The Problem of Evil, the Canon Within the Canon, and Relativism

I'm having an interesting discussion with Dr. Reppert and others over these issues which started here, and is continuing here. I visit Reppert's Blog daily. There are some good things to learn from him and some good theology being discussed in a mutually respectful environment. He is not a fundamentalist Christian.

Stinky Piles of Rhetoric and Flawed Principles

This is a response that spans two articles and three people. I am making an article out of my responses because they are avoiding answering my questions and I'm hoping that I can get some feedback from others. Their comments are bold and italicized. I have referenced the articles at the end so anyone interested can follow the context.

In a nutshell I am challenging the principle of the original sin, the human sacrifice which depends on the principle of original sin and I am challenging the principle of the the problem of evil as a test and I am asserting that Christians have no concept about what properties an all powerful, all knowing, all good god should have. They have no concept of the infinite. Infinity has a lot of problems with paradoxes and if you look, you see that God has inherited those same problems.

david,
For you example, if you were to sacrifice your son so that others may live, I don't think anyone would call you terrible. The fact is, the sacrifice of your son cannot save anyone. The substitution of names in this case flawed.
It might be flawed, but it depends on your answer to this question (and honestly I don't think I would kill my son to save the world, or even a bus load of people).

What would you think of me if I crucified myself because I was punishing myself for a rule I made up? Sounds crazy doesn’t it?

If it sounds crazy then I would be killing son for nothing right? God could have changed the rules, he did it with the new covenant, he could have thought that human sacrifice was justifiably abhorrent and decided to handle it a different way. I would have.

Human sacrifice, killing yourself because of a rule you made, claiming to be a human, a son and a god all in one body, It is insane.

How do you know that jesus was really his son? mary's word? If jesus was an immaculate conception why didn't mark mention it?

God gave you a brain right? use it! why is it that these principles that supposedly came from a god seem so flawed? The principles don't translate into the real world. Why is that? Its what the bible tells us! Where did the bible come from, why does it say this?

Do your home work. Do some serious bible study. Look for the original texts. Study the history of the near east from the last ice age on, they call it the agricultural revolution.

get busy!

drsimrak
In regards to suffering, I would say that there is something that is to be gained in suffering. Once again, I come to my own lack of understanding, Why suffering? I don't know and the more I think about it, the more I realize that isn't the point.
You have not considered what an all powerful, all good, all knowing god should be able to do.
God should be able to do anything. In a breath, he could have spoken all christians into existence with their varying traits exactly as they would have turned out with without all the needless suffering. If he were really a loving god he should have made it so we could avoid the suffering and he could have avoided the 'pain' of having to sit on the sidelines and watch and just instilled the alleged virtues that result from suffering. This would not make us robots because the result is the same, only the process is removed. He could make them like he needs them. And I dispute that suffering makes us better than not suffering. That stands to be shown through something other than anecdotal evidence. In fact, I can show you that stress causes damage in people at the molecular level and causes the onset of depression and other harsher mental disorders. Just keep your eye out, you'll see me posting things about the brain, mind and behavior.

The point is that the world around us is collapsing and falling apart. The world around us bears witness that it is in need of a savior. All of mankind is dying and God has provided himself as our Savior in Jesus Christ. How ridiculous would it be if a drowning man to chose not to accept help from someone because he didn't like the shirt the rescuer was wearing.
This is completely subjective and as prup answered you, completely one sided and it avoids several qualifiers that make that untrue. The most you can say is that there are good things and bad things, and while we are evidenlty suffering from global warming due our screw ups, we can have a better quality of life, relatively disease free, to enjoy it with. (irony, i put that in there because some people have a hard time picking it up)

It's a question of faith and a matter of the heart. After all, it is with the heart that man believes unto salvation not with the mind. The true question is, do you need saving? If you think your fine or that you don't need or want the help of a God you view as cruel then so be it. But that doesn't change reality.
People believe with thier heart and not with their mind? What level of school did you make it through? Your self is a result of molecular electrochemical interactions in that chunk of meat in your skull and a good neurosurgeon could go in there and make you have a religious experience and think that god was in the room behind you as well making you think you had two arms on one side. You need to get a grip on reality. What is it about me that needs saving? I say that most people are good people, its just that minority percentage that ruins it for the rest of us!


What is to be known of God is made manifest in creation. But man chooses to deny that power. It's because of the hardness of men's hearts that they are given over to their own desires. If we want salvation we can have it, the choice is ours.
This is one of those piles of rhetoric that you guys leave behind every now an then. Theres no response to it because it so totally ignores reality. Once again lets all say it together, "it does not follow that because there is a world, there is a god that created it and that God is the christian God."
And there's that heart again, my heart is fine, no attacks yet. My mind is fine too, my morals and attitudes seem to be fine as I have a lot of friends that seem to like me as I'm sure is the case with most non-christians. Look, behaviour is not totally a matter of free-will, there are biological reasons for behaviour, and since that is the case your degree of free-will is limited, whether you want to belive it with your heart or not. I suggest thinking about it in your mind a little more. Thats what its best at.


Questioning what you believe and why is a good thing. Questioning to prove that you too can be like God is foolishness. The question is, who is God? Will we exalt ourselves as gods or will we humble ourselves and submit to the one true and living God even though we don't always understand?
Before you go submitting to something you better make sure it exists, because if everybody did that, that would be a lot of wasted resources with regards to labor that could go to making the world a better place. And no one is saying anything about wanting to be like god or be god, so you can just toss that stinky red herring out of here!

david,
Pain and evil are just part of the fabric, Christian or Atheist. But it is not right to say God is unjust if He Himself suffered.

rich,
People overcome great odds all the time. Why should it be easy? Why should we be handed something we didn't work for? Everyone would like it to be easier, even Christ in the gardin asked that the cup pass over him. He knew it couldn't be and he went through with it even though he asked not to, and he left it up to the Fathers will. A little less suffereing would sure be nice, making it easier to do what is right would be nice, but neither are our reality, so we accept it and do our best, that's all were asked.

With this kind of attitude there is never going to be resolution to pain and suffering because you are just giving to god, but you are not thinking that even if you do, it all happens in gods time right? So stop praying cause he already knows what you want and get off your butt and do something about the 'terrible world' you live in. Go volunteer at assisted living facilities, hospitals, homeless shelters, donate money to the organizations that handle disasters, volunteer at schools, go pick up trash on the side of the road. If you are already doing those things BRAVO, I take my hat off to you.


REFERENCES
Five Big Rocks

Schizophrenia Candidate Genes Affect Even Healthy Individuals

"Changing Morals and the Fate of Evangelicalism" by Robert M. Price

By Robert M. Price:

It used to be the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would never darken the door of movie theatres, even if Corrie ten Boom's The Hiding Place was showing (I kid you not!). Now that's moot, especially in the wake of home theatre technology. They wouldn't dance, because it was supposedly arousing, essentially mating behavior-which it obviously is! But now they've skipped the preliminaries (keep reading).

