Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

7) That although we see completely different perspectives and evolving theologies in the Bible, including many things that are barbaric and superstitious to the core, it was authored by one divine mind.

Answering Two Objections That Jesus Was a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet

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

How NOT to Argue Against Me: A Critique of Shandon L. Guthrie's Critique

You can find several summaries of my new book The Christian Delusion out there. But if you think dealing with a summary of a book is the same thing as dealing with the arguments in it, then think again. One professor did this with my previous book Why I Became an Atheist, and this is how I responded:

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

6) That although there are many other similar mythological stories told in Ancient Near Eastern Literature that pre-date what we read in the Bible, the stories in the Bible are about real events and real people.

The Best Case for Atheism

I like the concept of this post.

The Library of a Preacher Friend

Today I visited a "tent-making" pentecostal preacher/contractor friend and I was surprised to find he had a massive library filling up nearly a whole bedroom sized office space in his home. I browsed the books and did not find one book written by a liberal or a skeptic. I found Bible commentaries from conservative publishers, self-help psychology based Christian books (like how to have a good marriage, or raise good Christian kids), expositor's preaching books, spiritual warfare books, and a handful of apologetic books written by conservatives. He is a conservative and only reads conservative books. So no wonder he's a conservative. He does not have to read what the liberals say, or the skeptics. Others do that for him who tell him why they are wrong. His library assumes that the Bible is true. All he needs to do is understand the Bible and apply it. His reading is based on trust. He trusts conservatives to tell him how to understand, apply, and preach the truth. He does not trust anyone else. Others will deceive him. Sheesh.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

5) That there was a first human pair (Adam & Eve) who so grievously sinned against God when tested that all of the rest of us are being punished for it (including animals), even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished. If it's argued that all of us deserve to be punished because we all would have sinned, then the test was a sham. For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one. But if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions then there are people who are being punished for something they never would have done.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

4) That the highest created being, known as Satan or the Devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent God, and expected to win--which makes Satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.

What Best Debunks Religion: Studying Science Or the Humanities?

Science steadily but effectively acts as a corrosive to religion. That's why we must insist our students become more scientifically literate. But a recent study done by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research shows that what produces the most religious skepticism among college students is when they study the social sciences.

In other words, humanities and social sciences, much more than biological and mathematical sciences, challenge you to imagine the world though the eyes of others. And this exercise in imagination undercuts religious dogma far more effectively than any science lesson can.

A Paraphrase of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

What do you think of "Ed's paraphrase of the Kalam Cosmological Argument":

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe may have begun to exist, but the verdict is still out on that.
(3) Therefore, no conclusion about whether the universe has a cause can be advanced at this time. ;-) Link.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

3) There must exist a perfectly good, omnipotent God, who created a perfectly good universe out of a desire/need to glorify himself by rewarding in heaven the few human beings who just got lucky to believe by being born at the right time and place, and who will condemn to hell those who do not believe.

The End of Cosmology?

In the March '08 issue of Scientific American is an article describing the future of our universe. First click on the scanned in image.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

I'm going to start a series of posts describing what must be the case if Christianity is true. When done I'll put them all together so Christians can see the formidable obstacles there are to their faith at a glance.

1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk, never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.

Reviews of "The Christian Delusion" Book

Apart from the reviews you can find on Amazon, several atheists are reviewing the book The Christian Delusion. I'll update this post as others write fair and substantive reviews of it, perhaps including some quotes from thoughtful and respectful Christians when I see them.

Isn't God's Creation Wonderful?

God could not have made all creatures as vegans/vegetarians, could he? Nope. Not a chance. It was impossible for him. Right?

"John, I'm Scared to Doubt Because I Might Go to Hell"

Someone recently wrote this to me. At one time I too was scared to doubt. But I was never scared of Allah's threat of hell. In fact, I never gave it a thought. Why are people scared of the Christian hell when they have never been scared of the Muslim hell? When Muslims leave their faith they are just as scared of Allah's hell as Christians seem to be about Yahweh's hell. If Christians are not scared of Allah's hell then they should not be scared of Yahweh's hell. Both conceptions of hell are culturally inherited beliefs.

