Showing posts with label "The Infidel Delusion". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "The Infidel Delusion". Show all posts

Ed Babinski Responds to "The Infidel Delusion"


Richard Carrier Responds to The Infidel Delusion ebook

To read what he said just click here.

Paul Tobin Responds to The Infidel Delusion (Part 3)

This is part three of Paul's response to the ebook The Infidel Delusion, which is an amateur attempt to deal with our book The Christian Delusion. The first two parts can be read beginning here.

Paul Tobin Responds to The Infidel Delusion (Part 2)

Part 1 can be found here. Quote of the day from Paul Tobin below:
I shake my head in wonderment when I see the evangelical mind at work.

Of Lions and Dogs: They Can Remember, Have Emotions, and Feel Compassion

Since human beings have evolved from the lower animals we would expect the lower animals to exhibit some of the traits we have developed more fully. There is plenty of evidence they can remember, have emotions, and feel compassion. They also know in limited ways that they are doing wrong. I see this in my cat every day. When we say no he throws a temper tantrum. Some dogs poop on the carpet when neglected to get our attention, if we're gone too long. This evidence bolsters the claim that morality evolved and it also presents theists with what I call "The Darwinian Problem of Evil." Why do they suffer so much if a perfectly good God exists?

The Darwinian Problem of Evil Visualized

This is an excellent graphic video about natural evils and the problem of animal suffering that was made by Rhetorical Bullshit based on my chapter in The Christian Delusion. Just ask yourselves while watching it: 1) What did animals do to deserve their sufferings? (Hint: nothing); 2) What moral lessons are they supposed to learn from their sufferings? (Hint: none); 3) Will they all be rewarded in heaven for their sufferings? (Hint: What about parasites?); 4) Can a perfectly good God be reconciled with this amount of suffering? (Not a chance!).

Paul Tobin Responds to The Infidel Delusion (Part 1)

When John Loftus informed me that there is a “book length rebuttal” available on the net to The Christian Delusion I was expecting an intellectual challenge but instead what I found amounts to no more than relatively lightweight and easily dismissed assertions.

Dr. Valerie Tarico Responds to the Triabloguers

She does so in the form of a letter to me:
John, you have asked me to respond to a critique at the site, Triablogue, of my chapter, “Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science” for The Christian Delusion. Reading the critique, I am struck, primarily, by the perception that the reviewers, in attempting to state their case, overstate mine. Psychology is a profession focused not on possibilities but on practicalities – not on how things might function in an abstract, philosophical sense, but rather on what we can know about how they do function in the ordinary lives of ordinary humans (and sometimes other species). Psychology asks and attempts to answer a set of questions regarding the contingencies–-replicable cause and effect relationships—that govern people’s lives. At this level of analysis, there is a tentative but useful distinction between knowing and not knowing.

People Believe and Defend What They Prefer to Be True

People believe and defend what they prefer to be true. This is an obvious and non-controversial fact. That's who we are as human beings. That's what we human beings do. That's what psychological studies have repeatedly shown us over and over.

Richard Dawkins: If Science Worked Like Religion

I've been faulted for suggesting that the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) has force primarily against religious faiths. I think this because of the nature of them, how they were first adopted, the evidence (or lack thereof) that can decide between them, and so forth. To see why, check out the video below by Richard Dawkins. The sciences are in an entirely different league than faith:

Amateur Hour at Triablogue

Triablogue’s amateurs have compiled a supposed refutation of The Christian Delusion. Some uninformed bloggers are already hailing it as a “massive” and definitive refutation. Yet, even the most superficial look at Triablogue’s efforts reveals yet another instance of amateurs who don’t know enough to know that they don’t know enough about the topics they discuss.

Being merciful to DC’s readers, I will not provide an exhaustive catalog of Triablogue’s factual errors, illogical arguments, or misreadings of my chapters. I will provide a few samples within these categories:

A. The Credentials Card
B. Ill-read Reviewers
C. Misrepresented arguments
D. Misunderstood Arguments
E. The Ridiculous and the Mundane

Contra Paul Manata on the OTF (Part 2)

This is the second part of my response to Paul Manata's criticisms of the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). Part 1 can be read here. Again, I'll not repeat myself. In this part I'll examine where Paul also claims it's not a sound argument. Really? Let's look at this.

Contra Paul Manata on the OTF (Part 1)

On February 11, 2006 I first proposed the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) in response to something Paul Manata wrote. I think this is instructive. There is nothing quite like discussing/debating the issues that divide us. We learn from doing so. Most of the time it helps me understand how to make a better case against Christianity as it did on that day. So Manata and I have a history, he cursing the day he provoked me to propose the test, and me further refining it from additional criticisms. Along the way Manata has repeatedly tried unsuccessfully to disabuse me of this argument. So here he comes again with more failed arguments. Let's see about them.

Contra Steve Hays and Jason Engwer on the OTF

I'm in the process of assessing Triablogue's online book against The Christian Delusion. Since I don't want to repeat myself if you haven't already done so read my first response.

On Assessing Triablogue's Review of "The Christian Delusion"

I've had enough contact with Triablogue authors to know that I will never get in the last word. And I do not consider them honest in dealing with me. They will quote things out of context and misrepresent me because as Calvinists they do not think I deserve any respect at all. After all, if their God has foreordained me to hell then they have the right to heap additional abuse on me, and they have done so (this is such a nice version of Christianity developed by angry men for angry men, isn't it?). In any case they have written an online book of 257 pages against The Christian Delusion (TCD) so I think some response is needed, especially since I'm seeing links pop up all over the net linking to what they wrote.

Answering Two Objections That Jesus Was a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet

Two objections to my chapter 12 in The Christian Delusion have surfaced. You can read a summary of it right here, but keep in mind that dealing with a summary of a chapter is not dealing with the case I present in that chapter. Let me answer these two objections.