American Christianity is not well, and there's evidence to indicate that its condition is more critical than most realize — or at least want to admit.

So writes William Lobdell for the LA Times today, after telling us of Anne Rice's defection from her faith. He also reported on some other interesting facts about Christians:

Paul Tobin Responds to The Infidel Delusion (Part 2)

Part 1 can be found here. Quote of the day from Paul Tobin below:

I shake my head in wonderment when I see the evangelical mind at work.

Quote of the Day by Walter

I have the hardest time believing that the creator of the entire cosmos put on a 'meat suit' to masquerade as a human for thirty something years just so this deity could undergo some form of blood ritual sacrifice so that the other 2/3 of his triune self could then feel good about forgiving humans for not living up to an impossible standard of perfection. Further, this deity's forgiveness is contingent upon believing in revelations and miracles that only happened in the ancient past. Any god that will only reveal "himself" in the ancient past should not be surprised nor upset that large numbers of people don't believe in him today. - Walter

Christians Must Denigrate Reason, Science and Evidence to Believe

I've said before that most Christians must denigrate reason, the sciences and evidence in order to believe. This just in, another Christian denigrates the sciences in order to believe. I've seen believers do this time and again. But with Paul Manata it is extremely blatant. So, let me get this straight Paul, just because the social sciences don't yet "have anything remotely approaching a scientific understanding of human society" we can dismiss what they do tell us about human society, eh? Until the social sciences "predict human behavior comprehensively and reliably" there is nothing at all we can learn from them, right Paul? Balderdash! Complete and utter foolishness. Oh but wait, faith demands foolishness.

Of Lions and Dogs: They Can Remember, Have Emotions, and Feel Compassion

Since human beings have evolved from the lower animals we would expect the lower animals to exhibit some of the traits we have developed more fully. There is plenty of evidence they can remember, have emotions, and feel compassion. They also know in limited ways that they are doing wrong. I see this in my cat every day. When we say no he throws a temper tantrum. Some dogs poop on the carpet when neglected to get our attention, if we're gone too long. This evidence bolsters the claim that morality evolved and it also presents theists with what I call "The Darwinian Problem of Evil." Why do they suffer so much if a perfectly good God exists?

The Darwinian Problem of Evil Visualized

This is an excellent graphic video about natural evils and the problem of animal suffering that was made by Rhetorical Bullshit based on my chapter in The Christian Delusion. Just ask yourselves while watching it: 1) What did animals do to deserve their sufferings? (Hint: nothing); 2) What moral lessons are they supposed to learn from their sufferings? (Hint: none); 3) Will they all be rewarded in heaven for their sufferings? (Hint: What about parasites?); 4) Can a perfectly good God be reconciled with this amount of suffering? (Not a chance!).

Top Seven Ways Christianity is Debunked By the Sciences

[Written by John W. Loftus] God is dead, Friedrich Nietzsche predicted it over a century ago. No, God did not die. We just came to the realization he never existed in the first place. We no longer need him to explain what needs to be explained. We now have better natural explanations of the existing phenomena. They explain more without recourse to the ad hoc theories that supernatural explanations offer believers. Theologians came to realize this in the 60's as announced on the cover of Time magazine, April 8, 1966. What killed him? The sciences.

The Top Ten Ways to Avoid Being Criticized

[Written by John W. Loftus] After thinking about this topic may I present to you the top ten ways to avoid being criticized:

Here are Links to Several Interviews I've Done

Starting with the most recent ones to later ones:

David Pakman Interviews Me: How an Evangelical Christian Preacher Became an Atheist. March 25, 2016

I was interviewed by the Legion of Reason which included Nathan Phelps, aired September 28, 2015.

In this September 2015 interview by the Humanist Hour we talk about my upcoming book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.LINK.

Does Christianity Pass the Outsider Test?, Part 1 with David Marshall, aired Jan. 24, 2015, for the Unbelievable? program. I wrote a response to this podcast where I accused the host of not even trying to be fair.

