Previously I had argued Bernie Sanders is the atheist's candidate because his policies will raise societal health, which will in turn decrease people's need for a god. Now Christian apologists Victor Reppert chimed in, giving me permission to quote him:
If I were an atheist, and only concerned about the credibility of atheism and didn't care about the country, I would say go for four more years of Donald Trump. That is because evangelical Trump apologists follow him, and they do more damage to the credibility of Christianity than atheists like John Loftus. I seem to spend more time arguing with Trump apologists than atheists these days, because even though they don't know it, they're shooting Christianity in the foot.
This is an interesting proposal, but we do care for people and our country so we cannot do that. He's right though, Trump and his evangelical fan-boys are destroying the credibility of their Christian faith.
Julie Carole, a Canadian, wrote this on Facebook. I approve of this message. People are being confused and deceived by the filthy rich class of people to fear what they need not fear.
In May 2018, volcanic eruptions in Hawaii caught the world’s attention. The New York Times described local beliefs about the cause of the destruction, namely the goddess of volcanoes and fire, Pele:
“…in a striking display of the resilience and adaptability of Native Hawaiian culture, the exaltation of Pele has not only persisted through the centuries, but seems to be strengthening with every bone-rattling eruption of Hawaii’s volcanoes.” Said one 71-year old resident, whose house was destroyed, “My house was an offering for Pele. I’ve been in her backyard for 30 years. In that time I learned that Pele created this island in all its stunning beauty. It’s an awe-inspiring process of destruction and creation, and I was lucky to glimpse it.” (The New York Times, 23 May 2018)
"As wealth and power have moved to the top and the middle class has shrunk, more Americans feel politically disempowered and economically insecure. Today's main divide isn’t left versus right. It’s establishment versus anti-establishment."
"In the fall of 2015, I visited Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri and North Carolina, researching the changing nature of work for my book, “The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It.” I spoke with many of the same people I had met two decades prior, when I was secretary of labor, as well as some of their grown children. I asked them about their jobs and their views about the economy. I was most interested in their sense of our system as a whole and how they were faring in it."
"What I heard surprised me. Twenty years before, most said they had been working hard and were frustrated that they weren’t doing better. Now they were angry — at their employers, the government and Wall Street; angry that they had not been able to save adequately for retirement, and that their children weren’t doing any better. Several had lost jobs, savings or homes during the Great Recession. By the time I spoke with them, most were employed, but the jobs hardly paid any more than they had years before."
"The best way for Democrats to defeat Trump’s fake populism is with the real thing, coupled with an agenda of systemic reform. This is what Sanders offers. For that reason, he has the best chance of generating the energy and enthusiasm needed to regain the White House."
"Instead of hand-wringing about Sanders’s electability, maybe establishment Democrats should worry that a “moderate” Democrat might be nominated instead."
[Published 10/19/2015] Bill Curry of the Salon magazine wrote a timely piece on Bernie Sanders titled, Bernie Sanders is right on the big issues, now we must spread the word! Okay, I fudged the last part of his title, but I think Bernie is the man, if for no other reason but that climate change is our most pressing issue, and Bernie Sanders is making it a top priority. But there are many other reasons, not the least of which is that he looks to democratic atheist countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway as the wave of our future. It has been shown that when there is high societal health, where people's needs are being met, the people in those societies don't have a need to believe in God, so they don't. Since I stand against religious faith then I must also stand with Bernie Sanders, regardless of whether he is a believer or not.
I'm tired of ignorant fear-mongering Christian apologists like Victor Reppert telling his readers:
I remember the well-intentioned ideas that launched the French Revolution and the Russian revolution, and remember also where these movements ended: with guillotines and gulags. As a result I am concerned about what is going to happen if the secularist movement today gets a lot of political power. These people started off with combining secularism with a passion for social justice, and look what happened to them. The death tolls of the Soviet Union far outstrip all the "holy horrors" of Christianity, such as the Inquisition. It's not even close.
Look, if you want to know the direction of democratic atheist societies then look to the Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway. They aren't perfect but they are much better than ours, by far. And since the American people stand with Bernie Sanders on the most pressing issues, that makes him electable. I have not spoken much on politics because I have been jaded after decades of seeing little or no change. Nothing ever changes it seems. That's because we need a political revolution and I aim to do my part. I love Bernie's message. I like how Bernie boldly puts it out there. I think he is electable and I think social media can make the difference. Social media reigns over the establishment. It brought down a few dictators in the Middle East and it can bring down the American establishment, if we want it bad enough. So if you don't help put Bernie in the White House then you are part of the problem! No worries. I'll vote for Hillary Clinton if he fails to get the Democratic nomination. After all, the Republicans are all nutcases. I'm throwing my intellectual weight in favor of Bernie Sanders. First and foremost, Bernie is the best candidate for achieving a good healthy society for everyone, one where everyone can take part and live a better life. But secondarily, there is something else. Bernie Sanders is the atheist's candidate!
