As You Celebrate The Horror of Easter

-=A Human Sacrifice=-

and flaunt your little dead men on a stick, check your facts, most things that Easter depends on don't cross-check. [edited 4/15/2009. added links]

- Biblical scripture is no more accurate than other writings that cover the same period of time. Not what you'd expect from the revealed word of God.

- The story of passover, Jesus, and a dying and rising god all are of a type of theme of folklore that pervaded the Near East during that period of time.

- Moses, existence hasn't been verified yet. He may never have existed, and may be a version of Sargon of Akkad. If he didn't exist, then all the things that depend on him in the Bible need to have their accuracy and reliability re-assessed.

- The exodus hasn't been verified yet, but it is clear that if it did happen, it didn't happen as it is described in the Bible.

- The author of Genesis or authors of Genesis cannot be identified, therefore neither can their credentials or if they were in a position to know. Therefore the information is of low quality.

- Adam obviously never existed, and if he did the scripture is so inaccurate so as to make the story more dubious than not. There was never a time when he and Eve would have been alone, and his first son went out and founded a town or a city. Towns and Cities started popping up after 10,000 BC.

- Jesus never clearly stated he was God. The phrase used to support the claim of Jesus as God are of the type that are used by Jews to express their belief that God lives in all of us and we influence the world through him by our actions that he approves of.

- The Jews never said he was the Messiah, he never qualified. The Messiah was supposed to be a politician and engineer. Jesus wasn't even close to being an engineer, if he was he could have showed them how to make the world a better place by speeding up the invention of quite a few things, likewise if he were God.

- The principle that all of us have done things so egregious to warrant the death penalty is itself egregious. Name one thing that you have done that you should be put to death for.

- The principle that someone else can suffer the death penalty for us to resolve the problem is similarly egregious. Should anyone be punished not to mention given the death penalty for things that you do? Is the death penalty Just?

- The principle that a Sacrifice can appease a God has been shown to be flawed because all the other Gods that required a sacrifice have been shown to be folklore. What makes Yahweh any different?

- The principle that a Human Sacrifice can appease a God has been shown to be flawed because all the other Gods that required a Human Sacrifice have been shown to be folklore. Are you okay with the Human Sacrifice to absolve you of Sin?

- The principle that a perfect God WANTS a sacrifice is highly doubtful. You can't say he's perfect if he's not in a perfect state, and if wants something then he's missing something.

- If we are flawed, God is responsible because he made us this way.

- It is possible to be compelled to unacceptable behavior by biological factors, and unacceptable behavior, is in the eye of the beholder, even if we all agree that killing children is bad. God ordered children to be ripped from their mothers wombs and William Lane Craig defended it in one of his forums if you can believe that.

- The authors of the Gospels cannot be identified, therefore neither can their credentials or if they were in a position to know. Therefore the information is of low quality.

- The Gospels themselves don't agree, making them unreliable by definition of criteria that determines if information is unreliable.

- The Gospels depend on one of the most unreliable forms of evidence, Eye Witness Testimony.

- Theology behind Easter depends on Paul. He set it up. But he wasn't in a position to know, because he wasn't there at the beginning. The story of his conversion is unreliable because there are two slightly different versions of it and if you go to bible gateway.com and look up both of them, using multiple Bible versions and analyze them, you can have even more versions depending on which translation they used. I know because I've done it to prepare for a forthcoming article.

- Paul, like Jesus referenced a non-existent Adam, therefore the source of the information in both cases was not divine, but from scripture, which is of demonstrably low quality because the authors, the authors credentials and the authors position to know are all unverifiable.

- Its simple, since there was no Adam, and Jesus didn't qualify to be the Messiah, and Jesus was not God because he referenced Adam which demonstrates that he had no supernatural knowledge, then he was just one of the people that got caught for rabble rousing around the passover and put on the cross for six hours. The Koran says he didn't die, and the fact that there is no body, and the fact that many people survived crucifixion, especially for such a short period of time supports that theory

Now please get rid of all those disgusting dead men on a stick that are displayed everywhere and hanging around your necks.