Does Christianity Pass the Outsider Test?, Part 2 with David Marshall, aired Jan. 31, 2015, for the Unbelievable? program.

Bill Cunningham's interview aired in December 2014.

Fox News Radio with Alan Combs interview on November 2014.

The Filipino Freethinkers with Red Tani, on January 6, 2014.

NonTheology, about my Outsider Test for Faith, first aired August 5th 2013. We had some fun.

Reasonable Doubts Podcast, where I talk about my two most recent books, aired on June 21, 2013.

Unbelieveable Podcast with Randal Rauser, aired June 15, 2013.

The Malcontent's Gambit Interview about my book "The Outsider Test for Faith" on May 7, 2013.

Minnesota Atheist Interview about my book "The Outsider Test for Faith" on April 21, 2013.

Christian Meets World Interview, aired July 29, 2012.

"Think Atheist" Interview About My Revised WIBA Book, aired April 8th, 2012.

With Barry Lynn of Culture Shocks, on 8/16/11.

With Irreligiosophy on 8/9/11.

Think Atheist Radio Show, which aired March 27, 2011.

Minnesota Atheists, which aired March 20, 2011.

A three part interview on the Tuesday Afternoon podcast aired between January 27th and February 10th 2011.

Oklahoma Atheist podcast aired October 26, 2010.

American Freethought aired July 2, 2010.

My Interview on "Conversations From the Pale Blue Dot", aired April 28th 2010, about my book, The Christian Delusion.

My Interview on the Freedom From Religion program, aired April 3rd, 2010.

My Interview on the Enlightenment Show, September 9th, 2009.

My Interview with Minnesota Atheists. Talk #0071, May 24, 2009.

The Things That Matter Most, March 1, 2009.

CFI's Point of Inquiry, January 30, 2009.

My Interview on the Freedom From Religion program, November 15, 2008.

The Infidel Guy Show, November 14th, 2008.

CFI of Indiana Freethought, September 28th, 2008.

Robert M. Price and I are interviewed together on The Enlightenment Show of Freethought Ft. Wayne, August 17, 2008.

The Friendly Atheist, June 26, 2008.

By Infidelis Maximus, July 2, 2007.

People Believe and Defend That Which They Prefer to Be True And the Facts Won't Change Their Minds

It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one....If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight. In the end, truth will [win] out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

TOP 16 WAYS TO GET A WOMAN/ WIFE ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE

This list was sent to me by Ed Babinski:

Contra Victor Reppert on the Emotional Appeal of Christianity

Vic had written:

I understand the emotional appeal of Christianity. I also understand what isn't so emotionally appealing about it, such as the claim that I am a sinner whose actions offend the creator of the universe. If I were to invent a religion that appealed to me emotionally, I wouldn't pick Christianity.

Paul Tobin Responds to The Infidel Delusion (Part 1)

When John Loftus informed me that there is a “book length rebuttal” available on the net to The Christian Delusion I was expecting an intellectual challenge but instead what I found amounts to no more than relatively lightweight and easily dismissed assertions.

Triablogue’s Moral Relativism Exposed

Killing children could sometimes be obligatory, according to Triablogue.

People Believe and Defend That Which They Prefer to Be True

I take it that the title to this post is uncontestable and undeniably true from what we know about human beings. The ONLY responses I have gotten from believers are these two: 1) The Ad Hominem Tu Quoque Fallacy which does nothing to address the point (see link); and 2) "No this does not apply to me when I assess the truth claims of Christianity because I am the exception to the rule." [How can all of them be the exception to the rule if this is the rule?]

What a load of bunk, oh but wait, what's the title to my Blog again? Ahhhhh, yes.