My name is John W. Loftus, who says a vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for atheism. I just put the pieces together and will provide more documentation of it in the months to come. I approve of this message. No one paid me a dime to write it. [Click on the tag "Bernie Sanders" for more]
Getting undue billionaire influence out of the political process will be as hard as it was for women to gain the right to vote from an all male Congress. Billionaires will do everything they can to deceive us with complex numbers, by playing to our fears, dividing us over unimportant issues, and bankrolling ignorant pliable politicians. This is our time to take control of our country. Don't let it slip by. Women did it, along with others who cared. We can also do it, with others who care.
Unfortunately, too many people do not care about anyone else but themselves. Be on the right side of history. Every major country has universal health care. Help Bernie Sanders make that happen in the USA too.
Bernie Sanders has said, "No one asks where we're going to get the money to pay for the military budget or for Social Security. People only ask that question when it comes to universal health care and climate change." The fact is there's a strong possibility the changes Sanders proposes will actually save us money!! Now what will his naysayers say? Even if it will cost more, if cost is the only factor then why not do away with the military and Social Security!
The following is an excerpt from a lecture Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899) gave all over the country commending Thomas Paine. It can be found in full right here. To see more of Ingersoll's speeches and writings check out fellowfeather's site, The Ingersoll Times, from whom I first heard of this lecture. In the excerpt Ingersoll hails reason, knowledge, and science while excoriating belief. It's fantastic!
There are Christian apologists who argue that a god exists because reason can only be accounted for, and justified by a god. Even non-believers must acknowledge god's existence, they argue, for by using reason we acknowledge god as its foundation. This is the Argument from Reason, of which Victor Reppert is the leading defender, hitchhiking on what CS Lewis had previously written. What Ingersoll shows us, by contrast, is that Christians denigrate reason, knowledge, and science in favor of belief. Imagine that, there are people who reject reason who ironically argue that reason leads to god! What an astounding amount ignorance and hypocrisy! If reason leads to god they should be the champions of reason and science rather than belief. But they denigrate it every chance they get. They only use it when it suits them in this fallacious argument, but fail to apply reason across the board to the nature of nature, it's behavior, and whether there's a religion that has sufficient objective evidence for its miracles. In other words, to paraphrase accurately from Christian apologist Frank Turek, they steal reason from non-believers since nonbelievers are the people of reason.
For info on the Hindu god Shiva click here. "Shiva is the third god in the Hindu triumvirate. The triumvirate consists of three gods who are responsible for the creation, upkeep and destruction of the world. The other two gods are Brahma and Vishnu." There have been many gods of death and destruction. Here's another photo:
I once asked a super devout Christian woman—she was really into it—where her beliefs came from. Without hesitation, she credited her mother with instilling the faith—who had inherited it, in turn, from her mother. That settled it, as far as she was concerned: the truth of her beliefs was securely anchored. But I had asked the question to find out how much the woman knew about Christian origins. How much did she know about the era and culture in which Christianity had been born?
This is pretty significant as Gary Habermas is probably the reigning evangelical apologist focusing on the resurrection, next to William Lane Craig and Mike Licona. If there is anyone who still fails to appreciate this anthology maybe Habermas might change their minds:
Christians need be aware of what non-Christian scholars are saying. In this thoughtful and stimulating volume, editor John Loftus brings together a number of the most accomplished atheists and other skeptics to deal with the crucial topic of miracles, an issue that is important on all sides. --Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Research Scholar & Chair, Dept. of Philosophy, Liberty University.
Gary tells me he's recommending this book to his students. My hat goes off to all the authors that helped make it such an excellent book!
