notice that Christians therefore ceased to practice animal sacrifice. Judaism ceased its sacrifice of animals with the destruction of the Temple since by the time of Jesus it had become the only place allowed for sacrifice. I have not researched these factors but my questions below may point to some of my conjectures.

Quote of the Day, by Steven Bentley

John, your former friend Bill has his been convinced that he has in his possession a book of truths backed and endorsed by the creator god of the universe, to Bill, it's contents cannot be defeated, if you counter his truths, this proves to him that he is right and you are wrong, it has a built-in reverse psychology protection, if you disagree with his beliefs and his book of truths, then you're an adversary to his truths, therefore to him, you are an evil person and of a reprobate mind looking out only to destroy his faith and deceiving him to join you and Satan in the lake of fire at the judgment seat of Christ. Therefore to Bill, you're only out to deceive him and destroy his truth that he has been especially elected to receive through gods calling via the holy spirit. Link.

A Quick View to the Evolution of the Trinity

The idea of trinity was not found in the original manuscripts of the New Testament. The pronouns that refer to the holy spirit were neuter meaning "it" not "He." By the fourth century copies of the Greek started showing some of the pronouns changes from 'it" to the masculine, He. (such as Ephesians 1:14). Even in the Gospel of John the Paraclete (Advocate) is referred to by neuter pronouns and is itself a neuter noun.

A Ph.D. in Theology at Harvard Leaves the Fold, Writes a Book

Yep, just take a look at Breaking Up with God: A Love Story. Here is an interview with the author. Hat tip: Ed Babinski.

There are ministers who are atheists in the pulpit right now as we speak. My friend Bruce Gerencser and I are part of the Clergy Project and he tells what these ministers can do to get help. See this.

I Do Believe, I Do Believe ( Wizard of Oz)

It's sad and dangerous that people continue to fall for myths of Christianity. What is worse is the intentional affirmation and legitimating of these myths as absolute truths that are an imposition upon the activities of humankind. In seminary when I was a theological neophyte there was a worse myth. The neo-orthodoxy of World War I evolved into a theology that would make truth claims that the bible IS a collection of myth and fable as a positive thing.

Craig/Parsons Debate on Why I Am / Am Not a Christian

This debate between William Lane Craig and Keith Parsons isn't getting the hits it should. On YouTube it only has 67 hits. The best audio can be found here, with part two found here. Parsons owned Craig. [First Posted 4/9/08]

The Spirit is Like Baseball

Consciousness is one of the few remaining gaps in science where theists go looking for evidence of a god. What better place than to look for the soul? With the arrival of Darwin and his theory of evolution, the idea of life as designed by a god became extinct scientifically. Physics has demonstrated that there is not necessarily a need for a prime mover. So it is with the study of consciousness.

My Old Friend and I Are No Longer Friends

I ended our friendship. I wrote about Bill before, and even sent him that link. Here is the rest of the story. I decided that if Bill wants to evangelize me I would send him some links to DC and to some additional books, so I did. Then this:

Jesus Was Baptized for His Sins

I would like to present an atheistic bible study, an observation or interpretation, I believe explains the re-working of the original story of Jesus and John the Baptist by the authors of Matthew and Luke. This is with the understanding that Matthew and Luke use Mark in their compositions. In Mark Jesus is baptized into ( eis) the remission of sins. The preposition “eis” means from out of a state to into a different state or place. This preposition in Mark is redacted (re-worked or edited) by Matthew.

Richard Carrier On "The Think Atheist Show"

Check it out. Skip the intro and go to 2:50 where it starts.

More From My Old Deluded Friend

A former member of a church I ministered at is back, and still trying to save me. Here is our latest exchange which is a bit blunt:

Laura Story's Christian Song, Blessings, and the Stockholm Syndrome

"In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a real paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors; sometimes to the point of defending them." Wikipedia. Here's the song below. Note the reoccurring phrase "mercies in disguise." Someone should put images of tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, diseases, wars, starvation and death to this song so we know exactly what she means!

Sophisticated Theology: A Deception to the Church

Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher who was seen to perform miracles. He was elevated in one circle of followers to being virgin born. Paul cast him in an ahistorical Hellenistic Savior myth. Another segment of the movement continued as Jewish followers who expected his return but did not believe in the virgin birth or that Jesus was god or divine. The Jewish Christian traditions about Jesus become elevated with the Johannine Hellenistic Logos Christology.

