How Can We Best Debunk Christianity?

Since we now have a few good reasons why Christianity flourishes, I asked this question: "If we have an idea why Christianity flourishes, then understanding this can help us to debunk it. Given these reasons how is the best way to debunk it?" David Ellis was the first one to weigh in:

I think the most vitally important thing for debunkers of religion to be aware of is that intellectual argument, while it may be effective for those individuals more inclined by temperment and interests toward rationality in the first place, is only part of the solution. Since most of us are deconverts because of intellectual difficulties with the claims of religion we tend to be a bit myopic in our approach.

I think we can all learn a lot by looking to the example of Julia Sweeney. She does something which is much more likely to have an effect on the thinking of a broader audience than bare intellectual argumentation----she tells the story of her deconversion in LETTING GO OF GOD in its personal and emotional aspects as much as in its intellectual content.

Just a few of the things we should focus on:

--open and personally engaging deconversion stories.

--the positive emotional and societal benefits of critical thinking (with a particular focus on specific examples rather than general and theoretical discussions of the topic).

--the promotion of openness in one's religious skepticism among the atheist/agnostic community. The more people there are who are casually open with the fact that they're skeptical of religion the easier it will be for believers to question their own articles of faith.

Any other suggestions?

The Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

You can listen to it here.

Why Does Christianity Flourish?

This is an exercise in understanding why Christianity has staying power and why it flourishes. This assumes the Christian faith is a delusion, something Christians will deny, of course. But why does Christianity flourish? Why does it seem to continue on even after some major moral setbacks (witch burnings, Crusades, pastor molesters, and the changing moral scene), along with the major intellectual crises since the Enlightenment? Given the rise of science and our new moral awareness it should've been sent into the backwoods long ago. [Valerie Tarico has prompted me with this question and I've encouraged her to post her interesting proposal]. Let me suggest it's because of several factors. I suspect the biggest reasons Christianity flourishes is because 1) People feel a need to be comforted by the concept of a heavenly daddy, 2) Christians think that without God there is no moral compass, and the fact that 3) Christianity has the most wonderful mythical religious story of all...that God loved us so much he came to earth to save us (never mind the horrors found within the Bible itself). What d'ya think?

------------
As a follow up to this post I ask another question.

You Want to Personally Attack Me? Do it Here!

I delete harassing comments. They are not conducive to a free and civil discussion of ideas. I will suspend our comment policy and allow them in this post only. You want to personally attack me. Do it here. No comment will be deleted...none. I'll try to respond as I have time. Get it off your chest once and for all. I am inured from such attacks without being indifferent.

What Motivates Me?

People will often ask what motivates me. This is a somewhat complicated topic that several of us have written about here. But I want to tell you what seems to motivate me the most...

I like taking on challenges…big ones. Throughout my whole life people have told me from time to time that I cannot do something, and I liked proving them wrong. I also challenge myself. I want to see how good I can get at something.

Several years ago I started writing up some lessons about 8-Ball for our pool league. The league operators begrudgingly copied them on the back of our score sheets. When pool players in our area saw them, they laughed at me…repeatedly. Whenever I missed a shot they would say, “Hey, Loftus, write that up as a lesson next week will you?” Sometimes people can be unmerciful, and they can hold you down. Apparently only the pro’s could give advice about pool, and since I wasn’t a pro, I shouldn’t presume to tell others how to play the game. Who did I think I was? It’s these naysayers who browbeat others into not even trying to do well. But they motivate me. Those pool players are no longer laughing. For three years now I have been writing monthly instructional columns for the best national billiard magazine in America, and I have a book about pool that is getting some excellent reviews. Just yesterday someone sent me a new training tool (worth $49.95) in hopes I would recommend it, and I did.

Anyway, I hate being laughed at. Being ridiculed and mocked motivates me like nothing else. It’s like pouring gasoline on the flames of my passion. I want to make these people eat their words, and I usually do. Yes, that’s right. I usually do. The reason is that I believe in myself. I know what I am capable of doing if I set my mind to it. I’ve been doing that all of my life. I even have a signature line on one Christian forum that reads: “Personally attacking me is like pouring gasoline on the flames on my passion. I get stronger. I've told you that from the beginning. You didn't believe me. Maybe someday you will.” But the Christian hyenas there like JP Holding and his ilk have ignored it.

So, if you want to motivate me, just mock me. Belittle me. Harass me. Christians have done this to me repeatedly here at DC and elsewhere. In my opinion they are Christianity’s worst enemies, for in doing what they do, they make me stronger. It motivates me to debunk the very faith that justifies their treatment of me. It makes me want to go for the jugular vein of their faith. I doubt very much that the sum total of JP Holding's apologetic efforts his whole life will be in the plus column after factoring in how he and his ilk motivated me to debunk his faith.

There is also a blog terrorist who visits us here at DC under so many names I can’t remember them all. He harasses me almost daily. First he tries to see if he can get by me, then he slips up and repeats (almost word for word) any number of demeaning false accusations against me. Then I ban him. Once banned from DC a person is banned forever (so don’t get banned in the first place). Then he starts another Blogger account and does it again. This process repeats itself almost daily. Then he goes around claiming that I delete any comment that I don’t like, hindering a free discussion of ideas. You’ll see him saying this on several blogs. A year ago there was a Christian named Paul Manata who started a blog claiming to be one of my followers, called the "discomfiter." While claiming to agree with me he grossly mischaracterized my arguments and made me look stupid. I think these Christians and their cronies have even poisoned the well against me with a few other skeptics who seem not to want anything to do with me.