One of the best stories in the gospels is found in John 8. Jesus defends—and apparently saves—a woman who “was caught in the very act of committing adultery.” The religious busybodies who monitored such things brought her to Jesus, and wanted to know if he endorsed the “law of Moses,” which stipulated death by stoning for the crime. A picture of calm and compassion, Jesus answered, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Famously, he bent down to write with his finger on the ground, and when he straightened up, the accusers had slunk away:
We've seen this same MO before from Christian apologists who must denigrate science to believe, and along with it, the requirement for sufficient objective evidence for their miraculous extraordinary claims. Just look at the posts I've written about it right here. This fact alone, if you knew nothing else, should be alarming and cause you to doubt the healing power of the Christian snake oil they're peddling! In what follows is yet another attempt to sell that snake oil from a PhD named Matthew Flannagan, who fancies himself as knowledgeable when he's not. On Facebook atheist activist Tom Rafferty posted this meme:
At the request of my friend Fellow Feather, and with Tom Flynn's permission, I'm sharing the entire text of Tom’s recent Op-Ed to Free Inquiry readers. It contains a very interesting challenge, which might be the subject of a lot of discussion in the years ahead. I've asked people for the issues that initially caused them to doubt, which are multifaceted since there are so many reasons to begin doubting. In this new pivot challenge the request is to share the pivot moment when you decided to walk away from your faith. In his Op-Ed Flynn shares his own pivot point along with those of two others, Dale O'Neal and Bart Erhman. Fellow Feather shared with me still more stories, from Robert Ingersoll at the age of 7, from Howard Van Till, who was forced to wake up to a drastically different God, and from Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins. Share your own pivot points in the comments if you wish.
In case you missed this, Trump specifically disagreed with Jesus — and did so during the annual National Prayer Breakfast!
That event's keynote speaker, Harvard's Arthur Brooks, argued for more unity in our politically divided country, saying that we need to go beyond mere tolerance and actually “love our enemies.” Which is, of course, something Jesus said. Trump, however, who immediately followed Brooks as speaker, began his talk by saying “Arthur, I don't know if I agree with you.”
This is the same guy who said that he has never asked for God's forgiveness — who in fact said that he doesn't “like to have to ask for forgiveness,” adding that he is “good” anyway.
Franz Kiekeben is a former lecturer in philosophy and the author of two books on atheism, The Truth about God, and Atheism: Q & A. He has also written for Skeptic magazine and published academic articles on determinism and on time travel.
The religious bureaucrats who hovered around Jesus—and conspired against him—suspected that he performed miracles because he had help from demonic powers (Matthew 12:24): “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” Supposedly they knew a thing or two about the hierarchy in the spiritual realm, and they assumed that anyone who could kick out demons had been deputized by Satan. Of course, Jesus didn’t see it that way at all, and got the better of demons whenever he had the chance. He ordered them about, as we find in the dramatic story in Mark 5: he transferred the demons into a herd of swine.
I've already published my debate opener on the virgin birth right here. One of the best things about debates, for me anyway, is that they force me to write debate openers. They are succinct statements of why I don't believe. They will stand the test of time, even if public debates allow for the irrelevancies and non-sequiturs of my debate opponents to muddy the waters.
All that's required is to be born and raised a Hindu in Prayagraj, India! Now please tell me this, how would you persuade these men to reconsider their faith? The best answer is to use The Outsider Test for Faith. So if you use it on them, why not use it yourself? LINK
Last June, here on this blog, Robert Conner spoke the truth: ‘The Bible really needed an editor with a shredder.” Even the most devout (honest) Christians would mutter, “Amen to that, brother.” They have tried to read the Bible cover-to-cover—and many have succeeded—but found it a trial: truly, an endurance test. Only fundamentalists will insist that all of it must, somehow, be the word of God—and that every story, for whatever reason, serves a purpose. Naturally, there are fundamentalist commentaries devoted to defending every last word and syllable.
My debate opponent believes a virgin named Mary gave birth to a divine child named Jesus over two-thousand years ago. The most significant problem is that theologians cannot explain how a human being and a god can be one and the same, that is, 100% human and 100% divine, with every essential characteristic of humanity and divinity included. How can a god be a god if he has a body? How can an infinite timeless god exist in time? Conversely, how can a human be a human if he or she doesn’t have a body? How can a finite human take on eternal godlike characteristics and still remain a human being? How can a human be perfectly good incapable of being tempted to sin, and yet also be tempted to sin? Christians themselves have shown the incoherence of a divine/human being by their 2000 year long disagreements over it.
Make no mistake about it. This is what my debate opponent is aiming at in this debate. The virgin birth is a first step toward claiming Jesus was God incarnate. My aim is to stop him short of this first step, even though his case isn’t done until he tackles the second step by dealing with some formidable philosophical objections to a divine/human being. With no such being there's no virgin birth either.
Let’s start by talking about the kind of evidence we need.
When David Attenborough was asked why he didn’t give God credit for the splendor of creation, he offered a good reason:
"They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."