More significantly, they were very much against divorce and had a low incidence of it. But that, too, has changed. Evangelical churchmen and seminary professors found they just could not thunder against divorce any more once their own grown children were getting divorced. Same with women working outside the home. Economic realities dictated theology just as sure as the Feds' threats to the Mormon Church miraculously prompted new LDS revelations to abandon, first, polygamy, then racial discrimination in the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Homosexuality is next on the list. More and more educated Evangelicals seem to feel they must find a compromise between the inherited party line and their liberal social conscience. This is especially true with seminarians and young ministers. And such theological accommodations are not hard to find. It doesn't take as much text-twisting as slave-abolition or feminism, that's for sure. And it was secular feminism challenging the church that led, more than anything else, to the great inerrancy crisis among Evangelicals in the 1970s. Prayer changes things? Things change prayer.

Recent surveys indicate that more and more Evangelicals are questioning or rejecting the doctrine of an eternal hell as well as the idea that non-Christians will not be saved in the afterlife. You can see where this is headed: they are making their way toward being one more tolerant, live-and-let-live mainstream denomination. Nor am I complaining. I doubt many of us are really that vexed by the particular beliefs any fundamentalist happens to hold. No, what we find is the pugnacious obnoxious attitudes that so often accompany their beliefs. But what if they drop that attitude? Why would they?

It was for the sake of feeling uniquely indwelt and transformed by the Holy Ghost that they have erected attitudinal walls against non-co-religionists. It was a mind game to protect their cherished in-group and their firmly-cemented membership in it. But the more you become like the mainstream, the less separates you from everybody else, well, the more difficult it becomes to feel special, uniquely connected to God and sanctified by Jesus. It's not like they ever wanted to relegate everybody else to the Lake of Fire. It just seemed necessary in order for them to rejoice in not being relegated there themselves. And now feeling so different is no longer the priority. Attitudes affect doctrines which affect attitudes.

But the thing that will sooner or later bring the Evangelical Wailing Wall down is sex. More and more, Middle School, High School, and College Evangelicals admit to having sex in the same casual way as their "unsaved" contemporaries. That is, pre-marital, recreational sex. Having been so long Apollonian, they are itching to yield to Dionysus. But the gospel teaching of Jesus happens to be far more Apollonian than Dionysian. (Give 'em time, though, to discover the Q Source Jesus of Leif Vaage, Jesus as a "first-century party animal," and they'll be boasting of their biblical fidelity again.)

From the standpoint of sect-maintenance, this shift is fatal for two reasons. First, and most obviously, if this fundamental plank of the Evangelical platform rots and snaps, you can find little of similar magnitude to point to as the signal difference between the saved and the unsaved. I admit, there are a few more that would be similarly fatal, such as a casual permissiveness re drugs and alcohol.

Again, I admit that there are matters of graver moral content. A Christian ought to be able to say, e.g., "Jesus saved me from lying, from being insensitive, from being self-centered, cowardly, evasive, materialistic," etc., and those things might be more important. I'd say they are. But you see, everybody accepts and admires those values. They don't give Evangelicals special bragging rights like the sexual and other behavioral codes used to do.

Second, relaxing the sexual code is symbolically significant. Any group's mores concerning food and sex are symbolic of their social boundaries and the shape of their self-identity. A group does not necessarily have both indices. One will do, though usually there are both. Old Testament Israelites were separated from rival cults/cultures by upholding inflexible restrictions on permissible food and on possible intermarriage partners. Sexual fidelity had a lot to do with guaranteeing that one's true heirs inherited one's land and name. Jewish Christians were alarmed at Paul being willing to abolish Jewish dietary and other ceremonial scruples to make it easier for Gentiles to join Christianity. They could see instantly that such a move would result in Jews being squeezed to the margins of the new religion-and it did. Jewish identity within Christianity was lost. Similarly, among American Jews today it is not bigotry when Orthodox rabbis discourage mixed marriages with non-Jews. Allow that, and you can say the big goodbye to Judaism in America. It will be only a matter of time before intermarriage with well-meaning and good-hearted non-Jews will completely erode American Judaism. The hybrid "Chrismika" is only a stop along the one-way track. Maybe there will be an Orthodox farm next to the Amish farm.

Well, when the sex barrier falls, the same fate is in store for Evangelical Christianity. (There never was a consistent Evangelical food boundary; even the Reformed drank alcohol.) And when the new generations are none too sure that non-believers are headed for hell, it becomes inevitable that American Evangelicalism will ease into the acid bath of American Pluralism. And it may happen sooner than you think. And then all those mega-churches will be up for sale. Unless of course they find a new product to sell. TV preacher Joel Osteen has done just that. His Evangelical belief is merely vestigial; he has converted to New Thought. It is no coincidence that he fills that stadium. Others may not be so lucky.

This was published by Robert Price in his monthly opinion email, Zarathustra Speaks. See his home page to subscribe. The newsletter notes: Copyright © 2007 Robert M. Price. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to reproduce, copy or distribute this newsletter if accompanied with this copyright notice.

Negativity Is Contagious, Study Finds

This is relevant to the role of persuasion and influence in the church community as an impediment to free-will.
This study supports other studies where people are influenced by the group to change their opinion.

In this study researches found that they could predictively influence the opinions of subjects by showing them information about the opinions of their peers. It is so effective that it could be used in marketing by competitors by going online and trash talking a product to influence consumers against it.
Sciencedaily.com

REFERENCE
Sciencdaily.com: Mind and Brain

Where Does Your Faith Really Lie?

When you have a heart attack, do you go to church first or to the hospital? When your house is on fire with your family trapped inside, do you kneel and pray before or after you call the fire department? Most people, evangelicals and otherwise, answer these questions the same; those who don’t often see the ugly side of natural selection.

Here on Debunking Christianity, we spend hours and hours of our lives (cumulatively) debating and discussing the various ideas, values, and personal experiences that our faith (or lack thereof) imply. We craft our words with both art and craft, honing our arguments to fine points of logic or beautiful strokes of emotional appeal.

But talk is cheap.

When it comes to the truly important, urgent, and practical things in life, do you trust God to be your “very present help in trouble” (Psalm 46), or when you need present help in times of trouble do you go to your fellow humans?

The answer is obvious; when you need “very present help in trouble”, the number you call is 911, not the local church. Why? Is God unable to help you in your time of urgent need? Is He unwilling?

Or is it that, when the stakes are high, the matter urgent, and most importantly the consequences something you can actually see, is your faith in humankind greater than your faith in God?

I would argue that the answer is self-evident; you have faith in humankind, because you trust your experiences. Regardless of how many poetic Bible verses you read that promise God’s help in times of need, no matter how fervently you argue against atheists and heretics of all flavors, no matter how enthusiastically you knock on doors and witness to your fellow humans, when it comes to something urgent and real, you rely upon sinful, imperfect, and (in your view) downright impotent humankind.

Does this say something negative about the evangelical believer? I don’t think so; I think it says something very real about God. When it comes to manipulating anything we can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell, God does not live up to His advertising, and all but the craziest theists know it deep down no matter what their cheap words may say.

(Note: I am NOT encouraging evangelicals to try faith healing, faith firefighting, or any other faith-based manipulation of emergency situations. Please don’t try to pray out a stroke. Call 911.)