All I can say is that this motivates me. If they are really concerned about the Christian faith against my arguments they shouldn’t do this. They should simply engage me with good arguments. They should defeat my arguments every time I post something. Why they don’t do this and resorts instead to these tactics just goes to show me they cannot adequately deal with my arguments. So come here and argue with us, reasonably. Any reasonable comment that does not harass us will not be deleted. Refer to our comment policy for details.

So let me just take a moment to thank all of those Christians who have ridiculed me in the past for motivating me. To you I owe a debt of gratitude. Your God must be very pleased with you.

What Do You Mean? Challenge

I have another challenge for the christians who dare to visit this site! (see my previous blog for the first challenge).

A basic Christianity 101 verse is John 14:14 - "Ask anything in My name, and I will do it." Verse 14 is actually a repeat of the previous verse...in other words, Jesus repeats himself...saying "if you ask anything I will do it."

That particular promise is repeated again in John 16:24 - "Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full."

So - here is the challenge: explain to me what you think is meant by "ask anything and I will do it." And further, explain to me why the promise stated so explicitly in those verses is so often and obviously broken?

One qualifier: you cannot use the old Whittinghill argument - "God says yes, no, or not now." There is no indication that Jesus gives himself wiggle room like that...he does not say "I might say yes, I might say no, I might say later, dude." The promise says "ask and it will be given to you."

I say bullshit! Prove me wrong.

Christian GroupThink Challenge

A few of the previous posts on the site question why Christian sites don't link to sites that present arguments of skepticism about Christianity. Or why Christians don't more willingly embrace skeptical humor concerning their faith.

For over 25 years, as a pastor in Christian churches, I noticed and (unfortunately and tragically) endorsed a "Christian GroupThink" within the Christian community. I can testify personally that one of the main purposes of Christian community (especially churches) is to build a "fortress" around the believer that attempts to deny them access to free thought, skepticism and atheism/agnosticism. This "fortress" is one of love, or the withholding of it - and emotional/relational punishment (isolation, avoidance, judgement) towards those who would dare "question" the doctrines of faith.

The church has a primary purpose - which has nothing to do with glorifying god or evangelism. Instead, the goal is indoctrination...forcing a group think onto individuals by means of Statements of Faith, creedal confessions, confirmation classes, and worship songs. Conformity to this group think leads to rewards - invitations to leadership, affirmation of value to the congregation or community, befriending by key leaders (maybe even the pastor) and a masonic-lodge type revelation of even deeper truths of faith or gossip about the community.

Most relational and organizational observers recognize group think as a process which seeks to hide - or deny - a fundamental lack of confidence in the group's purpose, belief system, or ethic. It is my observation that group think in the church is pervasive because of the failure of most Christians to believe their own religion. Reason is not a cruel task master, and most of the time most people know this. A Christian who would argue against reason in the name of faith would never get on a roller coaster that just had a hydraulic leak (yeh - it happened at Six Flags in Maryland this weekend). Why? Reason, of course! A logical mind would recognize the context and lead towards a decision that would protect the thinker.

That kind of thinking, however, is discouraged in the church because reason quickly leads to profound skepticism and even agnosticism or atheism. The "reason landmines" are numerous, and the only defense the church has is the "mighty fortress" - not of god - but of group think.

I would love to see a challenge where churches invite atheists, agnostics or other free thinkers to visit their congregations and began a reasonable dissertation against Christian faith. I would almost (almost being the operative word here) pay churches for the opportunity to make presentations and open up for question/answer sessions.

I believe there are more free thinkers in churches than most people would initially guess...but who would want to "come out" about their skepticism when it means that their family would be isolated, mistreated, their kids rejected, and perhaps even extended a "disinvitation" to the church because of their honesty?

Christians whine about the cost of discipleship. The cost of free and skeptical inquiry is much, much greater. Prove me wrong.

I make this challenge...if any visitor to this site reads this blog and wants to invite me to your church or group for a discussion and debate about free and skeptical inquiry, the fallacies of faith, biblical inconsistencies, etc...I will consider the challenge and make contact with you. I can't promise a visit...there are factors that I will explain if you express interest.

Come on...what do you have to lose???

Reasonable Doubt about the Problem of Evil

I challenge the whole premise of the problem of evil on the grounds that is not consistent with gods character as described in the bible. (surprise)[irony]
Personally I think this effectively refutes the Problem of Evil as a test and the assertion that it creates a greater good.
- god is all powerful,
- god is all knowing,
- god is perfectly good,
- god is perfectly merciful,
- god doesn't like to see us suffer
- the problem of evil creates a greater good

So a solution that is consistent will all the premises is that god would have breathed people into existence as they would have turned out as if they had suffered through the 'test'.

To say that it is more important to actually do the work and suffer when the same result could be achieved in another way which avoids needless suffering is logically inconsistent with several premises:
- god is all powerful
- god is perfectly good
- god is perfectly merciful
- the problem of evil creates a greater good

If god were not all powerful, then the problem of evil as a test might make sense as an argument from ignorance, but even then the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

To say that we are ignorant of gods motives means that the bible does not accurately describe god and we can't really know anything about him with certainty. Since the bible is the only authoritative descriptive evidence for god, then nothing else about god can be learned. That is to say that any conclusion about god is uncertain and nothing further can be learned. This is anoalogous to saying "I conclude this, but I am not sure, and I don't know how to know, but I deny evidence to the contrary".

Obviously my solution negates the need to create the universe, the world and us, therefore the problem of evil is refuted by our existence.

Skeptical Parody, Sarcasm and Humor

On the lighter side there are a few good skeptical sites that poke fun at those who believe. There is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and this video about them. And there is the Landover Baptist Church with a video of the Pastor speaking at a rally. I'm curious what other sites our readers like, just for fun. Link to them in the comments section below. Are there any funny songs written by skeptics that you like?

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.