A Slave to Incompetence: The Truth Behind David Marshall’s Research on Slavery by Dr. Hector Avalos

Since the rise of the “New Atheism” there have been many Christian apologists who think that they have defeated the arguments of the New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. A few of these apologists are seasoned theologians and scholars. Others are what I call “hack” writers, who basically cut-and-paste material found in secondary sources, but who do not: 1) check the accuracy of the secondary sources; 2) have the competence to check those sources independently and directly, even if they wish to do so. The goal of hack writing is to publish something quickly and with little effort and so these books are often very thin bibliographically.

Such a hack writer is David Marshall, author of The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity (Eugene Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2007). To illustrate our point, we shall examine almost every sentence in a section titled, “Jesus Frees Slaves,” and found on pages 144 to 148 of that book.

More Proof People Defend What They Prefer to Be True. Case in Point: Jim West Rants Against College Accreditation

Jim (aka "Where's Waldo") West usually has the number one ranked Blog among SBL's Bibliobloggers every month. This is supposed to mean something I guess. In a post he submitted for The Bible and Interpretation West rants against the "exploitative" nature of college accreditation companies. But guess what? He has a degree from an unaccredited college and teaches for one too, oh my! Here we see a person who should know better arguing against that which he doesn't have simply because he doesn't have it. Why am I not surprised? I've never heard an educated person ranting against an education. Only the uneducated do so. And only an unaccredited person/teacher would do the same thing with regard to accreditation. I commented further there. Sheesh.

Could One Book Change What You Think?

Cobourg Atheist runs a nice website from Canada which has the equivalent number of readers as mine does. He featured an essay of mine on dealing with atheist books. While you're there take a look around.

The Omniscience Escape Clause

We've heard this escape clause so many times before. "My ways are not your ways," an ancient superstitious canonized Biblical text says of God. "How do we know what an omniscient God might do?" an apologist chimes in. It could be how God purportedly communicated to us in ways that are indistinguishable from anything else we see in the ancient world, or the tragedy of the Haitian earthquake, or a child suffering and soon to die from Leukemia. How can we judge an omniscient God's ways we're asked over and over, with an implied "We can't." The answer is obvious. We must be able to understand enough of God's ways to know that his ways are good and that he knows what he's doing. It's that simple. If God does not act as a loving person would do then all we can reasonably conclude is that God is not acting like a loving person would do. And if God does not respond in discernible loving ways when tragic events take place then it looks entirely as if tragic events happen randomly without his ever-watchful eye.

Ed Babinski Responds to Randal Rauser on "Biblical Cosmology"

Randal Rauser highlighted my name and chapter in The Christian Delusion in several posts on his blog at TheChristianPost.com. I will respond here.

Fantastic story of deconversion

Here's a link to a wonderfully articulate, clear, and fascinating story of deconversion put together by a gentleman with the user name evid3nc3 on YouTube.

PZ Myers on Kenneth J. Howell and Hate Speech

Kenneth Howell runs the Catholic Newman Center at the University of Illinois and up until recently was an adjunct instructor at UI until a student complained about him. Readers of this blog know that Howell and I are friends and have even allowed him to post some things at DC seen here. He wrote a blurb for Richard Carrier's chapter on science in The Christian Delusion seen here at the bottom, and moderated my debate with Dinesh D'Souza. (although didn't do a good job of it).

Reason/Rationality In Religious Belief vs. Everywhere Else

Background
I've been an faithful, fully-believing, daily-praying, personal-relationship-having Catholic for about 7 years. This past Christmas, out of the blue, I wondered if anyone wrote about Jesus other than the gospels. Doing what I always do, I googled it. I was not happy. I don't want to get into this, but suffice it to say that even if there are some who mention Jesus by name and refer to followers who thought reported to have seen him after death, I was still left with an immense chasm. The gospels told me about a verbally prolific man who traveled the country side for 1-3 years, healed sickness/blindness/demonic possessions, that news spread of him throughout the land, and that in the end he caused a heck of a commotion and died on a cross. On the other hand, I have reports of a man named Jesus and verification that he had posthumous followers. No reference to any miracles, confirmation of his brilliantly wisdom-filled parables and teachings or other facts about his life? It was enough to plant significant seeds of doubt.

Oh My God

Oh My God asks people from all walks of life, from celebrities, to the religious, to atheists and the common Man – the question – “What is God?” Peter Rodger did an excellent job on this movie. It was enlightening to see how all the different believers of various religions interpreted just what is the “Almighty God.” From start to finish Rodger explores the world’s religions and gives each believer a chance to explain what is God to them. Link

"My Testimony" by Former Pastor Bruce Gerencser

Former Pastor Bruce Gerencser shares his deconversion story:

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

28) That God's punishments are good, right, and just, even though it means sinners are thrust into a surprisingly dangerous world and in death will be blindsided by an eternal punishment in hell, which is "Christianity's most damnable doctrine." In this world how do you think human beings first learned that venomous creatures like certain kinds of spiders, snakes, ants or scorpions could kill us? People/children had to die, lots of them. How do you think human beings first learned that polluted water or lead poisoning could kill us? Again, people/children had to die, lots of them. It was inevitable since God never told us what to avoid in order to stay alive. We had to learn these kinds of things firsthand. The same thing can be said for hell. People do not know their choices will send them to an eternal punishment in hell. For if we knew this, and if it was possible not to sin at all, we wouldn't sin. Do you doubt this? Then consider that if you knew with certainty that by crossing a line drawn in the sand you would get beaten to a pulp by a biker gang, you would not do it!