Yes That is Crazy!

This is Christian band Mercy Me's song "Crazy." They don't see that the problem of evil lurks in the background with the video clips at the end. Why would they wish for heaven when God can't get it straight here on earth? And if their faith is "crazy" and not according to "wisdom," why would they ever want to believe in something stupid or unintelligible in the first place? This is wish fulfillment at its very best and one of the reasons Karl Marx called religion "the opiate of the people."

Here's another one from them; they are clearly anti-intellectual:



Thanks to Jon Curry.

Five Big Rocks (part one)

Having been a believer for the bulk of my life, the decision to cross over the other side has not come easy. Once upon a time, I was a zealous Christian apologist, not unlike many who frequently this blog. I know most of the arguments in favor of the Christian faith intimately. Please understand, if I could believe them I would, if for no other reason than it would make my life a lot less complicated. My family is a bunch of strong, dedicated believers. The vast majority of my friends believe, as well. Many times I have questioned myself—-am I doing the right thing? Just how much do I really doubt the existence of God, the veracity of Scripture, and the Gospel message?

To understand why I remain steadfast in my unbelief, I need to introduce you to some of the obstacles that stand in the way my faith. I call them, simply, the Five Big Rocks:

1. The Problem of Evil & Suffering
2. The Problem of Communication.
3. The Problem of Scriptural Errancy
4. The Problem of Theological Incoherence
5. The Problem of Religious Toxicity

I plan on dealing with each "Rock" in a separate article. I know that some of our antagonists will enjoy dissecting and minimizing each point. That’s fine—-at least they will have heard me out! That’s really all I ask. Ready?

Rock #1: The Problem of Evil & Suffering

One day I was watching Ingmar Bergman’s powerful film The Virgin Spring, in which the beautiful virgin daughter of a nobleman is savagely raped and murdered while on her way to the candle-lighting ceremony at the village church. When the father goes to search for his daughter and discovers what has happened, he is shaken with grief and turns his eyes toward heaven, seeking some kind of consolation. Suddenly it hits him: “God, you were there! You watched this happen. You could have stopped it, but you did nothing.” In one powerful scene, Bergman had encapsulated years of doubts for me; I could not contain my tears.

I am no longer a Christian because I cannot reconcile the existence of a loving God with the superfluous nature of evil in our world. There’s just too much moral and physical evil in the world today. We’re in it over our heads. We're drowning in it! As a minister, I used to tell people, “It’s not a question of if God will put a stop to evil, it’s a matter of when.” There’s a Greek word for that argument: bologna!

If God is all-knowing he can perceive evil plans while they are but a dim conception; he can predict earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes with pinpoint accuracy. Yet he does not impart this knowledge to us, and we suffer.

If God is ever-present, he is there when a child is being abused, a teenager raped, an innocent pedestrian hit by a car. Yet he does not make his presence known.

If God is all-powerful then he can prevent evil acts from happening (theoretically, he can do this and still allow for free will). This means that the tragic loss of life in recent years due to tsunamis, hurricanes, and suicide bombers could have been entirely avoided. All the pointless bloodshed of the 20th century could have also been bypassed. Yet God's power is not evident.

If God is all-wise, then he knows that his failure to act in opposition to evil leads common-sense thinkers like me into a state of unbelief. Yet he provides no rational alternative.

And (here’s the clincher) if God is all-loving, then he WILL DO SOMETHING to stop evil—not sometime in the distant future, but NOW, as any feeling, caring sentient being would. Yet he does nothing.....NOTHING.

In the end, the problem of evil is too big a rock to scale, and this is why I no longer believe.

"Thank You For Your Book John"

I received an email today about my book from Andrew Atkinson who is a well read person, and you know I cannot resist:

I was raised in a Christian Fundamentalist home my whole life. From one through 12th grade I was home schooled, and was taught everything through the Christian fundamentalist lense. After High school I attended a hyper fundamentalist place called Honor Academy. At Honor Academy I gained interest in philosophy and Christian apologetics and decided to dedicate my life to Christian apologetics. I am 23 now and since then I have read hundreds of Christian Apologetics books. I have read all of Lewis, all of Schaeffer, all of Peter Kreeft, all of Dr. Geisler's books, including his encyclopedia A-Z twice, and his Systematic Theology twice, I have read Plantinga, McDowell, Craig, Ravi, Moreland, Holding, Swinburne, N.T Wright, Paul Copan Etc. I was until recently enrolled at Dr. Geisler's school to study apologetics and philosophy.

This year I decided in order to be fair and honest to read all the top skeptical books on religion. So I did some research and made a list of over 100 books. I am now at book 76 and consider myself a confident Atheist. Your book was one of the first I read. I was drawn to it since you were an apologist. Your book was the first skeptical book I read that made me seriously realize that I could be dead wrong! I strongly encourage you to keep on writing, the market is very strongly in need of literature like yours.

I think your book is the best overall refutation of Christianity written, especially at the popular level. I think your book is superior for multiple reasons.

1. Its scope and coverage is more exhaustive on issues crucial to Christianity then other books.
2. You anticipate objections from Christian philosophers and theologians that most skeptics do not, due to their lack of familiarity with the other side.
3. The book packs so much in such a little space, it has amazing brevity and at the same time brilliantly dismantles many core Christian beliefs and deals with many central issues that are left out of other works
4.Your familiarity with Christian Theology and philosophy makes you much better at drawing fine and important distinctions that other skeptics miss, due to their lack of expertise in the other side.
5. The personal Deconversion narrative woven through out the book gives it an informal and personal touch that makes it more fascinating to read than other skeptical books. Plus you are the only skeptical author that I know of that was a highly competent Christian Apologist and Philosopher, this of course is another unique feature.
6. Your non-abrasive style sets your book apart from many other skeptic books. You wrote the book in such a way as not to polarize the believer. The average believer would be much more likely to read this book than other similar books due to your respectful manner. This I congratulate you on.

There are many other noble things about your book. But basically what I am saying is that I think you have written by far the best overall refutation of Christianity in print, and that is something to be very proud of. This is the best book to give to a believer. Your book has changed my life, and for that I cannot thank you enough. Now I am going to spend my life helping to educate the public about the truth of religion, and do whatever is in my power to build bridges that would make society more conducive towards secular enlightenment.

Here is a list of books that changed me to a confident Atheist, I have not read all of them yet but will have by the end of the year. This is the list I give to many of my friends.

