How Come That’s in the Bible? Where Do You Draw the Line?

The holy book needs a good sweeping…

When piety gurus come up with an idea and it takes tenacious hold in minds of the faithful—no matter how bad it is—it can endure for centuries. Relics are first class gimmicks; bad theology, but they’re good for business. I’m told that relics fall into three categories: body parts of a saint, something he or she owned—or even an item that has been touched by the saint. I suspect latent atheism lurks behind the fasciation with relics: Since God cannot be seen, a relic is something tangible. The adoration/veneration of relics gives the faithful something to look at—a fragment of God right there in front of them…so he must be real.

Protestants have their own version of a relic, and it too is highly prized as evidence of God’s presence in the world, right there on paper: for Protestants the ultimate relic is the Bible. It has pride of place on altars, TV preachers wave it around, it’s a talisman for swearing oaths. The concept of canon—a body of works deemed holy, the very word of God—is magical thinking, i.e., a thing provides a way to know God, with no evidence whatever to support the claim. In fact, there is a lot of evidence against it, especially its inferior quality.

Read more »

Ravi Zacharias Exposed as a Fraud?

Ravi Zacharias preached at my 1985 graduation from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where I had earned my Th.M. in the Philosophy of Religion under William Lane Craig. I had taken 50% of my classes under Craig and graduated just before Paul Copan began school there. Anyway, Ravi has some explaining to do. Don't ya think? Just as Jeff Lowder does, who co-founded Internet Infidels, and goes around claiming he's a philosopher when all he has is a B.S. in computer science. See this LINK for the video.

The Bad Habit of Overrating Jesus

Go Ahead, Christians, Follow the Sermon on the Mount, I Dare You

If only the four gospels hadn’t been bound together. Of course, their authors had no idea that would happen—and how much damage it would bring to their credibility.

Mark had no idea, for example, that Matthew would come along and add three chapters of supposedly ‘moral’ teachings, known to us as the Sermon on the Mount—and Matthew plagiarized about 90% of Mark, without mentioning his theft. Matthew had no idea that Luke would trim this Sermon considerably, and change the wording and setting (in Luke it’s at a ‘level place’). John decided to just leave it out.

Read more »

The Debate Over Definitions of Faith

The debate over faith is whether Christian definitions of faith make any sense (they don't), whether they are consistent with each other (they're not), and whether Christians do what their own definitions say they do (they don't). No, we emphatically do not have to use a word such as "faith" in the same way Christians use it, when the concept behind it is the debate itself. Although, if faith is trust, as they say, there is no reason to trust faith. If "faith is trust in a person", as they say, there's no reason to trust extraordinary miraculous claims such as the sun appearing as blood, or standing in the sky for a day, or that its shadow backed up a stairway, or it was eclipsed by the moon for more than an hour; nor that a virgin really had a baby in an ancient superstitious era where it was believed several important fetuses were birthed without sex, or that Jesus, Elijah and Moses really levitated before Peter, James and John, or that Zombie's came out of their tombs. There's no reason to trust these claims especially since they come from superstitious ancient people, such as prophets, apostles, priests, rabbis, sorcerers, shamans, and guru's, without having seen them for ourselves, or without being there to investigate them for ourselves.

Because of this sad state of faith, atheists and skeptics have come up with definitions of faith that make sense, are consistent with each other and describe what believers actually do. Here are some of mine:

Faith is an irrational leap over and beyond the available evidence.
Faith is an irrational leap over the need for evidence.
Faith is a mother of all cognitive biases.
Faith prohibits one's cognitive faculties from functioning properly.
Faith is the permission believers give themselves to accept bullshit as the truth.
Faith is trusting in a god who is believed as trustworthy based on faith that he is trustworthy.
Faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities. (OTF, p.207)
Faith is an attitude or feeling whereby believers attribute a higher degree of probability to the evidence than what the evidence calls for. (OTF, p.207)
Faith is an irrational, unevidenced, or misplaced trust in something or someone. (Unapologetic, p.152)
Faith is a cognitive bias that causes believers to overestimate any confirming evidence and underestimate any disconfirming evidence. (Unapologetic, p. 55)

Here are a few of Dr. Matt McCormick's definitions, from chapter 11, "The 'F' Word", in his book, Atheism and the Case Against Christ:

Read more »

Why Is It That Scientific Minded People Cannot Believe?

