In Admiration of Paul Kurtz

Paul Kurtz has resigned from CFI. His letter of resignation can be read here. His hand picked board of officers wanted to take the organization that he started in a different direction than he wanted it to go. Apparently the board wanted to go in the direction of the new atheists with a more forceful attack against religion, whereas Paul wanted to include all secular-humanists in a vision for the future, many of which are liberals. Apparently this was a deal breaker with no room for an agreeable compromise between them.

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

19) That although there is no cogent theodicy that can explain why there is such ubiquitous and massive human and animal suffering if a perfectly good omnipotent God exists, God is perfectly good and omnipotent anyway.

"The Christian Delusion" is Now A Kindle Book

Just click on this link: The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails

Dr. Hector Avalos Interviewed By Free Thought Radio

Check it out. Hector talks about his two chapters for The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.

R Joseph Hoffman's Conclusion with Regard to the Historicity of Jesus

You can read about him here. This is what he wrote:

I have come to the following conclusion: Scholarship devoted to the question of the historicity of Jesus, while not a total waste of time, could be better spent gardening....I admit to being a bit prickly on the subject, having finally concluded that the sources we possess do not establish the conditions for a verdict on the historicity of Jesus. Link.

"The only thing we can and should trust is the sciences"

That's one of my claims in chapter 4 of The Christian Delusion (p. 89). I had previously argued that Christians use the naturalistic scientific method when they debunk the religious faiths they reject (p. 86), and later on in that same chapter I argued that without a better alternative method this is all we have (p. 94). I mean, really, is there any comparison to accepting blindly what we learned on our mama's knees, or through an "inner witness of the Holy Spirit," or the poor evidence of historical evidence, or a the warming of the bosom? Come on. Let's get real.

The Outsider Test for Faith is the Antidote to Confirmation Bias

[Written by John Loftus]
First let's define confirmation bias from Wikipedia, which...

...is a tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true. People tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and neglecting alternatives. This strategy is not necessarily a bias, but combined with other effects it can reinforce existing beliefs. The biases appear in particular for issues that are emotionally significant (including some personal and political topics) and for established beliefs that shape the individual's expectations.

Eric On Believing Despite Not Being Able to Explain the Atonement

I'm producing several posts called: "Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?" In a recent one I wrote: "17) That although there is no rational explanation for why Jesus had to die on the cross to atone for our sins, his death atoned for our sins." From this a discussion ensued between Eric, who is a Christian Ph.D. student, and me. It's interesting to see where discussions lead and I want to highlight this one out of the many other issues that were raised in the comments.

My Interview on American Freethought

Enjoy. Just click on the "download" link to hear it.

We talked about The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails

[First posted on 7/2/10]

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

18) That although historical reconstructions of the past are are notoriously difficult because they depend on the poor evidence of history, and even though historians must assess that evidence by assuming a natural explanation for it, and even though historical evidence can never establish how to view that evidence, the Christian faith can be established historically anyway. My argument is that when it comes to miraculous claims, yesterday’s evidence no longer can hold water for me, for in order to see it as evidence, I must already believe in the framework that allows me to see it as evidence. In other words, in order to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for me, I must already believe the Christian framework that allows me to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for Christianity.

Theodicky by Thom Stark

Here is an older post written by a Christian theist dealing with the problem of evil in light of the Haitian earthquake. I'm pretty impressed with it. Here are a few snippets to whet your appetites:

Fish Discovered With Hands.

No, could it be? A fish with hands? Yep. Fourteen species have hands.

Christian Professor Dr. Randal Rauser to Review TCD

After reading 70% of it he writes:

The Christian Delusion...is an engaging read. The essays are generally of a high caliber and it provides a strong, comprehensive case against Christianity. I am grateful to Loftus and the other essayists for putting this volume together and very much looking forward to engaging it in the weeks to come. Link.

A quick look at Dr. Rauser's Curriculum Vitae shows he's not a Bible thumper to say the least. This should be interesting.

Can a Religion Pass The Outsider Test for Faith?

The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) calls upon believers to test their own geographically inherited faith with the same level of skepticism they use to test the religious faiths they reject. The only kind of religion that might possibly pass this test is one that embraces some kind of nebulous god (although I don't think one exists). I think all of the so-called divinely revealed religions based in the ancient superstitious past fail this test. And yet, it didn't have to be this way had there been more evidence to believe. The evidence just doesn't exist for any of them. Christianity, for instance, could pass the OTF if God provided the needed evidence to believe. But he didn't do so.

Reasonable Doubts Podcast

Check it out.

My Chapter in TCD is the Inspiration for Someone at Debate.org

I hope The Instigator on this forum does well with it. He begins:

In this debate, I shall argue that the existence of vast amounts of animal suffering is a compelling reason to reject the existence of a theistic, omni-benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God. This debate is targeted specifically at Christians, and Christian responses to the argument. For those who are interested, the inspiration for this debate comes from the chapter "The Darwinian Problem of Evil" in the recent atheistic anthology The Christian Delusion

The Problem With Using God as an Explanation

Actually there are many problems with using God as an explanation. Let me highlight what I consider one of the most important problems. It's this: it explains too much. It explains everything, and so it explains nothing. What do I mean by this? If every problem can be solved by a single solution then the solution has too much explanatory power. It becomes a simplistic solution.

Bart Ehrman vs Craig Evans on "Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?"

Watch it below:

Debating Bart Ehrman is a Bad Idea?

So writes Jim Elliff on the Christian Communicators Worldwide blog. It is "wrongheaded" to set up debates with Bart Ehrman "or, for that matter, any unbelieving skeptic." Link. Why? Because debates like these will cause some believers to lose their faith. He's got that right. It does. ;-)

"Reading Books is Bad for Evangelical Christians"

Hey, I liked this post very much. I'm mentioned in it!

The Choice is Emphatically NOT Between Christianity and Atheism

I am an atheist. I reject all religious faiths and paranormal claims. In fact I reject faith, period. I should never take a leap of faith beyond what the evidence leads me to conclude. So I do not believe. I am a non-believer. That distinguishes me from people who believe. Believers are all in one category (or type, or classification) of knowers. Non-believers are in a different category of knowers. Believers base what they claim to know on faith. Non-believers base what they claim to know on the actual probabilities.

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

17) That although there is no rational explanation for why Jesus had to die on the cross to atone for our sins, his death atoned for our sins.

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

16) That while the results of science are assured when it comes to chemistry, physics, meteorology, mechanics, forensic science, medical science, rocket science, computer science, and so forth, when it comes to evolutionary science that shows all present life forms have common ancestors, or when science tells us that dead bodies do not arise from the grave because total cell necrosis is irreversible, the results of science are wrong because the Bible says otherwise.

Quote of the Day by Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society

If science disappeared from human memory, we would soon be living in caves again. If theology disappeared from human memory, no one would notice. Theology is a completely and utterly useless pursuit. It is self-indulgence of the first order. Link.
HT Russ

Interesting Recent Unrelated Posts

Listen to an interview with Bible scholar Dr. Jaco Gericke.

Then check out Dr. Keith Parsons on Robin Collins's fine tuning argument.

And don't miss Dr. Ken Pulliam's posts related to slavery in the South. With regard to slavery the pro-slavery arguments were stronger than the abolitionists. See for yourself what the pro-slavery contingent said.