1. Why I Rejected Christianity; A Former Apologist Explains, by John W. Loftus (Loftus was a professor of apologetics and philosophy, he has three master degrees from conservative schools and he studied under William Lane Craig! And to top it off even Geisler recommends his book! My number one recommendation, absolute must read!) [Update: see below for the extensively revised edition of this book]
2. Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker
3. Atheism: The case Against God by Smith( This is the best selling Atheist book of All time!)
4. The Case Against Christianity by Martin( This I consider A must read, it has many interesting points.)
5. The Empty Tomb,( This book is a DEVASTATING critique of The resurrection, it Critiques all the Top Christian Apologetic Arguments in Detail concerning the Resurrection and other Historical issues, a must read.)
6. Jesus is Dead, by Robert Price( This guy has A PHD in New Testament studies, and a PHD in Systematic Theology, he used to be a conservative Pastor and Apologist and now He argues Against All the Top Apologist about historical matters. He has debated William lane Craig , and most other top defenders, here he confronts and attempts to refute all the top defenses of the historical issues. So he takes on Mcdowell, N.T Wright, FF Bruce, Montgomery, Craig, Habermas, J P Holding and other top defenders. An absolute must read. )
7. The incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert price ( a very good critique of The Gospels)
8. The Born Again Skeptics Guide to The Bible( This one is very fun to read. The writing style is witty and she makes very many good points.
9. Sense And Goodness Without God by Richard Carrier( this is the best overall defense of naturalism that I have ever read at the popular or intermediate level atleast. This book shocked me with how many good points and answers he had to Scientific Apologetics and many other issues Concerning Christian Theism. This is an absolute must read. Very important book, very brilliant.)
10. Atheism a concise introduction ( Considered by many to be the best intro to Atheism.)
11. The Jesus Puzzle
12. "Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" by Earl Doherty
13. Natural Atheism by David Eller
14. The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins.
15. The Secret Origins of the Bible( Must Read)
16. C.S Lewis and The search for Rational Religion
17. The God Delusion by Dawkins
18. God is not Great by Hitchens
19. Bible Prophecy Failure or fulfillment?
20. What is Atheism?
21. God the failed Hypothesis by Stenger
22. Deconstructing Jesus by Robert Price
23. Breaking the Spell Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Danial C Dennet
24. In Gods We Trust by Atran
25. Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer
26. Has science found God? The latest results in the search for the purpose in the Universe by Stenger
27. Value and Purpose in a Godless Universe by Erik J. Wielenberg
28.How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God (second edition) by Michael Shermer
29. Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms
30.The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Neil Asher Silberman
31.Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris
32. The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy by C. Dennis McKinsey
33.Biblical Nonsense: A Review of the Bible for Doubting Christians by Jason Long
34.Atheism & Philosophy by Kai Nielsen
35.Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam by Michel Onfray
36.An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism by Daniel Harbour
37.Like Rolling Uphill: Realizing The Honesty Of Atheism by Dianna Narciso
38.God's Defenders: What They Believe and Why They Are Wrong by S. T. Joshi
39.The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris
40. The Age of Reason Thomas Pain (MUST READ)
41.Treatise on the Gods (Maryland Paperback Bookshelf) by H. L. Mencken
42.Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness by James A. Haught
43. Kens Guide to the Bible(This one is funny)
44. The reason driven life by Robert Price
45.Russell On Religion (Brilliant)
46.Dialogs on Natural religion by hume ( absolute must read)
47. God and the Reach of Reason: C.S. Lewis, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell
48. Why I am not a Muslim
49. The Jesus Mysteries Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?
50. Critique of Religion and Philosophy by Waulter Kaufmann
51. Leaps of Faith: Science, Miracles, and the Search for Supernatural Consolation
52. looking for a Miracle Joe nickell
53. Doubt: A History
54. The Quotable Atheist: Ammunition for Non-Believers, Political Junkies, Gadflies, and Those Generally Hell-Bound
55. Why Atheism? by George H. Smith
56. The Necessity of Atheism by David Marshall Brooks
57. Atheism: A Beginner's Handbook: All you wanted to know about atheism and why
58. The Faith Healers
59. The Bible Against Itself: Why the Bible Seems to Contradict Itself
60. The faith of a Heretic
61.The Atheist Debaters Handbook
63.God The Devil And Darwin by Niall Shanks
64.Critiques of God; making the case against God
65. The Dark side; How evangelical teachings corrupt love and truth
66. Walking away from faith; unraveling the mystery of belief and unbelief
67. Dictionary of Atheism
68. Philosophers without Gods
69.The essence of Christianity Ludwig Feuerbach
70. Believing in Magic; The psychology of superstition
71. The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God
72. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
73. The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule
74.Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
75. Putting away Childish things
76. Transcendental temptation by Paul Kurtz(Good overall defense of skepticism towards religion and the paranormal)

Here is a list of the best advanced skeptic books.

1. The Wisdom to Doubt; A justification of Religious Skepticism. (This book is very profound. It lays the foundations for complete religious skepticism better then I thought possible. An absolute must read. A unique book. By The way this one is not that hard to read.)
2. Arguing About The Gods (Considered by Many to be the best and most sophisticated discussion on arguments for and against God so far!)
3.Atheism: A Philosophical Justification By Martin (Was The most Comprehensive Atheist book before Oppys came out.)
4.The Impossibility of God by Martin (Important Top Notch collection of Articles discussing the apparent logical Incoherence of the Concept of God)
5. The Improbability of God by Martin by Martin(Another important collection of articles on God)
6. The Miracle Of Theism by Mackie (was considered the top defense of Atheism ever, until oppys book, but this book is shorter and easier to read.)
7. Nonbelief and Evil (Argues powerfully against the Existence of God as Traditionally conceived.
8. Logic and Theism by Sobel (Hear Is what A professor from Calvin College said about this book)
"A time-line of the currently relevant skeptical books on the philosophy of religion that, at the time of their publication, became the skeptical book most fruitful to study would begin in 1975 with William Rowe's THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, if the time-line included both specialized books and comprehensive books. In the interests of brevity and relevance to Sobel's book, a time-line only of the comprehensive books can be described. In 1982, John Mackie's book, THE MIRACLE OF THEISM, became the comprehensive, skeptical book most fruitful to study. In 1990 Michael Martin's comprehensive book, ATHEISM, took prime of place, followed almost immediately in 1991 by Richard Gale's ON THE EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF GOD. In 2004 a new, comprehensive book became the most important of the current skeptical treatises, Howard Sobel's LOGIC AND THEISM. A reader of this book may justifiably finish it with the belief there is a high probability Sobel's book will retain this position for many years to come."

9. The Non-existence of God by Nicholas Everitt ( Very Good book, a must read)
10. The Nature and Existence of God by Richard M Gale
11. God and The Burden Of Proof by Keith Parsons
12. The Cambridge Companion To Atheism
13. Atheism, Meaning and Morality by Martin
14. Suffering Belief: Evil and the Anglo-American Defense of Theism
15.Can God be Free? By William Rowe
16. Arguing for Atheism by Robin Le Poidevin (Intermediate)
17. The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief edited by Tom Flynn ( What Geislers Encyclopedia is too Apologists this is to skeptics. This is an absolute Must have.)
18. The Evidential Argument from Evil (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion) by Daniel Howard-Snyder

Please do not stop writing, the world needs to hear your thoughts. Thank you for all the effort you have made on behalf of the truth.

Thank you very much. It helps me to know I've helped others. To answer your question, the Prometheus Books edition is a massive revision of this one you now recommend.