Scientific minded people who are consistently scientifically minded, without compartmentalization, cannot believe. Why is that? Why is science so successful yet god(s) condemn scientifically minded people who cannot believe? It doesn't make any sense, but then faith makes no sense. To see why everyone should think like a scientist read the first chapter in my anthology, Christianity in the Light of Science. The evidence is there that people who truly require sufficient objective empirical evidence cannot believe in invisible gods based on paltry testimonial evidence coming from an ancient superstitious world. Adopting methodological naturalism is all it takes to make scientists into metaphysical naturalists. Yet methodological naturalism is required for science. Let me put this point in the clearest most forceful way I can:

Read more »

Five Books On Christianity and Women

There's something very important you should know about traditional conservative biblical scholarship on the status and the roles of women in the Bible, and that is, it doesn't exist anymore. Poof! It's gone. Find me a book defending male patriarchal headship in the home or church or society and it's either not written by legitimate biblical scholars, or it gives way too much ground to current scholarship, such that traditional authors would've rejected it--or I'll be damned!

Theologians need not apply. Apologists need not apply.

There is a reason why. The traditional male headship position can no longer be maintained under critical study or research. That's because the Bible is a sexist, misogynistic book and honest biblical scholars cannot in good conscience say otherwise. Everyone should be a feminist. I am, as much as a male can be. Since the Bible is anti-feminist we should reject the Bible and the Christian faith. But many of these moderates and liberals are trying to reinvent the Christian faith, trying to force their faith into a Procrustean Bed of their own making.

Galatians 3:28, says: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. The same guy who wrote Galatians 3:28 also told women not to speak in church (I Corinthians 14:34) and is believed to have said they are to submit to their husbands "in everything" (Ephesians 5:22-24). Seriously now, in a patriarchal society why would a perfectly good god merely say women were equally valuable to him? Even Muslims say this, and better, that women are even MORE special, and so they have to be protected...blah blah blah...while believing in an utterly misogynistic religion. The only reason Christians see more in Galatians 3:28 than is actually there, is because of social changes that opened their eyes to see it. Now for the five recommended books:

Read more »

Quote of the Day by Chuck Johnson

The universe of human thought is vast.
The universe of available facts is vast.

By picking and choosing, just about any idea can be justified, and that justification can look logical, reasonable, well-supported empirically, etc.

But religionists are powerfully motivated to prove that their religious beliefs are true. This motivation has been present for many thousands of years. This is a political motivation, the need to be successfully persuasive.

Scientists, on the other hand, are powerfully motivated to learn the truth, to discover more truth, and to share discovered truths with our fellow human beings. This is a scientific motivation, to discover the truth and to then let that discovered truth do the persuading.

The religionists indulge in groupthink, and then they believe that they have discovered the truth.

Scientists engage in independent thinking, discussion and contention, and empirical testing of new ideas.
This is so that groupthink is kept to a minimum and true, useful, well-thought-out, well tested-facts and theories are presented to the scientific community.

Groupthink is an ancient, intuition-based way to arrive at answers.
Science is a modern intuition-based plus empiricism-based way to arrive at answers.

Don Camp On Nature's God and Sectarian Faith

Camp:

From the time humans became humans we have looked at nature around us and at the heavens and have come to the conclusion that there is something or Someone behind the beauty and order we see there. That has been true of primitive American Indians, tribes in Africa and in India. Show me one primitive people who have not come to that conclusion. Show me one primitive atheist tribe. It is true of many of the greatest thinkers of our modern era. I've listed many here over the months. So, no arguing God from nature is not special pleading. It is based on very real and measured evidence.