FURTHER READING
A LIST OF PREMISES AS ARTICLES REFUTING GENESIS 1-11 AND ROMANS 5 SO FAR
P1. The Interconnectedness of The Ancients - Demonstrates the robust ancient civilizations at the time and that Canaan, Israel and Judah were central to them. Discusses trade routes, seafaring, the link between whales and the Leviathans of Mythology and how long it would take to get from one civilization to another by sea.

P2. Genesis 1:1-25 Is An Amalgam of Near Eastern Creation Myths. Demonstrates the prior existence of key elements of the story of the creation of the Universe that appears in Genesis.

P3.Genesis 1:26-1:27, Creation of Humans in Near Eastern Myths And The Paleolithic Era. Demonstrates that the physical evidence contradicts the story of the making of the first humans in Genesis.

P4.GENESIS 1:28-2:4a, Be Fruitful And Multiply, Founder Effect and Genetic Diversity. This Article shows that even if the physical evidence didn't refute the special creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve, in Genesis 1:27, the problem of Genetic Diversity known as the "Founder Effect" would eventually lead to crippling genetic mutations or extinction.

P5.Genesis 2:4b-20 Man Made From Earth Is Folklore, Conflated River Elements and the Myth of Adapa. This Article shows that the concept of man made from earth spans cultures and geographical boundaries, the rivers are confused between geographical areas and has many elements from pre-existing Near Eastern Myths such as "The Myth of Adapa.

P6. Genesis 2:21-25: Woman From Rib and Mother Goddesses of Near Eastern Myths. This Article shows that in the second creation story in genesis the concept of woman made from bone, earth and antler pre-existed the writing of Genesis, spanned cultures and geographical boundaries and that Eve shares aspects of Goddesses in Ancient Near Eastern Mythology.

Valerie Tarico on Ancient Sumerian Origins of the Easter Story

What do you think?

Faith in the Illogical: The Evolution of a Relative God and Its Theology

The major problem with Christian theology is that it is so confusing and contradictory from what we learn and experience in everyday reality of life, that one is forced to either simply give up or rely on faith in order to follow it.


Just an objective casual reading of the English Bible reveals an evolving god based in a limited cultic setting of Canaan who is bound in a contract called a “covenant” to a small group of people know as the Hebrews. This a covenantal contract that binds all these local Hebrew is a standard ancient Near Eastern type of covenant that binds all gods of the neighboring areas to their chosen Semitic people also.

But one thing is clear; as Yahweh grows, so must the theology that defines him. This is easily seen in the J and E accounts of Genesis as later edited by P in order to keep God relevant and up to date.

Plus, this ancient god has a number of different names in Hebrew, but the ancient use of Yahweh (J) and God (E) are his major titles especially in the limited god of Genesis 3 who walks, talks and has limited knowledge (God has to ask Adam and Eve what happened (Gen. 3) and latter, Cain where Able is? (Gen. 4).

What we have is the old classic question: Which came first: The Chicken or the Egg? Or, as applied here: Which came first: God or Theology? For the objective mind, logic shows that as theology advances or changed, the concept of God also advances and changes. What theology shows is that humans learn by their past religious mistakes and put out new editions of God.

Even if one does not follow the editing of the Hebrew text into J,E,P,D and their subtexts, one is soon faced with the fact that the god of the Patriarchs is not the same God found in Second Isaiah (40 - 66), nor the God to the nations as preached by the Later Prophets. When theology moves on; so must Yahweh.

It is when we get to the New Testament with its Greek language pregnant with Greek philosophical terms and concepts that the old god Yahweh has now completely faded into an ancient past and a new revised theology emerges from the Hebrew Bible as translated into the Septuagint (LXX) which is itself quoted in the so called New Covenant / Testament. Now the limited Yahweh ceases to exists and what is left metamorphose into the Classical Greek term Theos or what know as “God” universal.

To shorten this post and stimulate discussion, I would like to engage the human mind in some basic fundamentals of logic with the underlying question focused on how Christians live their daily lives on one level of logic, which could cost them their lives if not followed closely, only to accept the illogics of evolved theology which one must force one’s brain accept illogically by faith grown denial just to worship this concept call “God“.

So here are some questions about this God at Passover (Easter) drawn from my everyday logic: (Take a shot at one or more)

A. If Jesus knowingly went up to Jerusalem at Passover to die, did Jesus commit suicide? If not, why not? Can a human suicide be an acceptable sacrifice?

B. If Jesus and God are ONE (Incarnation), did God commit suicide with Jesus or did the doctrine of the Incarnation cease at the time of the crucifixion as believed by some ancient Christian heresies? (In other words, did God “jump ship” and, if so, when?)

C. If it grieved God to have to give up his only begotten son, Jesus; how did God get himself into this “Catch 22” situation? If he can’t get out of his own theological sin trap, is the old local Hebrew god Yahweh (who is now become the universal God in the New Testament (and especially in Paul)) subordinate to another even higher GOD to whom this God must take his marching orders from?

D. Can Christian theology finally become so contradictory and illogical that it will be rejected (as atheists do now) or will it require more and more faith just to counter the increasing illogics of its theology as our own tangible world becomes more logical? Will the only answer to the illogics of Christian Theology be the rapidly increasing growth of Christian sects and cults (over 20,000 now) where all are trying to make logical sense out of the all this illogical theology (where most are claiming to have been given the real truth as a way to proselytizes converts)?

E. In short, will the evolution of God and theology ever stop?

I Challenge YOU!

Since I personally like to be challenged, I in turn issue challenges to people who visit DC. Here are several links to the biggest challenges I've issued so far:

My main book reading challenge is called the Debunking Christianity Challenge.

But I have also issued a different kind of book reading challenge to all conservative Christians.

If you want to debate me then I challenge you to do this!

Not to be left out, here is a strategy type of challenge to all skeptics.

Some people are stepping up to some of these challenges. Depending on who you are and what you believe, I challenge YOU! Are you up to it?

The Golden Rule: a Parallel Analogy to The Outsider Test for Faith

Dr. James McGrath wrote something that I think expresses my Outsider Test for Faith. It's the Golden Rule, and he claims this is a Christian way to do historical studies, See for yourself...

One doesn't have to be committed in advance to history's inability to deal with miracles in order to begin to realize that one cannot claim that Christianity is grounded purely in history while other traditions are at best shrouded in myth. One simply has to apply the most basic Christian principle to one's investigation of the competing claims. That's what happened in my case. I didn't know that much about historical methodology yet as an undergraduate interested in defending and spreading his faith.

But I did know about fairness, about treating others as you would want them to treat you. The Golden Rule.

And so what does it mean to do history from a Christian perspective? It doesn't mean to allow for miracles in the Biblical stories while assuming that, when the cookies are missing and your child says he or she doesn't know what happened to them, that you're dealing with a lie and theft rather than a miracle. It doesn't mean defending Christian claims to miracles and debunking those of others, nor accepting Biblical claims uncritically in a way you never would if similar claims were made in our time.

It means doing to the claims of others what you would want done to your claims. And perhaps also the reverse: doing to your own claims, views and presuppositions that which you have been willing to do to the claims, views and presuppositions of others.

Once one begins to attempt to examine the evidence not in an unbiased way, but simply fairly, one cannot but acknowledge that there are elements of the Christian tradition which, if they were in your opponent's tradition, you would reject, debunk, discount, and otherwise find unpersuasive or at least not decisive or compelling.

Here's the link.

To read more from McGrath about the historian's methods see this link.

What Do the London Times, The Society of Biblical Literature, and Prometheus Books Have in Common? Lil Ole Me.

Here are some exciting developments for this no-name first time author...

The London Times Religion editor is going to review my book soon. He wrote:

"The role of science in bringing – or not bringing – us to the threshold of religious belief is discussed in The Future of Atheism (SPCK) and other new books such as John Loftus’s Why I Became an Atheist (Prometheus Books) and David Ramsay Steele’s Atheism Explained (Open Court). Watch out, too, for a different kind of work – I Don’t Believe in Atheists (Continuum) by Chris Hedges, a journalist on the New York Times. Though himself an unbeliever, Hedges has harsh things to say about some of religion’s contemporary despisers. He warns that the science-religion debate is far from resolved, and that fundamentalism does not infect one side of the argument alone. The TLS will carry reviews of all these books in the near future."