Michael Card and John Michael Talbot's Song "One Faith"

This is an excellent Chistian song, musically, but given what we argue here at DC every day, does any Christian see any problems with the claims in this song? They should be obvious, or at least they are to me. I find Christian lyrics to be superfical at best, and false at the worst. Anyone disagree? Do Christians think through the lyrics while listening to one of their popular songs? What would happen if they did?

Dawkins v. Lennox Debate Tonight, Oct. 3rd

Click here. Thanks to David Wood for bringing this to my attention.

Ministry of a Healing Amputee and Another Where the Dead Come Back to Life

This article is about two ministries of note I've found in the past couple of months. One is an amputee that claims that Jesus is Growing her leg back, and one is a missionary that claims that he has witnessed the dead coming back to life by the power of God.

Carole Miller McCleery-Greene. On her website has posted medical information and interpreted it for the reader as proof that Jesus is restoring her amputated leg. She has had two automobile accidents that almost claimed her life and did claim her leg but she credits Jesus with getting her through it all.

David Hogan is a Missionary that has personally witnessed dead people miraculously coming back to life by the power of God through his ministry.
- David Hogan. Freedom Ministries. Faith to raise the dead.
- David Hogan at YouTube

I found the David Hogan ministry thanks to a commenter in another article, and I found the Amputee ministry thanks to my RSS Feed at Scienceblogs.com. The blogger at Respectful Insolence is a surgeon. He analyzed the claims of the regenerating leg, the medical information on the website and the interpretation and in his opinion, she's going to die before her leg grows back. He wonders the same thing I do, which is, if Jesus gets the credit for saving her, why doesn't he get the blame for putting her in that situation?

I didn't look long enough to find any dissenting opinions about David Hogan and the dead coming back to life except for this one from a christian because I am quite confident that if it were true, it would be widely reported in the science journals, because scientists love figuring stuff out.

I wonder, if we didn't live in the age where information can get transmitted in seconds around the world, what kind of impact would these claims have? Do you think more people would believe them? Do you think there is any correlation to the type of thing that went on with Jesus? Maybe, maybe not.

But hey, whats the harm, right? It makes them feel better and gives them hope.

I'm Taking a Needed Break

Last time I took a break it only lasted for one week. Who knows how long this one will be? I'll still listen in, but I'm burned out right now. Stay tuned for what the other members will post. I'll be back. So as a last thought for a while let me leave you with how I see our differences:

Christians and I reject all other religions. I simply reject their Christian religion with the same confidence they have when rejecting all other religions. The rejection of a religious viewpoint is the easy part. We all do it. And we're all confident when doing so. The hard part after the rejection is to affirm a religious viewpoint. That's where a person must argue that he has the correct one. And from what I see, Christians are just as confident that they are right as that the others are wrong, unlike me. I think the default position is soft-agnosticism, which simply says, "I don't know." That's right, I don't know what to believe after rejecting all religious viewpoints. I could even happily concede that there is a God, a deist god, a philosopher's god. But such a distant god is no different than none at all. Think about it. That's why I've chosen to be an atheist, since it makes no difference to me even if a god does exist. But I could be wrong, and I admit it.

Christians on the other hand seem absolutely confident that they are correct in what they affirm, and that's a huge difference between us. Given the proliferation of religious viewpoints separated by geographical location around the globe, the fact that believers have a strong tendency to rationally support what they were taught to believe (before they had the knowledge or capability to properly evaluate it), along with the lack of compelling evidence to convince people who are outsiders to the Christian faith, mine is the reasonable viewpoint to affirm, that's all.

Gay Marriage and Coming Out of the Closet

A Republican San Diego Mayor reversed his decision to veto gay marriage legislation due primarily to knowing people who are gay, like his daughter and some staff members.

There is power in knowing someone who believes differently. Real power! The gays initiated a campaign where they called on people to come of the closet. Dawkins has done the same. It's time for non-believers to come out of the closet. We are their neighbors, their friends, and their loved ones. We can make a difference if we simply tell people. Think about it: 1/4th of us may be non-believers!

I understand there is a difference between people who don't believe and those who actively argue against Christianity like we do here at DC. Those who argue against that delusion may not want to tell others they're doing this. But I urge all non-believers to simply tell people the truth, that you don't believe, especially to your friends and family. That's the minimum obligation you have, and it worked with this Mayor. Just think about all of our non-believing forebearers who suffered so much that we might have more and more freedoms to speak out. Your difficulties will be minor inconveniences compared to theirs.

Kerry Walker, for instance, claims he's being prosecuted because he's a non-believer who is writing a book against the Christian faith. There is probably some truth to this. If we came out of the closet this type of stuff will not take place as much. Let's try to end it here and now...in this generation.

[Thanks to the Secular Outpost for calling my attention to this].

Schizophrenia Candidate Genes Affect Even Healthy Individuals

This is an article providing information about Biological Bases for Behavior.
It is intended as evidence to weaken the doctrine of punishment for sin as a result of freewill and the concept of an absolute freewill.

ScienceDaily.com

In the largest study of its kind to date, scheduled for publication in the October 1st issue of Biological Psychiatry, researchers sought to examine the impact of a few particular genes, known to be associated with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, on a healthy population.....
.....
In other words, they found that the healthy individuals who possessed the risk variants within the DNTBP1, NRG1, and DAAO genes exhibited small reductions in their cognitive performance and had atypical experiences that might be associated with schizophrenia.....
.....
Dr. Stefanis, explaining the importance of this study, comments that "these findings support the notion that even at the general population level, the genetic liability to psychosis may be expressed as minute and 'undetected to the naked eye' alterations in brain information processing capacity and behavior." Dr. Krystal adds, "Consistent with a growing body of evidence, this study suggests that there may be subtle cognitive impairments that are present when these common risk gene variants are present in the general population." Clearly, these findings will have an important impact on the future genetic work in this area.

I couldn't have said it better.

This casts doubt on the principle of punishment for sin is a better principle than nurturing remediation. Where is god when you need him? Oh yea, everything happens in gods time.
And the check is in the mail.

References
Sciencedaily.com: Mind and Brain
Scienceblogs.com: Brain and Behavior

Thanks For the Memories

When I first heard this song on the radio I was delighted since it seemed to talk about leaving God. It's more of a song for gay/bi-sexual people, I think, which is cool too. In any case I predict with the rise of atheism we'll have more top songs that speak out against the God delusion, especially since nonbelief is on the rise among the young. I look forward to it.

"Should I Come Out of the Closet?"

Every once-in-a-while I'll get an email asking me if a person who is a non-believer should "come out of the closet." I received another one today:

My question to you is, should I “come out of the closet” with regard to my agnosticism? If I were to do so, I would only give my opinion if asked or if religious issues were being discussed. I know that some of my wife’s family and my own family would not like me anymore, but that doesn’t really bother me. However, I know that it could negatively effect my wife and I do not want to make life difficult for her. What should I do?