Read more »

The Status of Women in the Bible and in Early Christianity

I'm linking to a site that has biblical and theological quotes on the status of women. It's found gathered together by a group advocating religious tolerance as their goal in a world filled with religious hatred. They do this by educating their readers. LINK. While I think they don't look deep enough into the roles of women in the life of Jesus, there is a YUGE difference between how an apologist like David Marshall deals with this data and how they do. They tell the supposed good, but also the bad and the ugly. At least they're trying to deal honestly with the status of women in Christianity, even if they don't completely succeed at it with regard to Jesus.

Marshall's big complaint has been I only highlight the bad and the ugly, not the good of women under the reign of Christianity. He can say that no longer. Nonetheless, my task is to uncover the dirty little secrets apologists and theologians try to keep hidden from the fleeced flock. That MUST be my focus since that's what they do. If they wouldn't hide (or obfuscate) the truth, I wouldn't have to expose (or clarify) the truth they try to hide. Get it? There are thousands and thousands of Christian essays and books and sermons extolling the supposed high status of women in the Bible and how Christianity liberates them. Very few Christian voices can be heard above this rabble telling the rest of the ugly truth. Marshall only tells us a partial truth (at best), and because it's only a partial truth (at best) it's also misleading and dishonest. Think of it this way, a partial truth can be more misleading precisely because it has some truth to it. Apologists know this. So they are experts in deception and obfuscation.

If you want to know the biggest dirty little secret theologians and apologists try to hide, which needs to be exposed, read The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics, by Dr. Hector Avalos, especially chapter 9, with these sections in it:

The Misogynistic Jesus: Christian Feminism as Male Ancestor Worship
Mark 7//Matthew 15: The Misogynistic Jesus
Mark 10//Matthew 19: Divorcing Equality
The Womanless Twelve Apostles
The Last Supper: Guess Who’s Not Coming to Dinner
The Egalitarian Golden Age under Jesus

Looking for Definitions of Apologetics

Apologetics is defending a preconceived conclusion without regard to the truth.

Apologetics is nothing more than special pleading.

More please.

David Marshall On How NOT To Defend Christianity's Terrible Record Towards Women

Annie Laurie Gaylor is the co-founder of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (with her late mother Anne Nicol Gaylor) and currently its co-president (with her husband Dan Barker), which does some fantastic work on behalf of a secularized world. She wrote a superior chapter in my anthology Christianity is Not Great: How Faith Fails, titled, "Woman What Do I Have to Do with Thee: Christianity's War against Women." I bid everyone to read it. Not everyone likes it though, due to the fact it means the god of Christianity is to be blamed for a war against half the people on the planet (an effective rhetorical title, I'll admit). So you'd expect a defender of the indefensible faith would try to rise to the challenge, and so enters David Marshall. For my part, I'm on record as saying,

I am against sexism and especially misogyny, most emphatically, without any doubt at all. In fact, one of the main reasons I do what I do is because of what religion has done--and continues to do--to women. I argue against religion for that reason alone.

Ever since Gaylor's chapter was published Marshall has been egging and taunting and badgering me for a debate on the topic of women in Christianity. I have repeatedly said his views have already been refuted in a few books I recommended, and that I would no more be scared of debating him on this topic than I would a flat earther. But I do think his defense contains a few lessons in how NOT to defend Christianity's terrible record towards women. So along the same lines as my book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist--which is the one every defender of the faith should read--I can easily show how his defenses fail, miserably.

Read more »

The Most Horrible Thing I’ve Ever Heard a Christian Say

Endorsing an evil god…while saying grace

Christian theology is awesomely sabotaged by the New Testament. Its portrayal of god, so deeply rooted in ancient superstition, cannot possibly hold up under close scrutiny. And, sometimes, Christians do feel the pain of getting suckered in.