Here's the Link.

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

Along with Dr. Hector Avalos I've been invited to the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans to be on a panel discussing Bill Maher's Religulous movie.

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

Prometheus Books just gave me the initial approval for a book of chapters I proposed to edit by people such as Drs. Hector Avalos, David Eller, John Beversluis, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Robert M. Price, along with Harry McCall, Dan Barker, Edward T. Babinski, Matthew Green, yours truly, and some others. More on this later but not now.

Newsweek Front Page Story: The Decline and Fall of a Christian Nation

Below are some quotes from the lead article:

...the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent.

While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world."

Still, in the new NEWSWEEK Poll, fewer people now think of the United States as a "Christian nation" than did so when George W. Bush was president (62 percent in 2009 versus 69 percent in 2008). Two thirds of the public (68 percent) now say religion is "losing influence" in American society, while just 19 percent say religion's influence is on the rise. The proportion of Americans who think religion "can answer all or most of today's problems" is now at a historic low of 48 percent. During the Bush 43 and Clinton years, that figure never dropped below 58 percent.

Here's the Link

Prof. James McGrath on Historical Studies and Methodological Naturalism

He said:

On methodological naturalism, I don't see how historical study can adopt any other approach, any more than criminology can. It will always be theoretically possible that a crime victim died simply because God wanted him dead, but the appropriate response of detectives is to leave the case open. In the same way, it will always be possible that a virgin conceived, but it will never be more likely than that the stories claiming this developed, like comparable stories about other ancient figures, as a way of highlighting the individual's significance. And since historical study deals with probabilities and evidence, to claim that a miracle is "historically likely" misunderstands the method in question.

Link.

Good, now let's turn to the Bible...

A New Phrase for Your Funk and Wagnalls: "pulling a Loftus."

For future reference, Victor Reppert can first be credited with using this line. ;-)

A Critique of Mark Linville's, "The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism"

Mark's chapter on this is to appear in the upcoming Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, eds, William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Common Sense Atheism charges that Linville commits the Genetic Fallacy. It's an interesting argument, one that cuts both ways and one that needs to be addressed, something Keith Parsons has weighed in on here, and also here. What do you think?

Chris Hallquists New Book: UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God: Debunking the Resurrection of Jesus.

This book is unique in that it compares the claim that Jesus arose from the dead with other paranormal claims. Since modern claims to the paranormal have better attested evidence to them than Jesus rising from the dead, if we reject the former we should also reject the latter. This is a very informative book. He has done his research. I heartily recommend it. You can get it here.

Dr. William Lane Craig: "I Will Not Debate John W. Loftus"

That's right. That's what he said...in so many words.

I learned from DC member Darrin at the Carrier/Craig debate that Craig said he would not debate his former students. That's what he said.

I am now classed with a group of people, i.e., the people comprised of his former students. And Dr. Craig says he will not debate anyone in that class of people. Okay, I guess. But given the fact that I'm probably the only member of this class of people who wants to debate him he might as well have said: "I will not debate John W. Loftus."

I've heard him say this before about former students, so it’s not really like he’s singling me out, or is it?

While I was a student of his he said something I thought was odd at the time. This was back in 1985 at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine." Keep in mind that Dr. Craig was on a High School debate team and has been debating these topics for probably just as long as I've been thinking about them. And he had only been teaching a few years before this to actually know of any student who might want to debate him. But that’s what he said. Again, he said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine."

He cannot deny saying this, and I don't think he will.

Does he really fear me? I don’t know. But just maybe he does after all. He could change his mind though. I think a lot of people would be interested in this match-up.

In any case, the stated reason why he won't debate former students is that he "fears" doing so. Yep. That's what he told me when the cameras were off before the thought crossed his mind that I would want to debate him and would use his words against him. Again, he fears debating former students. That's his only word as to why he won't do it. One more time. He fears debating me.

If that word gets out he may have to man up, as it were, and show his followers that he isn't afraid.