Here's what I said:

1) People will still like you. If they don't like you after you tell them they probably didn't like you before. It just means you've given them an excuse to say so. 2) Jesus was the first one to say believers should be willing to forsake family for him, so if there is a problem it's because of what Jesus purportedly said, and another reason to come out against such stupidity. 3) Life is difficult. Get used to it. But you can choose your battles. Ask if you can live with yourself in hiding. Many of your forbearers suffered a great deal to make your life as an agnostic better. Some were burned alive. If they can do that for your freedom to speak out, then such a difficulty as yours should be considered minor and met with courage. 4) We need you. If every agnostic and atheist came out of the closet people would get used to it. There is safety in numbers. Please do your part.

In the end though, this is your choice. You see what I would do. But I am not you.

For still more advice see this.

Daylight Atheism's Comment Policy

FYI I have abided by the same comment policy found at Daylight Atheism but never wrote it down in detail before. Here it is.

The Artifice of Words.

It has been said that language is the very essence of what makes us human. If we are to fully understand what it means to be human, then, we must understand what language is, how it works, how we use it, or misuse it.

Linguistics, often defined as 'the scientific study of language', is a broad term covering a wide range of different disciplines. The traditional 'core' areas of the subject deal with the structure of human languages in terms of how speech sounds combine to form syllables and words (phonetics and phonology), how words combine into meaningful utterances such as sentences and phrases (morphology and syntax), and how we extract meaning from utterances we read or hear used by other people (semantics and pragmatics). But beyond this, linguists are also interested in matters such as how languages evolve and change over time, how they are learned by children and by adults, how languages are used in social settings, the historical and contemporary relationships between languages, the roles of language in nation-building and identity marking, the development of writing systems, how the brain processes speech and language, how communication is possible when speech and language are impaired, etc. Linguistics therefore has close links to many other fields of enquiry in the social, physical and medical sciences, philosophy, and the arts and humanities. Our understanding of language origins, structure and use changes constantly with new discoveries in neuroscience, animal behaviour, archaeology and palaeontology, sociology, and psychology, etc.

A closer examination of words, language, and meaning reveals that all words are abstractions, only the degree of their abstraction defers.

Throughout my writing, I often mention language and the artifice of words. Now the term 'artifice of words' may sound strange to some people, especially those who have no familiarity with the philosophy of language, linguistics, or aesthetics. While we are bombarded with hundreds of thousands of words a day, whether oral, written, or broadcast, very few of us have actually taken the time to consider the symbolic abstraction that underlies the meanings of the words we use and the rapid mental associations we make to interpret such generic terms like dog, tree, hot, bad, love, blue, and god.

Language, how things 'mean' something, and truth are important subjects of consideration not simply because they are used in everyday life, but because language shapes human development, from earliest childhood and continuing to death. Knowledge itself is intertwined with language, its transmission and distribution. Notions of self, experience, and existence mostly depend on how language is used, what is learned through it, how it is interpreted and on-going assumptions derived from interpretation. The topic of learning language leads to all kinds of interesting questions. Is it possible to have any thoughts without having a language? What kinds of thoughts need a language to happen? How much does language influence knowledge of the world and how one acts in it? Can anyone reason at all without using language? Does language influence the "primal experience of being" (i.e., the animalistic pre-language state) in such a way so as to distort one's experience and worldview in order to confirm language's abstractions? The philosophy of language deliberately considers these types of questions. It is an important point of study because language is inseparable from how one thinks and interprets the world. People in general have a set of vital concepts which are connected with signs and symbols, including all words (symbols): "object," "love," "good," "God," "masculine," "feminine," "art," "government," and so on.By incorporating "meaning," everyone has shaped (or has had shaped for them) a view of the universe and how they have "meaning" within it. In a great many cases—especially when considering religion and politics—people infer meaning from words alone, from the abstractions inherent in language, because the objects of the describing words (entities or agencies like "god" or "afterlife" or "angels") are nowhere in evidence in the 'real world'.

By definition, then, and necessity, language is abstract and assumptive. The linguistic meaning of words is presupposed and inferred. There are essentially two different types of inferences when it comes to words we use: conceptual meaning and associative meaning.

The conceptual meanings of an expression have to do with the definitions of words themselves, and the features of those definitions. This kind of meaning is treated by using a technique called "semantic feature analysis." The conceptual meaning of an expression inevitably involves both definition (also called "connotation" and "intension") and extension (also called "denotation").

One issue that has bothered philosophers and ordinary people for as long as there have been words is the problem of their vagueness. Often, meanings expressed by the speaker are not as explicit as the listener would like them to be. The consequences of vagueness can be disastrous to classical logic because they give rise to the Sorites Paradox (in which the definition of a word like "heap" can be constructed or deconstruction one grain of dirt at a time until the object in question can no longer be considered a "heap" by definition but becomes something else).

Most people don't think about the abstractive and assumptive properties inherent in language although both are constantly used in day-to-day interaction. This is best demonstrated by an example. Consider the sentence:

The Dog Chased the Ball into the Street and Got Hit by a Car.

If you're like most people, the sentence above makes perfect sense to you. You know precisely what it means. You can imagine it, almost picture it in your mind's eye. But how? Every element of this sentence is completely abstract.

- I say "dog" but you've been given no description of the breed of dog or its size, whether it is a small Boston Terrier or a large Doberman Pinscher, or sleek or fat, or old or young. You have a fuzzy nebulous "feeling" for the idea of "dog" even though you know nothing about the animal in question beyond the word.
- I say "ball" but you've been given no description of the ball regarding it's type or size, whether it was rolling, bouncing, or flying through the air. It could just as easily be a tennis ball as a basket ball, or any other type of ball a dog is apt to chase.
- I say "street" and once again you know nothing about the type of street, its size, or the materials used in its construction.
- I say "car" and know nothing about its make or model, size or shape, color or speed.

What makes this kind of abstraction possible is your awareness of having actually had physical interaction with specific dogs and balls and streets and cars. You can conceptualize based on this interaction and thus infer the meaning from a broad abstract sentence like "The dog chased the ball into the street and got hit by a car."

Now, here's the kicker:

When it comes to supernatural religion it may be surprising to most believers to consider the simple fact that religion is all talk, only talk, and nothing but talk. Supernatural religion consists only of words, an ancient collection of words mostly recounted in anonymous third-person narratives (a fictional technique or unwarranted hearsay), and that's it. Because supernatural religion is comprised only of words, there's nothing empirical, physical, nothing of substance that you can point to besides art (derived from the word artifice or artificial) in any of its aspects: literature, poetry, music, painting, sculpture, theater, motion pictures, television, etc.

So, when believers talk about the "Will of God" or say things like "God is Love" or "God is Omnipotent and Omniscient" or ask "What Would Jesus Do?" not only are they utilizing a generic abstraction (like using the words 'dog', 'street', and 'ball') they are using an abstraction twice-removed because they are inferring God's godliness only from the artifice of words and not from any actual associations in the 'real' world. Ask a believer to describe "God" and to drill down to the particulars (as with the description of "dog") and you will be handed a list of generic abstract terms that are by themselves quite meaningless until they are weighed against 'real' properties that exist in the physical world.

I realize this is heady stuff, so let's try to make it a clearer with another example.

