The Debunking Christianity Challenge, Part 3

On the sidebar you can see two parts to the DC challenge. Now here's Part 3 based on what someone named Mike said in the comments section:

Atheism is a Full Blown Skepticism!

Believers ask me if I am skeptical of what I believe about religion because the brain distorts the information we receive. Let me be clear here. Atheism is born of skepticism and is a full blown skepticism. Precisely because I know how our brains distort information I am skeptical of that which I want to be true, and more importantly, I demand evidence for what I believe. Have you ever seen TV programs like CSI and/or Law & Order? Something like that. They need evidence to arrest someone just like I need evidence to believe. So how can I be skeptical of my conclusion that some belief doesn't have any evidence for it, if there isn't any evidence for it, or if the evidence is weak? Atheists are known as non-believers for that very reason.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Believers?

Every once-in-a-while believers show up to remind me that I'm not succeeding in debunking Christianity, at least not with them. Rob Lundberg recently said this: "I haven't seen an argument from you John that would have me think that you're right either. Cheers." Well, let me make a few comments and then I have a song for people like him.

For the More Philosophically Minded

Three noteworthy items have been made available by Keith Parsons and Wes Morriston.

A Review of “Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind”

Gary Marcus's book, Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind, is a body blow to religious belief. It performs a double service to us by showing how the evolution of our brain accounts for why we think so poorly, and in so doing goes a long way toward showing that religious belief is a product of this poor thinking. Very highly recommended.

Gary Marcus, professor of psychology at New York University, begins chapter one by saying: “If mankind were the product of some intelligent, compassionate designer, our thoughts would be rational, our logic impeccable. Our memory would be robust, our recollections reliable.” (p. 1). Instead, our brains evolved as a kluge. A kluge “is a clumsy or inelegant—yet surprisingly effective solution—to a problem.” Just picture a house constructed in stages by different contractors at later times and you can get the picture. The original bathroom might be extended, which in turn takes away some space from the living room, or an added bedroom which does away with the bathroom upstairs. Without starting all over with a completely new floor plan, we get a kludge

Dear God

I think this is a powerful song below:

Two Mormons Just Came To My Door

Does it just not cross any believer's mind that you're all ridiculous when you claim to know with certainty you're right and all others are wrong? What is it with you people? Are you just that dense? "No," you'll say, "the Mormons are wrong and we are the only ones right." Then still others will chime in: "I'm right!" "No, I am." "Am not." "Am too." Are not." "Are too." What idiocy! Do you just not realize what this looks like? Get a grip delusional people. Skepticism is the adult attitude. Grow up!

The Goodness of God is an Oxymoron, by papalinton

A small list for information:

Biblical Apologetics and the Flat Earthers

Professor Keith Parsons wrote:

"Without an adequate theodicy, arguing for God’s existence will be like arguing that the earth is flat. Vast quantities of contrary data will either have to be ignored or dealt with in an arbitrary and ad hoc fashion." God and the Burden of Proof p. 132.

This quote came to mind today when Ed Babinski sent me two links of people who argued for a flat earth in our modern society. One of them is an article that appeared in 1931 offering $5,000 to anyone who can prove the earth is a globe. The other one is about today's flat earthers.

You know, the more I think of it, the more I think Christians--especially of the evangelical kind--argue in the same way as flat earthers. Read through that second link. See any parallels? I do.

We’re Not As Rational As We Think, A Review of “Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior”

Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior is wonderfully written by two brothers that highlights several areas where we humans are not as rational as we think. It has serious implications for religious believers. Let me explain.

Thomas Jefferson in Defense of Mockery

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Link
--Hat Tip: PZ Myers

The Mind of the Believer

I'll tell you what, the more time I spend arguing with believers the more I become interested in psychology and how the brain works. It's not just the utter buffoons I'm talking about, which are many, but all of them. Christians are illogical and delusional. This I know, after spending years in my own delusion and after years of dealing with them since my deconversion. How can they be so deluded, I ask myself? How can they be so dumb? Recently a PhD sent me his criticisms of a part of my book, WIBA, so I began writing a response but abruptly stopped and deleted it, because it didn't deserve a response. I've heard it all before. And I've said it all before. I am convinced that defending the faith makes otherwise brilliant people look stupid. I mean it. That's what faith does to a person.

Magic and the Brain

See why magicians can trick us. This is just one of many lessons about the brain.

A Former Believer On Why He Once Believed and Then Left the Fold

See a parallel here with the Outsider Test for Faith coming from Jerry Wilson?

I realized that all religions are bubbles. People see the other bubbles, but only from a perspective within their own bubble...I realize that, from a vantage point outside of all bubbles, all bubbles are equal. So all religions are equal and, therefore, all religions are equally wrong. Link

Someday in the future ardent Christians who visit us at DC will go through a similar deconversion just as he did, and just as I did.

Evidence of Delusion?

I am personally attacked almost every day on the web for something I've written. If I don't respond then it's taken to mean I can't (WTF?). These Christians think all skeptical arguments are utterly lame, including mine. Who in their right mind would think this? Just once I'd like to hear a devout Christian say something like: "Hey, that's something I haven't thought of before," or, "This is a serious problem for my faith." It's just that these things are almost never said. No, they have the answers. And they laugh at all skeptical arguments, many of which derive from David Hume, who is thought to be the greatest English speaking philosopher who ever lived.

Now it's one thing to disagree with the skeptics. It's another thing entirely to think our arguments have no force at all. The fact that most Christians think they have no force at all simply means these Christians are delusional.

The Goal of My Book Was to Overwhelm the Believer

A few Christians and skeptics have criticized my book WIBA because in it I quote from many different sources to make my points for me. Let me explain why I did this and see if it makes sense.

“The Human Faces of God” by Thom Stark, Should be Required Reading in Every Evangelical Seminary, Bar None

This is my conclusion from reading this book by Thom Stark. It’s an absolute must read that I’ve included in my Debunking Christianity Challenge. I'll share a few criticisms of it but they pale by comparison with the over-all thrust of his powerful book. He comes from the same centrist Christian Church that I did, which is also noteworthy. Let me give you a brief overview of it.

*Sigh* How Can Reason Fight Emotion Like This Idealized Version of God?

I Still Want a Respectful Educated Discussion of the Ideas That Separate Us

Have I changed my attitude from wanting a respectful discussion of the issues that divide us? If so, why? Have believers changed me? Should I let them change me? Will they be better off if they do?...or worse off? Can I remain steadfast in hopes of the ideal in the midst of some utterly ignorant comments and personal attacks from people I think are delusional? Am I that kind of person? Should I even care?

Once again Victor Reppert has taken a pot shot at me. He has become somewhat fixated on me. I guess that's a compliment since he wouldn't do this if I was not a threat to his faith. And while I don't respond to many criticisms posted by Christian Bloggers I do feel the need to respond to him, which is a compliment to him as well. Should I bother responding?

Quote of the Day, by Paula Kirby in the Washington Post

Religion claims to set its followers free, while all the time holding them in thrall and insisting they kiss the hand of their jailer. There can be no true freedom so long as religion still keeps the human mind in shackles. Link

Ed Babinski on the Flat Earth Myth

It's true that Columbus and most Church Fathers were not flat earthers, but don't start cheering just yet. . . Enjoy.

Books That Explain Why There is Religion

If you are seriously interested in knowing the real basis for belief you should read one of more of the following excellent books.

How Do You Know That Which You Claim to Know?

Anyone who understands the slightest bit of epistemology knows enough not to claim he or she knows too much with any degree of assuredness. Doubt about what we claim to know is a virtue. This is one of the reasons I doubt the Christian claims. Most Christians claim to know what they believe with complete assuredness. Just read their comments here at DC. I have repeatedly made the distinction between claiming to know something and doubting someone's claims. I simply doubt the Christian claims, and the following books could give Christians an insight into why this is reasonable to do...

The Problem of Miracles

[Written by John W. Loftus] I can think of at least seven problems with believing in the biblical claims of miracles.

Quote of the Day on the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF)

There is an entry on the Outsiders Test at Iron Chariots. Here's the dilemma it presents for believers:

On the one hand, believers who object to the OTF look like a person who argues in a court room that he does not want a fair impartial judgment, but rather a biased one from a biased judge who operates on double standards.

On the other hand, believers who accept the rationale for the OTF have a great amount of difficulty in arguing that the raw uninterpreted historical data without any culturally adopted Bayesian "priors" leads the historian to the conclusion that Jesus bodily arose from the dead.