Q.E.D

Christopher Hitchens in the "Den of Lambs"

I love Christopher Hitchen's tenacity and passion along with his literary examples. See him mix it up with Christians at the recent Christian book expo...




At about 33 minutes it gets interesting. Go get'em Hitch! I found the standard answers by the Christian panelists to be pathetic, really pathetic.

To read more about the Elisabeth Fritzl case that Hitchens mentioned, follow the link.

Another Review of My Book: "Comprehensiveness" Sets it Apart From Other Atheist Works

Link

John W. Loftus’ Why I Became an Atheist: a Former Preacher Rejects Christianity doesn't really blaze new ground, but it does cover a lot of it.

In fact, this comprehensiveness is a key distinctive that separates it from the work of the "New Atheist" trio, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris.

Uniquely, Loftus provides a taste of all these critiques in his over 400-page, densely-packed tome. In other words, if one were look for a recent survey text for atheistic argumentation, this book would more than suffice.

To read other reviews click here.

William Lane Craig "Won by a Landslide" Against Hitchens

That's what Roger Sharp said on Facebook after watching the debate in person. [Full disclosure, Sharp is a Christian]. This is exactly what I had predicted. Christian professor Doug Geivett weighed in on the debate where he said: Craig "was thoroughly prepared for every aspect of the debate and never faltered in his response to objections by Hitchens," and that Hitchens's arguments "were largely unfocused, sometimes disconnected, and often irrelevant." Over at Common Sense Atheism (which is a great source for Craig debates) is an atheist review of the debate where we read: "Frankly Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child." For more info visit here.

I would really like to try my hand at debating the master debater. Anyone else like to see that? If the debate was on Christianity vs. Atheism, what would you think my chances are? See the new poll on the sidebar. You can choose more than one answer.

Darrin Rasberry Interview: A "Searching Agnostic"

[Written by John W. Loftus] DC Blogger Darrin wrote the foreword to Ray Comfort’s latest book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can’t Make Him Think. It's an interesting interview. Enjoy.

Another Pastor Leaves the Fold

Former Evangelical Pastor, Bruce Gerencser, announced he no longer affirms Christianity, seen here. It appears that Christianity not only fails the outsider test for faith, it also fails the insider test for faith. Even Christians on the inside cannot continue to believe it!

Is the Bible Ever Wrong? Peter Enns vs. Stephen Chapman

Link. For more on the topic by Evangelicals see Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, and Kenton L. Sparks, God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship.

Who is Open Minded, the Believer or the Scientifically Minded Skeptic?

The video might take a bit to load...

Science, Biblical Criticism, and Double Standards (Sigh, Par for the Course)

In my book, Why I Became an Atheist, the reader will find several chapter length arguments, some paragraph length arguments, and then there are a bunch of "gems" scattered around that could be made into larger arguments. I think what I’ve written fits together as a whole quite well, but if the reader really wants to get the full scope of it then try reading through the book a second time. Several arguments in the early parts of the book depend for their force on the arguments in the later parts of the book.

One such scattered “gem,” if you will, is mentioned on page 61 where I argued that since methodological naturalism “has produced so many significant results, I think it should equally be used to investigate the Bible, its claims of the miraculous, and the origins of the universe itself, and it provides a great deal of evidence against the Christian faith.” [I mention this on pages 50, 119-120, and again on page 185].

What is methodological naturalism? It’s a method in scientific inquiry whereby “all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.” Dr. Barbara Forrest tells us that “a massive amount of knowledge" has been gained by using this method.

This same method has been adopted by historians. Bart D. Ehrman, as a historian, adopts this method when it comes to studying the Bible, especially the New Testament, his area of specialty.

The rise of Biblical Criticism can probably be seen in light of the rise of modern science which adopted the method of naturalism. Again, we’ve gained a “massive amount of knowledge” from using it.

