My Old Friend and I Are No Longer Friends

I ended our friendship. I wrote about Bill before, and even sent him that link. Here is the rest of the story. I decided that if Bill wants to evangelize me I would send him some links to DC and to some additional books, so I did. Then this:

Jesus Was Baptized for His Sins

I would like to present an atheistic bible study, an observation or interpretation, I believe explains the re-working of the original story of Jesus and John the Baptist by the authors of Matthew and Luke. This is with the understanding that Matthew and Luke use Mark in their compositions. In Mark Jesus is baptized into ( eis) the remission of sins. The preposition “eis” means from out of a state to into a different state or place. This preposition in Mark is redacted (re-worked or edited) by Matthew.

Richard Carrier On "The Think Atheist Show"

Check it out. Skip the intro and go to 2:50 where it starts.

More From My Old Deluded Friend

A former member of a church I ministered at is back, and still trying to save me. Here is our latest exchange which is a bit blunt:

Laura Story's Christian Song, Blessings, and the Stockholm Syndrome

"In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a real paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors; sometimes to the point of defending them." Wikipedia. Here's the song below. Note the reoccurring phrase "mercies in disguise." Someone should put images of tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, diseases, wars, starvation and death to this song so we know exactly what she means!

Sophisticated Theology: A Deception to the Church

Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher who was seen to perform miracles. He was elevated in one circle of followers to being virgin born. Paul cast him in an ahistorical Hellenistic Savior myth. Another segment of the movement continued as Jewish followers who expected his return but did not believe in the virgin birth or that Jesus was god or divine. The Jewish Christian traditions about Jesus become elevated with the Johannine Hellenistic Logos Christology.

Christology Rests Upon a Mistake

Christology rests upon a mistake. This is a simple statement that could be easily understood by much of the various Christian denominations. As so it means the invalidity of the Christian Faith since it rests upon its own Christology.

Dr. Avalos comments on whether religion, atheism, and science are all based on faith

I presume that Thye and I would agree that we don’t believe in Zeus because there is no evidence for the existence of Zeus. But would Thye also argue that lack of belief in Zeus constitutes a “faith” or a “religion”? Is there such a thing as the religion of “A-Zeusianism”? In fact, A-Zeusianism probably would be one of the largest religions on the planet because maybe 99.9 percent of human beings are A-Zeusians. Link

A Recommendation of My Work From a Gnu Who Changed His Mind About it

I don't believe that many (and in fact probably very few) in the scientific/historical skeptical community understand the importance of what you do. I was a prime example of this. When I first came across DC, I thought, "Yeah, the fact that he is an ex-apologist is novel, but why does he keeping philosophizing about things that he himself has already empirically falsified. C'mon John, move on and get with the really fascinating stuff going on."

Then I started reading more than just your posts: I started reading the comments. It was then I realized why you were philosophizing. There was no way myself, nor any hard-core empiricist, could convince a believer that their world-view lacked coherence based on external evidence until someone first showed them that it was internally incoherent. And, showing convincing internal incoherence, is something only a formerly committed insider can do.

Just For Fun

Sometimes, we try too hard to get to the greener grass. In the process, we end up in trouble...

Q and the SYNOPTICS or Why I Left Christianity

Q is a hypothetical that regardless of its actual state of existence explains the nature of the Synoptic Gospels better than a inspirational or infallibility position and harmonization. Higher Criticism has never listened to opinionated claims of those who would twist the normal concepts of history into a pretzel to create a pure absurdity of apologetics, The priority of Mark and Q explain the contradictions and variations in supporting redaction criticism (editing history) as their explanation in contrast to the implausible absurdities of harmonization in order to maintain a belief that is simply an outworn tradition about the canon that is not supported by its nature or fact.
I came to my atheistic position from a belief in scripture not from my present paganism. A fair treatment of the scripture will at least save one from the heresy of orthodoxy. It is the hard core studying of them with an objective and unbiasly fair analysis rather than an a priori apologetic stance and its conclusion that the scripture is inerrant, infallible and/or inspired that allowed me to see the probable and plausible nature of the texts. The ideas of inspiration and infallibility present an improbable and implausible dogmatic position that requires the gymnastics of fantasy and fanciful harmonizations that cause the character Jesus to pop up like a windup jack in the box in repeated scenarios or a redundancy speech and absurdity bordering on Dadaism and surrealism. It is this position that is not a normative understanding of history, reality and science that has been a fragmentation from the real world view to some fantastic world view where the characters in the narrative are no longer function within context but are transported from the meaning of the scriptures to the doctrine of medieval superstition, dogma and absurdity (did I say pure 24 karat unmitigated asininity?).