What are we told about God? It would appear, for example, that nothing escapes his notice. Luke 12:6-7 is a classic text reflecting this belief:

Read more »

Reality Check Folks, Republicans Are First and Foremost a Political Party with a Political Agenda

On Twitter Dan Barker, like almost everyone who rejects Trump's Presidency and the Evangelical right, said this:

When I was a Christian minister, I used to preach that character matters. The "Moral Majority & the Christian Coalition preached the same thing. Today, most evangelicals seem to care more about politics than character. They have abandoned the moral high ground.

But I must demurr, as much as I dislike saying it. The Evangelical right's real agenda in the political sphere has been political all along. This isn't surprising nor objectionable all by itself. It's called politics. Sometimes it's downright dirty, but it always demands compromise. If one doesn't want to compromise then stay out of politics. So no, they don't care more about politics than morals. They're keeping them separate because that's how to get things done in politics.

Besides, Trump's policies do indeed support their moral agenda. So Trump could be (and is) a moral bastard, and they could still support his Presidency in good conscience, especially given the other alternative perceived in Hillary Clinton.

The First Few Pages From "The Outsider Test for Faith"

There's a great deal of misunderstanding about my book, The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True (OTF). Look at the subtitle. It's proposing a test to know which religion is true. With the proliferation of a diversity of religions and sects what can be wrong with providing an objective test to know which one is true, if there is one? Nothing. Nothing I can see. Nothing at all. If you don't like this test propose a different one. My hunch is it'll look exactly like this one, if it's both reasonable and based on sufficient objective evidence. It's unbelievable that most believers object to it, or eviscerate its power to get at the truth. The reason must be they instinctively know their faith won't pass the test. THAT should say something significant! They should come out in droves to embrace it instead. That would get our attention. But they don't. The OTF allows no double standards. It requires sufficient objective evidence. It requires shouldering the burden of proof. No wonder believers don't like it, since all they have is fallacious reasoning based in special pleading, gross mischaracterization, a boatload of non-sequiturs, red-herrings, begging the question at every crucial juncture, and so much more. Herer are a few high recommendations of it.

Read more »

Bigliest loser in Alabama: "Christian witness."

Read more »

The UFO of Bethlehem, by Frank Zindler

The Inanity of Nazareth Part One, by Frank Zindler

Quote of the Day by Frank Sinatra On Religious Superstition

Frank Sinatra from a 1963 Playboy interview:

There are things about organized religion which I resent. Christ is revered as the Prince of Peace, but more blood has been shed in His name than any other figure in history. You show me one step forward in the name of religion and I'll show you a hundred retrogressions. Remember, they were men of God who destroyed the educational treasures at Alexandria, who perpetrated the Inquisition in Spain, who burned the witches at Salem. Over 25,000 organized religions flourish on this planet, but the followers of each think all the others are miserably misguided and probably evil as well. In India they worship white cows, monkeys and a dip in the Ganges. The Moslems accept slavery and prepare for Allah, who promises wine and revirginated women. And witch doctors aren't just in Africa. If you look in the L.A. papers of a Sunday morning, you'll see the local variety advertising their wares like suits with two pairs of pants.

As I see it, man is a product of his conditioning, and the social forces which mold his morality and conduct — including racial prejudice — are influenced more by material things like food and economic necessities than by the fear and awe and bigotry generated by the high priests of commercialized superstition. Now don't get me wrong. I'm for decency — period. I'm for anything and everything that bodes love and consideration for my fellow man. But when lip service to some mysterious deity permits bestiality on Wednesday and absolution on Sunday — cash me out. ~Bill Dunn, FFRF Freethought, 12/12/17

The Improbability of the Biblical God

It is from the Bible that Christians learn many of the specific characteristics of their god. They may say that they believe in God as a result of some direct experience of him, but when it comes to the belief that this is specifically their “three for the price of one” deity, they rely on scripture. It is there that they learn, among other things, that he is both the Yahweh that picked the tribe of Israel as his favorite as well as the Jesus that gave the Sermon on the Mount.

But how likely is it, if there were an omnipotent, omniscient, changeless, eternal creator of the universe, that he would be the deity described in scripture?