Is This What We Should Expect From God?

What do you think of the following question emailed to me by Andre:

Is it rationally defensible to believe that God would have created the entire universe, including millions / billions of years of suffering, including human and animal suffering, the extinction of the majority of species and the endless, wasteful suffering we see around us simply in order for a chosen few humans, who have managed to comply with his wishes, may spend eternity in bliss with him?

My Strategy for Debunking Christianity (Once Again)

Christians are already atheists (skeptics) of all other religions, so all I need to do is get them to be atheists (skeptics) of their own religion. If I can do this they will be forced to think for themselves and no longer rely on the Bible or Christian theology for the answers to existence. Here's how I debunk Christianity. I've decided to do for Christians what I myself experienced. It is/was liberating to become a freethinker rather than, as Voltaire quipped, "a nonthinker." You see, there is a big difference between historians and apologists. Historians want to know what happened in the past. Apologists assume their faith is true and then do whatever it takes to defend it. Apologists cannot say, "Oh, maybe the evidence isn't there after all." Nope. They feel a huge responsibility to defend the faith for their respective clientele. I can even grant believers that some sort of deity exists. Big deal if she does! As I have argued a hundred times before it makes no difference. Why? Because natural theology is (or should be) dead.

Do I Sound Like a Fundamentalist?

Since I appear so cocksure that Christianity is a delusion some people think I'm a fundamentalist on a par with the late Jerry Falwell. Here's a discussion I'm having about this with a Christian philosopher:

God's Wonderful World!

Taks a look below!

Hey, Would Someone Please Do Me A Favor on YouTube?

Given the ubiquitousness of animal suffering and pain inflicted upon each other and by human beings, would someone please put some of these images to Louis Armstrong's What a Wonderful World? Or how about from Disney's The Circle of Life? I think it would have its effect. There is no excuse for this world if there exists a perfectly good creator.

More On How Can We Know Who is Wrong

Here's the discussion continued from How Can We Decide Who is Wrong?

Face it John, chapters 2 & 3 in The Christian Delusion are just as true about atheists as they are about Christians. You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe. It’s not about science. It’s about your conscious & subconscious choices. When you wrote this:

I really think that given the way you are forced to argue your case above (very lame) that you are blind. The reason we cannot agree is because you are not willing to be consistent nor can you allow yourself to even consider that you are living in a cult group surrounded on every side by many other Moonies...

...you could just as easily be talking about atheists as well as Christians. I say you’re blind, you say I’m blind. I say you’re inconsistent, you say I’m inconsistent. I say your sources are weak, you say my sources are weak. I’m willing to say it’s an intellectual stalemate, but you believe you have intellectual superiority. If the answers were as obvious as either of us thinks they are, this issue would have been settled during the Enlightenment.

My response:

How Can We Decide Who Is Wrong?

Here's an email exchange I recently had with a Christian. It's typical of many others. I said:

Although both of us could be wrong, at least one of us is wrong. How do you propose deciding which one of us is right, if one of us is?

His response:

I agree that at least one of us is wrong. Unless one of sees evidence or has an experience to convince us otherwise, neither of us will change our minds. No matter how much you and others want to paint it otherwise, atheism is not a purely scientific conclusion.

My response:

It's the method of science that shows your faith to be wrong. There is no other way but to assume a natural explanation for everything. That method has no need of a god. Historians cannot approach the past any other way, nor can scientists. If we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we cannot know something at all.

The Case For "The Case Against The Case For Christ"

Bob Price's new book The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel, incinerates Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ, along with the evangelical apologists he interviews, including Craig L. Blomberg, Gregory Boyd, Ben Witherington III, D.A. Carson, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, J.P. Moreland, and others. However, I doubt many of the people who read Strobel's book will read Price's book, not the least of which because understanding Price might demand a better understanding of the issues than the cream puff book Strobel wrote for the average person in the pew, but also because Price seems so disgusted with evangelical apologists at this point in his career he can't hide it.