If This Isn't a Deluded Person Then No One Is

An old friend of mine, who has sent me spam emails about God and country, just recently told me he has read my books. But he continues sending me spam emails anyway. He has hopes for me. I'm speechless, absolutely speechless. If this isn't a deluded person then no one is. I can recognize a bat blind brainwashed believer when I see one. Why can't he recognize a hardened atheist when he sees one?

I'm Considering Blasting Some Atheists, Their Books, and Their Organizations

Look at how Richard Carrier just blasted R. Joseph Hoffmann, who in turn had previously unjustifiably called for Ronald Lindsay's resignation from being the president of CFI. I've tried to resist, wanting to present a unified atheist front. But one doesn't exist. Why should I be the only one who resists? Some atheists have no trouble blasting me and/or ignoring me. Well maybe it's time to show 'em who I am. I'm bored arguing against Christians anyway. Maybe it's time to get their attention. What d'ya think?

Making Jesus a Christ

The basis of information for the proposition that Jesus is the Christ is suspect. Unlike the mythicist's view of a mythological origins we find a movement from human to legendary. The intentional re-workings of the Gospels by their authors are responses to historical events. The mythological elements are the later work of Paul and those that influenced him attached to the legendary aspects that are reflected in the Gospels. While the Gospels are later in writing than the authentic Pauline Epistles, they have a closer geographic and ethnic origin to Jesus and his followers than Paul and the Hellenistic mythological language.

DC is Alive and Kicking, Speaking to Both Sides!

Thanks to all my regular readers and commenters for making DC what it is. It's rare to achieve what I have attempted. This blog is not one that preaches to the choir. I am not a cheerleader for anything atheist. There are too many sites that do that in an endless cycle of seeing who can best stick it to Christians. And, as you would guess, I'm no cheerleader for Christianity either, to say the least. ;-) But both sides visit here to discuss the ideas that separate us, including SBL's Bibliobloggers, where DC ranks above 5th place every month (out of 500+ sites). Yes, I get attacked at times from both sides in my attempt to reach out to Christians. But I am passionate to change the religious landscape in ways I think are best given my talents. Cheers.

PZ Myers and the Courtier's Reply Again

PZ Myers, like other scientists, will only accept empirical evidence for a religion. If it's not found, that's the end of it. Recently he recommended a parable about sausages in which a philosopher and a scientist discuss a sausage machine. It starts as it ends, like this:

A philosopher designs a marvellous sausage machine. A scientist comes to marvel at this wonderful creation, and raises an eyebrow. The philosopher says, "Ah, behold the wonderful cogs and sprockets and temperature-controlled mixing chambers in my wonderful machine -
surely you can see how it must produce the most fantastic sausages!" The scientist says "Yes, that is all very interesting. Show me the sausages."

None are ever produced.

Scientists regularly denigrate what philosophers and theologians do. But you know what? Believing philosophers and theologians regularly denigrate what scientists do.

What to do?

There are different types of critiques of Christianity. Each one of them stresses something different coming from different areas of expertise. Some of the major areas of criticism come from 1) The sciences, especially evolution and brain science; 2) Biblical and historical criticism; 3) Philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion; 4) Archaeology; 5) Cultural anthropology; 6) Psychology; and, 7) Social and moral criticism of the Bible and the church. There are others. What atheists think is a more effective criticism is not always the same as what Christians think is more effective.