Read more »

A Gift of Crackpottery for the Gentiles

The apostle Paul shoulda stayed at home

The gospels are a minefield: If you step on the wrong verses, your idealized Jesus gets blown to bits. For example, in Matthew 10 we are told that Jesus dispatched the disciples to do some preaching, with this caveat (v. 5): “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans…” And later, in chapter 15, he told a Canaanite woman who asked for help, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (v. 24). He even compared her to a dog. Happy ending, however: When she persisted, he performed a long-distance exorcism on her daughter.

Read more »

Guest Post by Doubting Thomas, "On the God Question, Philosophy is in Over It's Head"

Submitted by Doubting Thomas who is a regular commenter here.

I'm a bit of a nerd. This often comes in handy. It certainly did on my last trip to Mexico. I was studying the local flora with a magnifying glass when I noticed something amazing. I spotted a tiny, though fully mature spider and, given my knowledge of arachnids, I was pretty certain I had discovered the smallest known spider in the world.

Upon my return home, I quickly met up with my friend from the local university whose specialty just happened to be arachnology. He was understandably excited and wanted to know more. He asked to see a specimen, but given customs laws, importing unknown animals to the country is illegal. He wanted to see a picture, but the camera on my phone wouldn't zoom in enough to get a good shot. He asked me what evidence I had to show that this wonderful new thing existed, and so I told him the following:

“Premise 1: Tiny spiders exist.
Premise 2: The law of division states that everything can be divided into something smaller.
Conclusion: Very tiny spiders exist.”

As you're probably guessing, none of this actually happened. I don't carry magnifying glasses on trips nor am I cool enough to have friends high up in the spider world, but it also shows a fundamental problem. The issue isn't that my logic is flawed or that a premise is incorrect. It's that I'm doing it all wrong. I didn't take a swing and a miss. I'm playing the wrong game.

I love philosophy. It's a wonderful tool to learn how to think better. It helps us check ideas against other ideas and against what we know about reality. But in order to gain that knowledge about reality, we turn to the hard sciences. Philosophy has never and will never demonstrate the existence of anything. Such a demonstration takes more than arguments or logical proofs. It takes observation and experimentation. Such things are not the realm of philosophy.

Einstein's general theory of relativity posited the existence of black holes back in 1916, but it wasn't until 1971 when scientist used giant telescopes and radio wave detectors to confirm their existence. When people started dying from an unknown cause in the early 80s, scientist speculated that their deaths were the result of an unknown viral infection, but it took another two years and numerous studies and analyses to actually find the virus that causes AIDS.

Now I can already hear the objections from apologists. Tiny spiders and black holes aren't analogous to God. This is true. Tiny spiders are geographically limited. They can only eat tiny bugs and spin super cute tiny webs. God, on the other hand, is everywhere and can do anything. Black holes are indifferent about us. They don't care about our lives or try to communicate with us. God, on the other hand, loves us and wants a relationship with us and has rules for us and on and on. The claims about god are vastly more grandiose than any example I have used therefore the evidence should be equally grand.

But if we want something more analogous, all we have to do is turn on any current “science” channel. There are no shortage of ghost hunters and paranormal investigators out looking for spooks and spirits. Do they do this by sitting around and thinking up nice sounding arguments? Of course not. They set up cameras and audio equipment and spectral telemetry recorders. And while all they're really good for is a laugh or jump scare, at least they understand the game and try to play by the rules.

That's more than I can say for any apologist I've ever read.

Is Vincent Torley a closet Gnostic?

Here are Doctor (of Metaphysics) Torley's "quick answers" to JP415's questions about God:

• God only interacts with material universe remotely: "[God is] on a higher plane of reality, maintaining the entire universe in being, so he's able to act on them at will."

• "God doesn't live anywhere. God is outside space, just as an author is outside the story he writes."