Attenborough’s suspicion of theism was shared by Charles Darwin, who wrote in a letter to Asa Gray in 1860:
My name is David Kyle Johnson. I am professor of philosophy at King’s College (where I teach, among other things, logic and philosophy of religion) and also a professor for The Great Courses. (My courses include Sci-Phi: Science Fiction as Philosophy, The Big Questions of Philosophy, and Exploring Metaphysics. All cover religious topics.) I am a former conservative evangelical who was liberated from the shackles of religion by philosophy, and am delighted to have been invited to write for “Debunking Christianity.” And for my first article, I’d like to defend an action I recently took: putting my name on an open letter.
Good riddance! Almost my entire life there he was, every week, predicting the return of Jesus based on this or that, with an overblown confidence and disregard for facts. He was never raptured into heaven above the earth somewhere. But he did escape the coming tribulation. Ha! LINK.
Would this be a good idea? From now on, all new Bibles should be expanded to include not just the Old and New Testaments, but also the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon. After all, the Old Testament is the sacred text of another religion, and it made it into the Christian canon. There are just under two billion Muslims in the world; how could that many people be wrong about the holy word of Allah? Don’t we have to take their scripture seriously? There are about 15 million Mormons in the world, roughly on a par with the number of Jews worldwide. How could we justify exclusion of the Mormon scriptures? Surely, they can’t all be wrong too. These branches of the original Abrahamic faith are confident God updates his word.
Suppose you WERE to think (whether imperialistically or arrogantly or not) that we are talking about levels of existence, from lower to higher: rocks, trees, non-human animals, and humans. The fact is that the lower ones can never know about the higher ones, what they really are, what they are capable of, how they exist, what they do, and so on. They can’t even conceptualize their existence.
Then what in the blazes should should make me think that I could possibly know if there was a higher order above me, superior to me in ways that I simply can’t imagine? Not just one order above me, but lots of orders? If there are such orders, there is no way I could ever know. Literally. Duh.
And so really, agnosticism is the ONLY option. Not in the sense of a shoulder shrug, “Hey, how would *I* know?” but in the sense of a deep thoughtful response – I have precisely no way to adjudicate the view, one way or the other. Facebook LINK.
My Response: Bart argues for a possibility. So, yes it might be possible that some nebulous god exists. But possibilities don’t count, especially when they lack objective evidence. You might as well say it’s possible we’re living in a Matrix or dreaming too. But it’s probable we aren’t. We should think exclusively in terms of the probabilities.
Such a god solves no problems that we cannot solve ourselves through science, nor does s/he act in the world in ways we can detect, nor does s/he guide our behavior with discernible morals we can learn from nature, nor does s/he set a good example for us given the amount of horrendous suffering in the world.
Ask yourself how your god-hypothesis might help us solve any problems that we cannot solve on our own. Without any utility such a god is unnecessary. Consider also what such a god has failed to do in the world and it’s clear s/he is an uncaring and even a terrible being, so that god isn’t worth our reverence or awe. If such a god exists we should ignore him/her or adopt Protest Theology, where we shame such a god for his/her lack of care. [Discuss].
There's a lot of confusion out there about metaethics. Case in point: I recently ran a promotion of my book Atheism: Q & A, and as a result received a one-star review on Amazon, apparently for no other reason than that the reviewer does not understand what I mean when I claim that morality is subjective. The review makes it clear he sees me as a relativist, for he objects to my position by pointing out that (contrary to what I supposedly imply) slavery is always wrong.
Part of the reason for that misunderstanding may be because many atheists do in fact espouse the kind of relativist view that my critic finds objectionable. But the main problem is the over-simplification that is common in popular discussions and writings on this topic. Most people seem to think there are only two main positions one can take: absolutism/objectivism, which states that there are moral principles that are true for everyone at all times, and relativism/subjectivism, which roughly says that what's right for one person may not be right for another. What's worse, some atheists appear to associate the absolutist view with religion (in effect implying that if one adopts such a position, it is only because of one's religious beliefs), and as a result insist on relativism. And of course, the religious more often than not criticize atheism on the grounds that it is incompatible with objective values, and thus can only lead to relativism.
In addition to all this, the terminology involved isn't used in a consistent way even by philosophers. There are specific views which everyone basically agrees on the meaning of (e.g., non-cognitivism, emotivism, intuitionism), but some of the broader terms are definitely used in more than one way — and none more so than “subjectivism.” No wonder, then, that there is so much confusion.