Applied to Biblical studies scholars have assumed a natural rather than a supernatural explanation for the stories inside the pages of the Bible. Based on the assumption that the past is just like the present in which miracles don’t occur, by taking their cue from the scientific enterprise that assumes a natural explanation for everything, Biblical scholars began studying the Bible afresh. As historians that’s what they must do. Robert M. Price tells us that if historians didn’t assume a natural explanation for events in the past they would be “at the mercy of every medieval tale, every report that a statue wept, or that someone changed lead into gold or turned into a werewolf.” [Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, p. 20].

Many believers reject what these Biblical scholars as historians do, but why? Why is it that methodological naturalism has worked extremely well in every area where it's been used--every single one--but that when it comes to looking the collection of canonized books in the Bible such a method should not be used? My claim is that since methodological naturalism has worked so extremely well in every area where it's been used--every single one--that we should apply that same method when it comes to studying the Bible.

If believers don’t want to apply methodological naturalism across the board into Biblical studies, then please tell me where it should be applied and where it shouldn't. If this method should not be applied to the Bible then why do believers hold to a double standard, allowing it to be used when seeking a cure for cancer (why not call for a miracle worker instead?), or to discover our evolutionary biology (why not just quote Genesis 1 and shun science altogether?), or to explain the weather (why not just do a rain dance?), or a crime scene (why not just cast lots as they supposedly did in Joshua's day?), or a freak tragic accident (why not just say God was punishing someone?), or a noise in the night (demons? angels?), but not when it comes to the stories in the Bible?

This is probably the crux of the issue with me. Without assuming a natural explanation in science and in historical studies we would still think God alone opens the womb, that sicknesses are the result of sin, that the reason we win wars is because God was pleased, and the reason why there are natural disasters is because God is displeased. Given these type of supernatural explanations we would already have the needed explanations in God so there would be no room for science, which is undeniably important to the human race for a wide variety of reasons.

Certainty is Unattainable Through Science and Reason? So What?

Eric commented

...take any proposition you believe to be supported by 'science and reason,' and proceed to provide the premises that support it. Take any one of these premises and support it. Continue. It won't take long at all before you reach a premise that you can't justify scientifically, and a short time after that you'll find a premise you can't justify with 'reason.' What then?

I agree with Eric on this. But there are two things I'd like to say about it:

1) This gets him no where as I've explained in my original post. Based on this admission he simply cannot all-of-a-sudden bring into the equation the whole host of assumptions he needs to do in order to believe in the Christian faith. I maintain that a believer cannot drive a truckload of assumptions through a mere possibility once it's admitted that certainty is unattainable in science and in reasoning. Simple assumptions, i.e. Ockham's razor, are better. For if Eric can do that based on his Christian assumptions when science and reason don't work at the level of certainties, then a voodoo witchdoctor or a Hindu, or a Muslim can do the same exact thing and bring into the equation all of their assumptions too. It seems as though the admission that science and reason don't work to produce certainties is used by believers like Eric with a type of carte blanch authority to write any amount in a blank check when it comes to one's own beliefs. But this blank check approach fails the outsider test for it allows too much that other faiths would reject. If it's the case that simply because we can't be apodictically certain of much of anything means we can write our own belief checks for as much as we want to, then anything, and I mean anything goes. Let's just believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Celestial Teapot at that point. They would have the same epistemological grounding.

2) When we reach a point where reason and science don't help us when trying to find the bottom of the rabbit hole, what we do at that point is we use our background beliefs to solve the question. Even though science and reason do not help us down there, we can still place that question next to the other things we believe and then have a good reason for deciding what to believe about the question in hand. Since we cannot investigate every sub-discipline of a sub-discipline what we believe can at least cohere with what else we believe.

But of course, this is what gets us all into trouble, because as human beings we believe contradictory things which we think cohere with the rest of what we believe, but we don't realize that what we believe is contradictory with other things we believe! This too favors being skeptical of our beliefs, all of them, to varying degrees (Quine's web of beliefs).

An important point I made in my initial post is that, science, and I’ll add reason, are the best we’ve got. They are the best antidote to wishful thinking, the best chance we have for getting it right. If we don’t lean on science and reason then anything goes at all, anything. And since certainty is an impossible goal then defending every proposition is unnecessary even if it’s practically impossible.

