Richard Carrier v. Mike Licona Debate the Resurrection

See what you think.

Do I Prefer to Live in a Godless Universe?

It's argued that I reject Christianity because I prefer to live my life apart from God. Balderdash! Do I really prefer to live in a universe that is cold and uncaring, having only blind indifference toward me as a human being in which I can count on no divine help from outside of it, and no hope of an eternal life with my loved ones? Not a chance. Do I really prefer to reject the dominant religion of my culture to be ostracized by believers and hated for what I believe? No, not at all. Given the idealized version of Christianity that believers accept and defend (minus the ugly and incoherent stuff in the Bible) I would prefer the fantasyland of belief to the hard realities of life if given that choice. The problem is that I must be honest with the evidence and the evidence is that I live in a universe that is cold and uncaring, having only blind indifference toward me as a human being in which I can count on no divine help from outside of it, and no hope of an eternal life with my loved ones.

I was once a believer like most believers today. I did not want to lose my faith just like they do not. The evidence forced me to leave the fold against my preferences.

The Problem with Intelligent Design

To be found at Leaving Christianity.

Another One Leaves the Fold: "Diary of a Beleaver"

This new Blog contains "The post-faith musings of a former Christian College professor and writer for Christianity Today. One of the most interesting Blog posts so far is this one:

A Critique of a Common Apologetic Strategy by Ex-Apologist

Ex-Apologist offers an excellent analysis of a common apologetic strategy against naturalism seen here! It seems he's expanding on what it means to apply Occam's Razor to the riddle of existence. Start with the simplest explanation and then allow for more complexity as problems arise with that conclusion. I'm trying to develop a scale for extraordinary claims seen here. His analysis helps to complete it.

On Being Ignorant of One's Ignorance and Unaware of Being Unskilled, by John Loftus

[Written by John W. Loftus] As a former Christian, especially soon after I first converted, I thought I knew the answers to the riddle of existence. The answers were all in the Bible. And I thought I could also understand the Bible well enough to know, especially before I had any advanced learning. Initially I was a Bible Thumper. My motto was: God said it. I believe it. That settles it. All of the answers were to be found in the Bible, and I thought I knew them--all of them. So without any education at all I soon had the confidence to speak to college professors I met and not be intimidated at all. And I did. I remember walking away from some conversations thinking to myself how ignorant that professor was. Yep. That's right. At that time I was what psychologists have dubbed "Unskilled and Unaware of it." And it appears to me many Christians who comment here are just as I was. They come here with the answers. Some of them do not even have a college education. And yet they offer nothing but ignorant comments. I can't convince them otherwise. They are like I once was.

Looking back on those initial years I could see clearly that I was not able to think through the issues of the Bible, especially hermeneutics, until after gaining a master's degree. I would have told you upon receiving my first master's degree that I was ignorant before then. But I kept on learning and studying. Age had a way of teaching me as well. It seems as though as every decade passed I would say I was more ignorant in the previous one. As every decade passed I see more and more wisdom in Socrates who claimed he was wise because he didn't know. According to him the wiser that a person is, then the less he claims to know. Awareness of our ignorance only comes with more knowledge.

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

20) That while scientific tests on petitionary prayers have produced at best negligible results and at worst completely falsified them, God answers these kinds of prayers anyway.

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: