Christians, Where Are the Real Answers to Real Questions?

Having heard it all--quite literally--Christians have no answers to the questions that need to be answered. When someone wants to know some real answers to real questions of theirs, all they get is circular logic, Socratic definitions pursued down the rabbit hole, splitting hairs, logical gerrymandering, re-framing the questions differently to suit one's faith, The Omniscience Escape Clause, The Faith Trump Card, and so many logical fallacies it can make one nauseous. The interesting thing about this is that only when someone decides they want real answers to real questions do they see this for what it is. And at that point it's easy to see through the platitudes and non-answers offered by Christians in response. Here's another example of someone looking for real answers to real questions, and you can see the end result.

What's It Like Dealing With Mormons Every Day?

Well that's what I've been doing for two months shy of five years here on a daily basis. On day one these Mormons tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, that I was never a Mormon, that I'm not criticizing their kind of Mormonism, that I have not shown their faith to be impossible, which is an impossible standard, and so forth, coming from the scholarly types as well as the kids in Junior High who think they can argue against me. They use non-sequiturs, red herrings, special pleading, begging the question, and either/or fallacies then beat their chests and crow about how they have refuted me and all atheists. Then comes day two, which is more of the same ignorance. Then comes day three. For nearly five years. I'm tired of playing nice. I'm turning over to the dark side. They are buffoons, utterly devoid of the ability to recognize they are brainwashed who repeat platitudes as if they are something new and profound which I have never heard or thought of before.

How to Avoid the Question: Lessons from Professor Rauser

Don't get me wrong. I like Professor Randal Rauser. I think he's creative, intelligent, and a nice guy to boot. But he doesn't seem to care at all that Anne Askew was tortured and burned at the stake even though God had a multiple number of ways to keep that from happening. I wrote about Anne here.

So far he does not want to deal with her case. He wants me to chase him down the rabbit hole of definitions about what kind of a revelation God should have produced, sort of like following a Socratic method, which would end up being more interesting to him than the particular case before us. He'd rather play Pharisee by discussing what it means to work on the Sabbath day rather than help someone in need. I'd rather discuss concrete examples, people, good people who suffered because his God was inept. He doesn't get it. He's far too gone as the brainwashed person he is. He cannot be helped, not by me. So I write for other people who are reading this exchange. I do this quite a bit, really. Here then is the problem he fails to see with regard to the Anne Askew's of this world.

Thom Stark Interviewed About His New Book

Q. Who is the Yahweh of the Israelites?

A. Well as scholars like Frank Cross, Chris Rollston, Mark Smith and others have demonstrated and have known for some time, the earliest texts in the Hebrew Bible give a strong indication that the early conception of Yahweh was that he was an ancient Near Eastern tribal deity. As I argue in my book, following Rollston, the Song of Moses in Deut 32 indicates that Yahweh was believed to have been one of the children of the Canaanite deity El Elyon (God Most High). The song describes how the nations were originally formed, and what it says is that the peoples of the earth were divided up according to the number of El Elyon’s children (the junior members of the divine pantheon). Yahweh, Israel’s patron deity, was one of Elyon’s children.

The best evidence suggests that Yahweh did not begin as the “only true God” of later Jewish monotheism; he did not begin as the creator of the world. Yahweh began as a young, up-and-coming tribal deity whose prowess among other gods mirrored Israel’s aspirations vis-a-vis surrounding tribes and nations.

Quote of the Day, by Silver Bullet Concerning Randal Rauser (and it applies to many Christian Scholars)

Randal believes that the Christian god would have his bible written by people so that it is indistinguishable from any other book that people have written - full of contradictions, depicting the flawed human knowledge of the time, unclear, employing the same technics that people use when they write, like irony, etc.

In fact, Randal believes that the Christian god didn't even interfere in any way with the actual writing and compilation of the Christian bible - that was all done by people and people alone. Randal has written that he believes that the Christian god, when he created the universe, did so with the full foreknowledge that people would evolve billions of years later to independently write exactly the book that the Christian god would want them to write, full of human flaws and appearing as an all too human creation, as his bible.

Where's Waldo? I'm Right Here...

...arguing with professor Randal Rauser. See what you think.

I'm Back On the Marriage Market

I've married plenty of women in my days. No I'm not a polygamist. I've performed many weddings. I never thought I'd do so again even though I've been asked more than a dozen times, and turned them all down. Until tonight. For as a newly ordained minister with the First Church of Atheism I'm conducting my first wedding in years. If anyone would like me to perform your wedding just contact me and I'll get the job done without the religious mumbo jumbo. For a secular humanism church I'm also a minister with the Universal Life Church whose only creed is an "adherence to the universal doctrine of religious freedom: 'Do only that which is right.'"

I'll also do atheist funerals with dignity and respect for those who have lost loved ones without the religious mumbo jumbo.

Did God Do Anything to Rescue the Chilean Miners?

The Chilean miners had spent a record 69 days in the heat of the collapsed mine who were believed to be dead for the first 17 days and then found "miraculously alive" we're told. Mario Gomez had said, "We are going to get out with God's help." When rescued Alberto Avalos said, "This is a miracle from God."

But was this a miracle? I for one am ecstatic they were all rescued. The rescue itself is an amazing story of the massive effort by engineers and scientists around the world. But we should give thanks where thanks are due, and I see no evidence God did anything to save them. Believers simply count the hits and discount the misses. If this is seen as a hit, then believers must also count all of the misses. The recent Pakistan Flood is one such miss.

God and the Burning of Anne Askew

Here's a link to tell you about Anne Askew. What was done to her is horrific. There were so many injustices done to her in the name of God it's hard to take it all in. This was a barbaric Christian society. If I were God I would be embarrassed for not telling believers to be civilized democratic loving people. If I were God I would be embarrassed for not telling a society of believers that men do not own women. If I were God I would be embarrassed for not coming to her aid in some miraculous manner. If I were God I would be embarrassed for not giving people divine guidance about such matters. I would hide my head in shame if I were God. I would confess my guilt and turn away from my uncaring incompetent ways. And I would let my defenders know they too need to repent for not caring about the Anne's under Christian rule. I would repent for being an uncaring incompetent deity, for that's the kind of God that exists if one exists at all.

Religion: It’s almost like being in love

When I criticize Christianity believers will say I was never a Christian because I now treat it like it really is, a belief system of doctrines. Christians tell me instead it's a relationship with God-in-Christ. You know, the more I think of it the more they are right. They DO treat their religion like it's a relationship. They are madly and passionately in love. The problem is that there is no object of their love, and this is a problem of enormous consequences, primarily in that people in love are blind to their lover's faults.

Think of all of those young couples “in love” who are at each other’s throats only a couple years later. While they are in the romantic love stage, they are “caught up in the emotion.” Their lover can do no wrong. Their lover is perfect. Their lover has no faults; oh, sure he or she has idiosyncrasies, but nothing that could possibly impede this relationship. At least not until the fairy dust settles and they are able to start seeing each other as flawed human beings, sometimes horribly flawed. Amazing as it seems, strong emotions can cause massive distortions in perceptions. They can make A look like Not-A. Strong emotions can also completely shut down our ability to think self-critically. Link

Quote of the Day, by Jeffrey A. Myers

Faith is a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition in spite of evidence that the belief is incorrect. Faith is clearly NOT a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition that is SUPPORTED by the evidence, because if that belief was supported by the evidence, it ipso facto does NOT REQUIRE Faith. [See on Faith]

Can God Exist if Yahweh Doesn't?

William Lane Craig in his debate with Peter Slezak, at 68 minutes in says: "I think that if you agree with me that there are certain things that are really right and wrong like child abuse, cruelty, and slavery then you will agree with me that we need God as a transcendent foundation for those objective moral values."

There is a problem though. The God that William Lane Craig is appealing to, Yahweh, does NOT condemn child abuse, cruelty, or slavery. So I simply cannot figure out how Craig's argument is supposed to work! Link

Thomas Jefferson on the Outsider Test for Faith

In a private letter to his nephew Peter Carr, Jefferson offers some advice on how to study religion, which represents the OTF that I defend:

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

Thomas Huxley vs. Bertrand Russell on the Definition of Agnosticism

[Written by John W. Loftus] Thomas Huxley invented the word agnostic, and by it he meant skepticism:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. Link

Bertrand Russell defined it differently:

Quote of the Day, by Mark Priestap, a Christian Father

We can be timid as parents to explain the wrath of God to our children because we’re afraid they’ll be too frightened and want nothing to do with him. But we are forgetting that the fear of God is a means God uses to stir up in us the desire to be forgiven by him..."Gospel fear" is a powerful weapon against unbelief. Far from being something to avoid, it is crucial to our children’s salvation and sanctification. Link

Hat Tip to Shawn Willis

60 Minutes On a Historic Film: Market Street 1906

Morley Safer reports on a mystery that was solved about a 100-year-old film that we now know was made on San Francisco's Market Street just days before the 1906 earthquake. Link

I find this story fascinating for it's a film of San Francisco days before an earthquake destroyed what we're looking at. It's like we have detailed foreknowledge of what's to take place in just a few days. We know when looking at it the people in the film will suffer, many of them will die. What would YOU do if you had that foreknowledge? What did God do? Are we better than God? I would think so. For we would warn them.

Does modern cosmology supply the materials that can fill gaps in the traditional arguments for the existence of God?

by Jonathan Pearce, enjoy:

In view of the belief that there has been a shift in the landscape of modern philosophy, with regards to the respectful position now adopted by theists, it is important to reassess this landscape at regular intervals. This is not particularly due to new philosophies being developed ex nihilo, but more in light of the nature of modern physics, and the constant change involved in the discipline. The assumptions that underlie most premises in cosmological arguments are often open to debate, and they depend, in no small part, on present physical and cosmological understanding. Since these are shifting sands of understanding, then philosophers must be cautious when making truly assertive and dogmatic claims. Though there are very good arguments indeed for remaining agnostic on many theories (to adopt a truly Pyrrhoian[1] sceptical approach), there is still an attractive quality about holding a definite position, whether as part of a cumulative case, or in isolation, in order to inform a worldview. That being said, all too often, worldviews inform people’s interpretation of evidence, rather than the opposite.

Two Important Philosophical Questions and Christian Theology

The first question is What do you mean by that? The second one is How do you know? Now let's apply this to the statement: Jesus died for our sins. What sense can we make of it? How can anyone know it's true?

Re-formulating William Lane Craig's 4 Facts Resurrection Argument

I am going to demonstrate with completely sound reasoning why the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence is that Chippy the squirrel rose from the dead.

There are four historical facts which must be explained:
1. Chippy's burial
2. The discovery of the empty tomb
3. His post-mortem appearances
4. The origin of a few people's belief in his resurrection

Link.

Science On What Happened Before the Big Bang?

They are the biggest questions that science can possibly ask: where did everything in our universe come from? How did it all begin? For nearly a hundred years, we thought we had the answer: a big bang some 14 billion years ago.

But now some scientists believe that was not really the beginning. Our universe may have had a life before this violent moment of creation.

Horizon takes the ultimate trip into the unknown, to explore a dizzying world of cosmic bounces, rips and multiple universes, and finds out what happened before the big bang.

How About Some Self-Promotional Blus[h]ter Too?

I’m a John Loftus junkie. I go to his blog almost daily. Every once in a while a blogger catches my fancy, and Debunking Christianity got me hooked. At least a couple of times a week I read something on his blog I think of reproducing here...His blog is a one stop blog for current atheist news and thoughts on-line.... Blush.

The Problem of Belief

Here's something that calls out for an explanation and no amount of Bible verses will help. What is the content of salvific faith (i.e. the kind of belief that saves a person)? What must someone believe to be saved? Simple? Not so fast. A child who confesses Jesus is lord is saved, right? I dare anyone to ask a ten year old what she thinks of Jesus, what it means to say he is lord, whether she thinks he is God, God-in-the-flesh, the 2nd person of the trinity, or a really really big guy, and so on and so forth. Ask her to define each of her words. Anyone can say "Jesus is lord" then. Does doing so save a person unless said person has the correct detailed theology that goes with it? There is no doubt in my mind that a child holds to heretical ideas when asked about them. OR, she's expressing words she has no clue as to their meaning. But if so, then there are surely professing Christians of all ages, probably most of them, who think they are saved but are not, and this could be........YOU! Since this must be the case if one is saved by faith, this is a barbaric way to base a person's salvation upon--that not only must believers express the right words but also have the proper understanding of them.

The “evidence” for Jesus’ resurrection, debunked in one page

That's what Chris Hallquist has done. See what you think.

Dr. Avalos' Radio Interview

Dr. Avalos comments on his chapters in The Christian Delusion and much more in an interview with the Minnesota Atheists. Dr. Avalos podcast