Here, in contrast, is what Christianity teaches about the presence of God: 

• "Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come to his people and redeemed them. (Luke 1:68)

• "For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I will live with and walk among them... (2 Cor. 6:16)

• "What does 'he ascended' mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe." (Ephesians 4:9-10)

• "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

• "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them...(Rev. 21:3)

The notion that God is incomprehensibly remote from direct human experience is an old idea, an idea included under the rubric of gnosticism, an idea the early Church declared a heresy. The idea that God lives outside the universe is Torleyanity, not Christianity. 

To quote Cyril of Jerusalem, “[Jesus] Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?...is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?" (Fourth Mystagogic Catechism, IV, 22) Jesus' flesh is God's flesh and God's flesh is food. “The teaching of the Church is explicit on this point. The body eaten is the same as that once born of a virgin and now seated at the right hand of the Father." (Preserved Smith, The Monist 28 (1916) 161.)


Ignatius calls, “Jesus Christ our God," (Ephesians, Prœmium, 18) speaks of “the spark of life renewed by "the blood of God," (Ibid, 1) and famously calls the Eucharistic bread, “the medicine of immortality, the antidote that we may not die." (Ibid, 20) By the time 1 Clement was composed—one of the earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament—“let us  gaze upon the blood of Christ" (1 Clement 7:4) has taken on the language of epiphany, the technical language for “gazing at God or for gazing at the divine." (Fisher, Vigiliae Christianae 34 (1980) 221, 223.)

If the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the "body and blood, soul and divinity" of Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, how can God be "outside space"? Does anyone seriously think "The Word became flesh" implied God was "outside space"? Has Vincent Torley painted himself into a heretical corner in an attempt to justify his aberrant theology or does he know literally nothing about the New Testament and primitive Christianity? Or has Vincent Torley, like thousands before him, simply invented his own idiosyncratic religious spinoff? According to some estimates there are 40,000 Christian sects. Make that 40,001.

Donation Time if You're So Inclined

For several years I have had just one regular reader who sends me, on average, a donation of $50 per month. With this month's donation he wrote:

Hello John, As always thanks for providing such a great website for skeptics, doubters and atheists. For years now it has been my go to site where I can find encouragement and answers. Your persistance over the years has been inspirational. The various writers and commenters make the site a great place to learn. Debunking Christianity is a five star site!! Best regards, Spencer

I agree that somehow I have attracted fantastic writers and commenters, as he said. If you agree this is a great site, it would be very helpful at this time of year for you to donate too. Use PayPal with my email address, loftusjohnw@gmail.com Along with it send me a personal message and I'll share that too, if you wish. Don't be like Mr. Scrooge. ;-) May you have the happiest of holidays this year.

Is “the Survival of the Fittest” an Empty Tautology?

A common objection to Darwin’s theory is that it depends on a truism and therefore fails to make a scientific, empirical claim. Darwin argues that those who are the fittest survive long enough to reproduce. But who are the fittest? According to creationists Henry and John Morris — and they are certainly not alone in saying this — “the only pragmatic way to define ‘the fittest’ is ‘those who survive’.”

But if “the fittest” are by definition those that survive, then “survival of the fittest” really means “survival of those who survive” — and that is completely unenlightening. Since it is a tautology, it is true no matter what, and therefore doesn’t tell us anything about the way things actually are: whether evolution or creationism is true, those that survive are those that survive.

Read more »

The One True Faith: Just How Many of Them Can There Be?

If only we had a way to test them all…

In the small, rural mid-western town where I grew up—and long before my arrival—the Christian souls had been sorted into Protestant and Catholic camps; I was in the former. Naturally, this was well after the eras of armed combat, so folks got along quite well despite the religious chasm. There were frictions, of course: Protestant kids were taunted by Catholic kids that they were going to hell: only followers of the Pope had the lock on heaven. But the insults were returned; one Protestant woman, whose nephew had become engaged to a Catholic woman, with wedding to be in her church, refused to attend because she had no intention of “setting foot in that heathen temple.”

If there was anything that both camps shared it was certainty. We knew that we were right, and those on the other side were wrong. And they knew that they were right, and we were wrong. This certainty was guaranteed by faith.

Read more »