I’ve subjected a few of the most often proffered examples of beliefs for which it's claimed we have no scientific evidence for them right here, and even when it comes to these strange possibilities I have good reason to reject these examples. So what if we cannot prove otherwise? So what if there is always a possibility that we're wrong? We’re looking at what is probable, not possible. That’s all we can do!

Cheers.

If You Think You Know What Christianity Is: Think Again!

If God has a website; could this be it?


Have you ever wondered what it really sounds like as human souls burn for eternity in the fires of Hell?

Does the Pope and the Catholic Church Worship Satan?

Does Satan write Bibles and can Bibles be demon possessed?

Don't Be Fooled on April Fool's Day: Take the Outsider Test for Faith

The Outsider Test for Faith argument can be found in my book, or online in an edited version right here. I've recently defended it from some of Dr. Victor Reppert's criticisms. One Christian minister encourages believers to take the test! I also provided an example of what it means to take the test. So let me just say on this April Fool's Day that taking this test is the best and probably the only way to know the truth about what you believe. And here's why...

It's because of who we are. When it comes to the religious faiths we were raised to accept, it's not just that they may be false, which seems obvious, given their proliferation around the globe into geographically distinct locations. It's much worse than that. It's that, well, if Christian philosopher Victor Reppert was raised in a different home, and had different experiences, and read different books, and studied under different professors, and got a teaching appointment in a different place, then he could be an atheist philosopher right now, just as atheist philosopher Keith Parsons could be a Christian philosopher right now if he had led the life that Reppert did and his experiences were likewise reversed.

Deny this if you think you can.

That's how bad it is when it comes to anyone who claims to know the truth about these issues, and that's how bad it is when it comes to the claim that we as human beings can think outside the box and reason correctly, objectively, and dispassionately, without prejudices or preconceived notions. We can't, or at least, if we can, the only thing we can and should trust is the empirical sciences. That's our only hope. Science is the best we've got, and even science has it's problems.

We believe what we were raised to believe, and we defend what we want to believe for the most part. It's really bad. It's terrible. We humans are illogical creatures, especially when it comes to these issues. All of us.

Let me put it to you this way, if you read everything that I have read and experienced everything that I have experienced, then you would think on these issues exactly the same way I do.

Deny this if you can.

So there is only one way to deal with a particular whole way of looking at these things...by looking at it as a whole. And the best way to do so is from the outside, from the perspective of skepticism. If the opposite is being gullible then skepticism is favored by far, given who we are as human beings and what we learned to believe on our Mama's knees.

Therein lies the dilemna and I think I have a handle on this better than most anyone I've seen argue on the web about these types of issues. We are not the rational creatures we want to appear to be. As human beings we are in terrible shape on these kinds of issues. And since we know this to be true we should be skeptical about that which we were raised to believe. And we should be skeptical about that which we want to believe. It's that simple.

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

Christian, no, don't say I should be skeptical about that which I believe too. In some sense when it comes to that which I affirm, I already am! I affirm an agnostic atheism. Join me. Will you say the same thing? Will you affirm that you are an agnostic believer (but isn't that an oxymoron)? In any case, if this is my problem I embrace it. Although, someone will need to explain to me how a skeptic can be skeptical about beliefs he doesn't have! A skeptic affirms no religious beliefs but merely says to the believer, "show me." Why should we consider non-beliefs as equivalent to beliefs? [Examples of non-beliefs: do you believe in the Eastern ONE, do you have a belief about ilks who might live in the stratosphere?].

Besides, it'll do you absolutely no good at all to pass the buck back to me. Whether I am skeptical of my agnostic atheism or not should mean nothing with regard to what you need to do, believer. Even if I am inconsistent you still need to subject your own beliefs to the outsider test. You still need to be skeptical about them. You still need to embrace the scientific method. It's the only antidote to the fallibility of the human mind.

We're Growing!

Not bad, eh?

Arizona Atheist: Arguments Against God's Existence

He'd like some feedback on this blog post and I don't have the time right now. He writes:

The truth is, though, that I see nothing special about these arguments. Each of these arguments are fatally flawed when you think about them for just a few minutes (or when you look at the contradictory evidence).

Do you think he makes his case? Link