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

27) Christianity is a faith that must dismiss the tragedy of death. It does not matter who dies, or how many, or what the circumstances are when people die. It could be the death of a mother whose baby depends upon her for milk. It could be a pandemic like cholera that decimated parts of the world in 1918, or the more than 23,000 children who die every single day from starvation. These deaths could be by suffocation, drowning, a drive-by shooting, or being burned to death. It doesn't matter. God is good. Death doesn't matter. People die all of the time. In order to justify God's goodness Christianity minimizes the value of human life. It is a pro-death faith, plain and simple. Link

Christianity Was Not Responsible for American Democracy

On this 4th of July here's wishing everyone in America the very best. I love this 200+ year old experiment in modern democracy which was not the result of Christianity, contrary to many Christian defenders.

Christianity Debate

This video is quite funny!

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

26) That although it's claimed God got the attention of Abraham, Moses, the Pharaoh, Gideon, Mary, Joseph, and Saul (who became Paul) and that he knows how to get the attention of anyone and everyone, there is no objective evidence he's trying to get the attention of the billions of people who don't believe. In fact, Christians are much more concerned than God is that non-believers are converted. Just compare the lengths to which Christians will go in order to convert non-believers, with a God who has the means to convert everyone and yet does nothing to help them do this. If you say God is helping to convert non-believers then tell us how to objectively know God is actually doing this.

Jim Linville on Ronald Hendel Quitting the SBL

Ronald Hendel of the University of California Berkeley has stirred up a major storm over his recent article in Biblical Archaeology Review explaining his quitting the Society of Biblical Literature over its compromised critical academic focus...here are some of my comments on a few aspects of the uproar.

Link

If Atheists Acted Religious

This video is an eye-opener:

The Outsider Test For Faith

[Written by John W. Loftus] Below you'll find a fairly extensive list of links to the Outsider Test for Faith for anyone who wishes to learn about it. You'll see how my defenses of the OTF have been improved with time as I received various criticisms of it. There is a lot to read here.

No wonder I've decided to write a whole book about it!

The book supersedes and supplants everything I've written about it in the links below.

John, "You Need to Deal With the Heavy Weights"

Here's an email I received and my response:

Macroevolution & Microcreationism: Another Flaw in Intelligent Design Creationism by David Eller

A STANDARD TACTIC USED by creationists to attack evolution is to contrast microevolution (i.e., within species evolution, which they accept) with macroevolution (i.e., between species evolution, which they adamantly reject). Microevolution, they grant, may or does occur. But they assert that macroevolution either has never been observed or is theoretically impossible. They argue that while microevolution may be true, it is trivial, and the major claim of evolution — the evolution and emergence of species — is either unsubstantiated or false.

I argue in this article that creationism faces its own micro/macro distinction and challenge, and that ID has so far only focused on and made claims about microprocesses. Finally, I posit that whatever achievements microcreation may have made or may have imagined it made, these achievements neither strengthen the case for macrocreation nor weaken the case for macroevolution. Link

Dr. Craig: All Other Religious Claims to the Witness of the Spirit are False

I wonder if the question Bill attempts to answer was prompted by what I wrote in the introduction to The Christian Delusion, which can be read here. A perceptive Christian asks him:

Skepticism of Religion: An Informal Bibliography

Nelson Brooke of Think Atheist put together a nice list of skeptical books that "will enable the reader to mount a full-fledged intellectual defense of skepticism." It's good. Check it out.

What Have I Been Doing Lately? Discussing the OTF.

I've been discussing the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) over at Christian philosopher Victor Reppert's Blog with Steve Lovell, a person I'm told is a C.S. Lewis scholar. It's not looking too good for Steve though.

What Does it Mean to Take and Pass The OTF?

Believers are scrambling to find a way of escape from the Outsider Test for Faith(OTF), which calls upon them to test what they were led to believe from an outsider's perspective with the same level of skepticism used to reject all other religions. All that believers need to do is consider how they evaluate the other religions they reject. Once they do they'll see quite plainly what is required of them. They merely assume these other religions are false. That's all it takes. Just assume they are false.

Stephen Law on "Playing the Mystery Card"

Critics point out that [you believers] have little in the way of argument for what you believe, there also seems to be powerful evidence against it. If you want, nevertheless, to convince both yourself and others that your beliefs are not nearly as ridiculous as your critics suggest, what can you do? Play the mystery card...” Read his lengthy response.