Christology Rests Upon a Mistake

Christology rests upon a mistake. This is a simple statement that could be easily understood by much of the various Christian denominations. As so it means the invalidity of the Christian Faith since it rests upon its own Christology.

Dr. Avalos comments on whether religion, atheism, and science are all based on faith

I presume that Thye and I would agree that we don’t believe in Zeus because there is no evidence for the existence of Zeus. But would Thye also argue that lack of belief in Zeus constitutes a “faith” or a “religion”? Is there such a thing as the religion of “A-Zeusianism”? In fact, A-Zeusianism probably would be one of the largest religions on the planet because maybe 99.9 percent of human beings are A-Zeusians. Link

A Recommendation of My Work From a Gnu Who Changed His Mind About it

I don't believe that many (and in fact probably very few) in the scientific/historical skeptical community understand the importance of what you do. I was a prime example of this. When I first came across DC, I thought, "Yeah, the fact that he is an ex-apologist is novel, but why does he keeping philosophizing about things that he himself has already empirically falsified. C'mon John, move on and get with the really fascinating stuff going on."

Then I started reading more than just your posts: I started reading the comments. It was then I realized why you were philosophizing. There was no way myself, nor any hard-core empiricist, could convince a believer that their world-view lacked coherence based on external evidence until someone first showed them that it was internally incoherent. And, showing convincing internal incoherence, is something only a formerly committed insider can do.

Just For Fun

Sometimes, we try too hard to get to the greener grass. In the process, we end up in trouble...

Q and the SYNOPTICS or Why I Left Christianity

Q is a hypothetical that regardless of its actual state of existence explains the nature of the Synoptic Gospels better than a inspirational or infallibility position and harmonization. Higher Criticism has never listened to opinionated claims of those who would twist the normal concepts of history into a pretzel to create a pure absurdity of apologetics, The priority of Mark and Q explain the contradictions and variations in supporting redaction criticism (editing history) as their explanation in contrast to the implausible absurdities of harmonization in order to maintain a belief that is simply an outworn tradition about the canon that is not supported by its nature or fact.
I came to my atheistic position from a belief in scripture not from my present paganism. A fair treatment of the scripture will at least save one from the heresy of orthodoxy. It is the hard core studying of them with an objective and unbiasly fair analysis rather than an a priori apologetic stance and its conclusion that the scripture is inerrant, infallible and/or inspired that allowed me to see the probable and plausible nature of the texts. The ideas of inspiration and infallibility present an improbable and implausible dogmatic position that requires the gymnastics of fantasy and fanciful harmonizations that cause the character Jesus to pop up like a windup jack in the box in repeated scenarios or a redundancy speech and absurdity bordering on Dadaism and surrealism. It is this position that is not a normative understanding of history, reality and science that has been a fragmentation from the real world view to some fantastic world view where the characters in the narrative are no longer function within context but are transported from the meaning of the scriptures to the doctrine of medieval superstition, dogma and absurdity (did I say pure 24 karat unmitigated asininity?).

If This Isn't a Deluded Person Then No One Is

An old friend of mine, who has sent me spam emails about God and country, just recently told me he has read my books. But he continues sending me spam emails anyway. He has hopes for me. I'm speechless, absolutely speechless. If this isn't a deluded person then no one is. I can recognize a bat blind brainwashed believer when I see one. Why can't he recognize a hardened atheist when he sees one?

I'm Considering Blasting Some Atheists, Their Books, and Their Organizations

Look at how Richard Carrier just blasted R. Joseph Hoffmann, who in turn had previously unjustifiably called for Ronald Lindsay's resignation from being the president of CFI. I've tried to resist, wanting to present a unified atheist front. But one doesn't exist. Why should I be the only one who resists? Some atheists have no trouble blasting me and/or ignoring me. Well maybe it's time to show 'em who I am. I'm bored arguing against Christians anyway. Maybe it's time to get their attention. What d'ya think?

Making Jesus a Christ

The basis of information for the proposition that Jesus is the Christ is suspect. Unlike the mythicist's view of a mythological origins we find a movement from human to legendary. The intentional re-workings of the Gospels by their authors are responses to historical events. The mythological elements are the later work of Paul and those that influenced him attached to the legendary aspects that are reflected in the Gospels. While the Gospels are later in writing than the authentic Pauline Epistles, they have a closer geographic and ethnic origin to Jesus and his followers than Paul and the Hellenistic mythological language.

DC is Alive and Kicking, Speaking to Both Sides!

Thanks to all my regular readers and commenters for making DC what it is. It's rare to achieve what I have attempted. This blog is not one that preaches to the choir. I am not a cheerleader for anything atheist. There are too many sites that do that in an endless cycle of seeing who can best stick it to Christians. And, as you would guess, I'm no cheerleader for Christianity either, to say the least. ;-) But both sides visit here to discuss the ideas that separate us, including SBL's Bibliobloggers, where DC ranks above 5th place every month (out of 500+ sites). Yes, I get attacked at times from both sides in my attempt to reach out to Christians. But I am passionate to change the religious landscape in ways I think are best given my talents. Cheers.

PZ Myers and the Courtier's Reply Again

PZ Myers, like other scientists, will only accept empirical evidence for a religion. If it's not found, that's the end of it. Recently he recommended a parable about sausages in which a philosopher and a scientist discuss a sausage machine. It starts as it ends, like this:

A philosopher designs a marvellous sausage machine. A scientist comes to marvel at this wonderful creation, and raises an eyebrow. The philosopher says, "Ah, behold the wonderful cogs and sprockets and temperature-controlled mixing chambers in my wonderful machine -
surely you can see how it must produce the most fantastic sausages!" The scientist says "Yes, that is all very interesting. Show me the sausages."

None are ever produced.

Scientists regularly denigrate what philosophers and theologians do. But you know what? Believing philosophers and theologians regularly denigrate what scientists do.

What to do?

There are different types of critiques of Christianity. Each one of them stresses something different coming from different areas of expertise. Some of the major areas of criticism come from 1) The sciences, especially evolution and brain science; 2) Biblical and historical criticism; 3) Philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion; 4) Archaeology; 5) Cultural anthropology; 6) Psychology; and, 7) Social and moral criticism of the Bible and the church. There are others. What atheists think is a more effective criticism is not always the same as what Christians think is more effective.

I suspect we won't all agree. Without the sciences (#1) we probably don't have much of a critique at all, at least no reasonable alternative to a creator God, so that has got to be the highest on the list. But here's the problem. Christians denigrate the sciences in favor of their holy book. In every era Christian believers have repeatedly said that reason must bow down before faith, you see. That's the problem when using the sciences in getting Christian believers to change their minds. We must first help believers see that their holy book has holes in it. To do that we must speak to them in their language by critiquing their beliefs in terms they will understand and appreciate. Otherwise we're preaching to the choir.

While I see the value of ridicule, the most effective critique of the Christian faith will be one that can best be described as a counter-apologetic. An apologetic offers reasons from several different areas of expertise on behalf of the Christian faith. A counter-apologetic does the opposite. A counter-apologetic must take believers where they are and move them (or push them) in the right direction, the direction that the sciences have shown us. But since believers usually denigrate the sciences (# 1) I start with the other areas of criticism (#'s 2-7), especially biblical and historical criticism (# 2), and philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion (# 3).

From having studied these issues as a former Christian insider for a number of years this is what I think. Take it for what it's worth. But I think I know what I'm talking about. Don't get me wrong. Every area of expertise is important if we want to change the mind of the believer. But this is the type of critique of the Christian faith I offer.

I've written about this before.

Watch The Bible Unearthed, Good Stuff it is!

See below:

My Poll at the Right

People have objected to my poll on what arguments led you to reject faith. Some people say there are other options. There are always other options unless I construct a poll ten feet long. If the suggested answers do not apply to you then the poll does not apply to you. I'll tell you what though, if dismissing one's religion causes people to reject their faith then they are more prone to peer pressure than a reasonable person should be. So I put it to you. If you rejected your faith because people dismissed it then are you a rational person? Hell, I do not care how many people dismiss what I think if the arguments are not there. Get it? ;-)

[Edit] The results of the poll after four days are as follows:

What arguments led you to reject faith?

Arguments from people who dismissed it 67 (15%)

Arguments from people who understood it 111 (25%)

Both 250 (58%)

Quote of the Day, by Thomas Paine

I'm told this quote is from Thomas Paine:

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

I experienced this talking to such a person yesterday in my home town. She proceeded to preach to me as if I never preached the same things. So I asked her how often she gets to talk to a skeptic and she admitted hardly ever. I asked if she might be interested in listening to what one of us has to say. She said she wasn't interested. Then I asked, "If what you believe is wrong would you want to know?" She claimed to know she is right and proceeded to preach what I once preached not caring to learn what I knew.