Dr. Valerie Tarico Responds to the Triabloguers

She does so in the form of a letter to me:

John, you have asked me to respond to a critique at the site, Triablogue, of my chapter, “Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science” for The Christian Delusion. Reading the critique, I am struck, primarily, by the perception that the reviewers, in attempting to state their case, overstate mine. Psychology is a profession focused not on possibilities but on practicalities – not on how things might function in an abstract, philosophical sense, but rather on what we can know about how they do function in the ordinary lives of ordinary humans (and sometimes other species). Psychology asks and attempts to answer a set of questions regarding the contingencies–-replicable cause and effect relationships—that govern people’s lives. At this level of analysis, there is a tentative but useful distinction between knowing and not knowing.

People Believe and Defend What They Prefer to Be True

People believe and defend what they prefer to be true. This is an obvious and non-controversial fact. That's who we are as human beings. That's what we human beings do. That's what psychological studies have repeatedly shown us over and over.

Richard Dawkins: If Science Worked Like Religion

I've been faulted for suggesting that the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) has force primarily against religious faiths. I think this because of the nature of them, how they were first adopted, the evidence (or lack thereof) that can decide between them, and so forth. To see why, check out the video below by Richard Dawkins. The sciences are in an entirely different league than faith:

The Outsider Test for Faith Visualized

[Written by John W. Loftus] I've argued for the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) but most believers just don't get it. For people like that I've made a playlist of five short videos so they can see what they refuse to see because they're blinded by faith.

Amateur Hour at Triablogue

Triablogue’s amateurs have compiled a supposed refutation of The Christian Delusion. Some uninformed bloggers are already hailing it as a “massive” and definitive refutation. Yet, even the most superficial look at Triablogue’s efforts reveals yet another instance of amateurs who don’t know enough to know that they don’t know enough about the topics they discuss.

Being merciful to DC’s readers, I will not provide an exhaustive catalog of Triablogue’s factual errors, illogical arguments, or misreadings of my chapters. I will provide a few samples within these categories:

A. The Credentials Card
B. Ill-read Reviewers
C. Misrepresented arguments
D. Misunderstood Arguments
E. The Ridiculous and the Mundane

Contra Paul Manata on the OTF (Part 2)

This is the second part of my response to Paul Manata's criticisms of the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). Part 1 can be read here. Again, I'll not repeat myself. In this part I'll examine where Paul also claims it's not a sound argument. Really? Let's look at this.

Contra Paul Manata on the OTF (Part 1)

On February 11, 2006 I first proposed the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) in response to something Paul Manata wrote. I think this is instructive. There is nothing quite like discussing/debating the issues that divide us. We learn from doing so. Most of the time it helps me understand how to make a better case against Christianity as it did on that day. So Manata and I have a history, he cursing the day he provoked me to propose the test, and me further refining it from additional criticisms. Along the way Manata has repeatedly tried unsuccessfully to disabuse me of this argument. So here he comes again with more failed arguments. Let's see about them.

Contra Steve Hays and Jason Engwer on the OTF

I'm in the process of assessing Triablogue's online book against The Christian Delusion. Since I don't want to repeat myself if you haven't already done so read my first response.

On Assessing Triablogue's Review of "The Christian Delusion"

I've had enough contact with Triablogue authors to know that I will never get in the last word. And I do not consider them honest in dealing with me. They will quote things out of context and misrepresent me because as Calvinists they do not think I deserve any respect at all. After all, if their God has foreordained me to hell then they have the right to heap additional abuse on me, and they have done so (this is such a nice version of Christianity developed by angry men for angry men, isn't it?). In any case they have written an online book of 257 pages against The Christian Delusion (TCD) so I think some response is needed, especially since I'm seeing links pop up all over the net linking to what they wrote.

Is God Necessary for Morality? Hell NO!

Just see what happened to William Lane Craig when he debated Louise Antony and then Shelly Kagan on this topic. He lost both times.

Then don't miss Edwin Curley's talk, My Ways Are Not Your Ways: The Character of the God of the Hebrew Bible. Watch it and tell me with a straight face that the God of the Bible is the objective standard of morality. Yeah, right.

I've written some posts on this topic myself to be found here under the rubric "Atheism, Christianity and Morality."