When believers explain that "God is Love" where are they getting this information? Are they observing God in action, then deducing from His behavior that he is a loving god? No. They are quoting and interpreting words in the Bible to make their case for a loving god while ignoring or conveniently forgetting other words in the Bible that make a case for a petty, judgmental, infantile, and merciless god. In either case, the very idea of a loving god was not derived from any behavioral evidence apparent in the 'real' world (with it's illness, disease, war, pain, suffering, cruelty, etc) but only from the artifice of words. Now, who wrote the words from whence believers derive the interpretation that 'God is Love'? In nine out of ten times, they don't know who wrote the words because the various authors are anonymous or the words subject to centuries of editing and redaction. In other words, believers are basing their interpretations of the attributes of God only on words written thousands of years ago by who knows whom? And apologists like to carp that rationalists and skeptics rely too much on naturalistic presuppositions!

Barna Poll About The New Generation and Christianity

Someone just sent me this link. Thanks. Here's a few of the points made:

As the nation’s culture changes in diverse ways, one of the most significant shifts is the declining reputation of Christianity, especially among young Americans. A new study by The Barna Group conducted among 16- to 29-year-olds shows that a new generation is more skeptical of and resistant to Christianity than were people of the same age just a decade ago.

The study of Christianity’s slipping image is explored in a new book, entitled unChristian, by David Kinnaman, the president of The Barna Group. The study is a result of collaboration between Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project.

The study shows that 16- to 29-year-olds exhibit a greater degree of criticism toward Christianity than did previous generations when they were at the same stage of life. In fact, in just a decade, many of the Barna measures of the Christian image have shifted substantially downward, fueled in part by a growing sense of disengagement and disillusionment among young people. For instance, a decade ago the vast majority of Americans outside the Christian faith, including young people, felt favorably toward Christianity’s role in society. Currently, however, just 16% of non-Christians in their late teens and twenties said they have a "good impression" of Christianity.

One of the groups hit hardest by the criticism is evangelicals. Such believers have always been viewed with skepticism in the broader culture. However, those negative views are crystallizing and intensifying among young non-Christians. The new study shows that only 3% of 16 - to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals. This means that today’s young non-Christians are eight times less likely to experience positive associations toward evangelicals than were non-Christians of the Boomer generation (25%)...

Over-Promise, Under-Deliver

This evening I was driving home from work, listening to a pastor on the radio preach from a text that would be familiar to most Christians: “And my God shall supply all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:9). Paul says this within the context of the Philippians’ material generosity toward him, assuring them that God would reciprocate by meeting their every need. Like many preachers, I used to quote this verse with a confident swagger. “How many of your needs did God say he’d supply?” I’d shout from the pulpit. “ALL of them!”—to which I would received a hearty “Amen!” This is but one of the many extravagant promises layered throughout the Scriptures.

For example:

* “Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.” (Psalm 37:4)

* “I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:20)

* “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 18:19)

* “And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” (Matthew 21:22)

Whenever verses like these were quoted in my congregation, I was quick to add qualifiers like, “Your desires must be God’s desires,” “God has three answers to prayer: yes, no, and wait,” and “You must examine yourself, lest sin or unbelief hinder God’s blessing in your life.” But the Bible does not necessarily include such caveats with the promises of God--most of them are very straightforward.

Occasionally, my comfortable theological bubble was punctured by instances of sincere believers being inflicted with pointless suffering. One of them, in particular, prompted me to call the Bible's extravagant promises into question. A young Christian wife became the victim of a cheating husband, who ran away with the other woman, but not before stripping the house of all the furniture and valuables. He did leave a few things behind—-two small kids, some large debts, and a trail of emotional wreckage. To add insult to injury, this sweet Christian woman was stricken with an unusual cancer during the divorce proceedings. While “Standing on the Promises” (a favorite Christian hymn), she almost lost everything. Witnessing this harsh reality first-hand made the promises of God seem absurd to me.

Promises like:

* “Whatever you ask in my name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” (John 14:13)

* “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.” (John 15:7)

* “And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.” (1 John 3:22)

As a Christian, God clearly promises to meet all your needs, answer your every prayer, and give you the very desires of your heart. One of the inherent problems with such verses, of course, is their all-encompassing and absolute nature. 2 Corinthians 1:20 says, “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ.” The Psalmist declares, “The LORD is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made” (Psalm 145:13). So despite the many excuses Christian offer on behalf of the Almighty, God doesn’t give himself an out!

The “Name-it-and-claim-it Gospel” is widely condemned by conservative evangelicals. But why, exactly? Aren’t radical Pentecostals just taking their God at his word? I submit that many Christians are secretly embarrassed by the Bible’s extravagant promises because (1) they know intuitively that they are not realistic expectations, (2) they are afraid that God will fail them, or (3) they have witnessed someone else being let down by the promises.

In the business world, we’re cautioned against overpromising. “Under-promise and over-deliver” is our motto. Somebody forgot to tell the Biblical writers that in all his superfluous promising, their God is incapable of delivering.

A Great List of Biblical Fallacies

To see the list click here. Which ones are the most difficult? Why?

Brain Atrophy In Elderly Leads To Unintended Racism, Depression And Problem Gambling

This is an article providing information about Biological Bases for Behavior.
It is intended as evidence to weaken the doctrine of sin as a result of freewill and the concept of an absolute freewill.

ScienceDaily.com

excerpt
"Science Daily — As we age, our brains slowly shrink in volume and weight. This includes significant atrophy within the frontal lobes, the seat of executive functioning. Executive functions include planning, controlling, and inhibiting thought and behavior. In the aging population, an inability to inhibit unwanted thoughts and behavior causes several social behaviors and cognitions to go awry.

In a study appearing in the October issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, University of Queensland psychologist, Bill von Hippel, reports that decreased inhibitory ability in late adulthood can lead to unintended prejudice, social inappropriateness, depression, and gambling problems."

Peoples behavior, decisions, choices, attitude, temperament, etc are shaped by many factors. Some of the more important ones are Genetics, Environment and Physiology.

If we cannot do what we prefer because the brains cognitive mechanism can be influenced externally, then freewill is impeded. If we do things that we would prefer not to, or would not normally do if the cognitive mechanism supported it, then we should not be held culpable by a God on the basis of freewill. I think this can be extrapolated proportionally from the extreme to the average person.

At what point would be "convicted of sin"? Would it be better to kill ourselves when we think we are at our most "righteous" and hope for the best?

I am going to continue to post these types of news articles as I find them.

Some Advice To Those Who Leave Christianity

Today I received this email: "John I finished reading your book this week and am now no longer a Christian...."

I have been heading strongly in that direction for about a month. I was wondering if you could give some advice on what to do next. How do I minimise the damage to relationships with my wife, my son, my relatives and friends as I tell them about my new world view?

My biggest concern is my son, who attends a private Christian school. I know hardly anything about child psychology and am not sure how my decision not to be Christian any more will affect him. As much as possible I want to avoid causing my son any long-term confusion, animosity towards me or any real difficulty at school, being the kid with the dad who doesn't believe in God. My wife will be very unsettled to find that I no longer believe.

Do you have any advice on how I should go about it, or can you recommend any kind of book?

Because my family and relatives currently believe I am still a Christian, I feel I must do something very soon, because my normal life is to go to church, answer my son's questions about God at home, pray with him at bed time, pray with my wife and mother-in-law at times, and say grace at dinner.

I look forward to hearing from you and would appreciate the opportunity to remain anonymous, at least for now.
Yours sincerely
"QA"

Here's what I wrote to him:

It's nice to know my book has helped you. For your next book I highly recommend this one by Dr. Winell.

Your questions are painful ones, situational ones, that I would need to know more about you and your family and your son to offer you specific advice. That's why you should get Dr. Winell's book. She also does seminars.

Yours is a troubling case. I know I wouldn't want to damage my relationships with my family. Some atheists in the past just keep quiet about their doubts because that's all they could do, to not talk about them. Wow, that's something I couldn't do, especially now in this era.

What I did as I was becoming an unbeliever was to express questions that would be considered on the fringes of that which wouldn't alert people to the fact that I took these questions seriously. I would ask, "what would you say if someone said this....?" And I would then ask a tough question, but accept their answer as if that settles it. Then I would do it again, and again, and again. Christian people thought of me as playing the "Devil's Advocate," and they actually liked my questions since it gave them a challenge. [Actually, I didn't really deceive people by doing this. I merely expressed the questions I was wrestling with as I was questioning these things myself].

If I were you I would express my doubts to your wife by slowly introducing the subject with several "Devil's Advocate" type questions when reading the Bible. How long I'd do this (days, weeks, or months) would depend upon factors I don't know about your situation. After planting these seeds I would simply tell her that I was struggling with doubt. She'd probably recommend a book or tell you to talk to the preacher, and I would do this. I would ask the preacher some of my questions and tell him I'm struggling with doubt. He'd likely offer you some advice and some books to read. Then when the time is right I'd tell my wife I no longer believe. This doesn't mean you should tell everyone at that point, just her. Explain to her why you don't believe. Have her read my book. Then see where things go from there. At some point you'd have to play it by ear after that.

----------------------
I just learned from someone that when a Campus Crusade for Christ minister told his wife he no longer believed, she told him in turn that she didn't either! This is the exception rather than the rule, but interesting nonetheless.

----------------------

I wish you well. There are no pat answers.

Eddie Tabash Recommends My Book!

Today I went to the Grand Opening of the new Center for Inquiry Indiana, where Paul Kurtz, Toni Van Pelt, Joe Nicholl and Eddie Tabash were the main speakers. Tabash spoke on the topic, “The Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms,” and it was very motivating for me.

Eddie was talking to some people before he spoke and I went up to listen in and to introduce myself. He read my name tag before I could do so. Then he asked me, "did you write the book against Christianity," and I nodded. Then he turned to the people he was talking to and said, “John’s book is the finest refutation of Christianity I have read. I use it in my debates.” Then turning back to me he said, “I bought twelve copies to give away.” As the author of the book I think what I wrote is good too (of course), but hearing it from someone like him, whom I admire so much, felt really good. I saw a video of the debate he had with William Lane Craig before he had read my book (shown below). He did such an excellent job it’s hard to see how my book helps him in his debates. But he said it does, and for that I’m very grateful.

He joins the ranks of others who recommend it…

…like skeptics Daniel Dennett, Paul Kurtz, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Carrier, Edward Babinski (who wrote the Foreword to it), Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, David Van Allen, Matthew Green, Joe Holman, Chris Hallquist, and others. Kurtz said my book "has the makings of being a great book,” and that he’s “eager to see it in print." On the back cover and inside pages of the Prometheus Books edition there will probably be recommendations by Michael Shermer, John Beversluis, Robert M. Price, Andrea Weisberger, and if the time frame permits him, from Jeffery Jay Lowder (at least, they all have expressed an interest in seeing it for a blurb).

On the Christian side of the fence, Norman L. Geisler and James F. Sennett both recommend it too. Other Christian thinkers who have expressed an interest in seeing it are Paul Copan, Michael Murray, Richard Swinburne, Mark Linville (who is potentially planning on using it in an apologetics seminar), and William Baker (the editor of the Stone-Campell Journal--my former denominational journal). Bill Craig knows about it and will surely take a look at it when it comes out. Scot McKnight is writing a chapter describing the reasons why Christians lose their faith and is highlighting my story.

I don’t tell my readers these things to bore them, or to pat myself on the back (even though it’s nice to be patted by others), or to make money off the sales (of course, if it can help pay a few bills that would really help me out), or to make a name for myself (although, as a middle child we learn that negative attention is still attention). No. My number one goal is to produce the best damn counter-apologetics book on the market today that does not just preach to the skeptical choir, so to speak, if possible (and if not, it’s still a worthy goal). The reason I want to do this is because the better I can make my book, the more it will be read, and I want people to read it! If I hadn’t written the book I would still want people to read a book like this one. If Eddie's recommendation and the others are even somewhat on the mark, my book has the potential of changing the thinking of Christians in America, and the reason why I want to do this was expressed very eloquently by Eddie today in his talk!

The debate between Tabash and Craig:

Latest Amazon Review of my Book

You know I can't resist....

Mr. Loftus has written a thorough treatise on why he rejected his evangelical Christianity and became and atheist. This is not solely a personal account of why he left the church and ministry, although it starts out that way. The book begins with a brief biography, explaining how he became so enamored of evangelical x-tianity that he eventually made the ministry his livelihood. It is particularly honest of Mr. Loftus to quote his early writings in these passages so the reader can see how thoughtful yet profoundly mistaken he was.

The remainder of the book is Mr. Loftus addressing some of the main problems of the Jesus religion and the Bible. He wants the reader to understand that he did not reject x-tianity so he could sin and not feel guilt--his was a thoughtful and scholarly admission that x-tianity cannot be a description of real historical events upon which a person should base her/his life.

If Jesus was a historical figure, about which no one can be certain, he did not perform miracles; he probably didn't die on a cross or tree; and he most certainly didn't arise zombie-like from the dead and scare gullible folk in Palestine before ascending to heaven. The Bible, Loftus comes to understand, is mythologic ramblings of superstitious peasants. The story of Adam and Eve is clearly a fable; there was no universal flood; people don't repent in a whale's gullet and then preach to Nineveh. The Gospels are clearly embellishments of an early god-man myth, the writers of which are clearly trying to convince other people to believe in their brand of x-tianity rather than trying to tell us of real events (to which they could not have been witnesses).

An important fact arises from Mr. Loftus' discussion--intelligent adults rarely becomes x-tians. The author, William Craig Lane, and most people who babble about x-tianity joined before they were thinking clearly (as adolescents), or were inculcated as children. An intelligent outsider would never buy all the baloney that is x-tianity.

After coming to these shocking conclusions, Mr. Loftus was left with no choice but to look at the world rationally and employ healthy skepticism as he re-created his entire world view. The bulk of Mr. Loftus' exegesis is lengthy quotations from John Hick, William Craig Lane, and many apologists from the InterVarsity Press (what a freakshow that place must be!). This is a highly recommended read for those who have the courage to examine the predominant superstition in the United States.