I suspect we won't all agree. Without the sciences (#1) we probably don't have much of a critique at all, at least no reasonable alternative to a creator God, so that has got to be the highest on the list. But here's the problem. Christians denigrate the sciences in favor of their holy book. In every era Christian believers have repeatedly said that reason must bow down before faith, you see. That's the problem when using the sciences in getting Christian believers to change their minds. We must first help believers see that their holy book has holes in it. To do that we must speak to them in their language by critiquing their beliefs in terms they will understand and appreciate. Otherwise we're preaching to the choir.

While I see the value of ridicule, the most effective critique of the Christian faith will be one that can best be described as a counter-apologetic. An apologetic offers reasons from several different areas of expertise on behalf of the Christian faith. A counter-apologetic does the opposite. A counter-apologetic must take believers where they are and move them (or push them) in the right direction, the direction that the sciences have shown us. But since believers usually denigrate the sciences (# 1) I start with the other areas of criticism (#'s 2-7), especially biblical and historical criticism (# 2), and philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion (# 3).

From having studied these issues as a former Christian insider for a number of years this is what I think. Take it for what it's worth. But I think I know what I'm talking about. Don't get me wrong. Every area of expertise is important if we want to change the mind of the believer. But this is the type of critique of the Christian faith I offer.

I've written about this before.

Watch The Bible Unearthed, Good Stuff it is!

See below:

My Poll at the Right

People have objected to my poll on what arguments led you to reject faith. Some people say there are other options. There are always other options unless I construct a poll ten feet long. If the suggested answers do not apply to you then the poll does not apply to you. I'll tell you what though, if dismissing one's religion causes people to reject their faith then they are more prone to peer pressure than a reasonable person should be. So I put it to you. If you rejected your faith because people dismissed it then are you a rational person? Hell, I do not care how many people dismiss what I think if the arguments are not there. Get it? ;-)

[Edit] The results of the poll after four days are as follows:

What arguments led you to reject faith?

Arguments from people who dismissed it 67 (15%)

Arguments from people who understood it 111 (25%)

Both 250 (58%)

Quote of the Day, by Thomas Paine

I'm told this quote is from Thomas Paine:

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

I experienced this talking to such a person yesterday in my home town. She proceeded to preach to me as if I never preached the same things. So I asked her how often she gets to talk to a skeptic and she admitted hardly ever. I asked if she might be interested in listening to what one of us has to say. She said she wasn't interested. Then I asked, "If what you believe is wrong would you want to know?" She claimed to know she is right and proceeded to preach what I once preached not caring to learn what I knew.

Where Are the Women Atheist Scholars?

I am against sexism, most emphatically, without any doubt at all. In fact, one of the main reasons I do what I do is because of what religion has done and continues to do to women. I argue against religion for that reason alone. There are a lot of women bloggers for which I am truly thankful. But it seems as if there are few women scholars to link to in the blog world. Several of the ones PZ Myers links to have not yet earned a college degree, or they have just entered into a master's program. Oh, I know, the women atheist scholars of tomorrow are with us today in training, so yes, let's encourage them by all means. But where are the women atheist scholars of today? We need your voices more than ever. Help us, please. We are mere men.

The Ten Marks of a Deluded Person

[Written by John Loftus] Below in no particular order are what I consider the ten marks (or characteristics) of a deluded person. I think even educated Christians will agree with most of them. You might want to consider from this checklist how many of them apply to you. To the degree that more of them apply then the more likely you are deluded by your faith. Now it's quite possible that Christians can be deluded and yet their faith is true, in the same sense that a person might be brainwashed or indoctrinated into believing the truth. But the point is that if you're deluded then you have no reason to believe.

When the Courtier’s Reply Fails, by Matt DeStefano

Christianity is an overwhelmingly dominant religion in the United States. It informs our laws, our public officials, both foreign and domestic policy, our media, and nearly every other facet of our lives. To write off the task of the atheist movement as simply pointing out the Emperor has no clothes is to understate it dramatically. While it may be easy for those of us who have seen the naked Emperor, many people are, as Loftus has recently posted, blind to this fact.

This blindness isn’t something that can always be ridiculed, scoffed, or trivialized away. Sometimes, no matter how loudly we scream about the Emperor being naked, some people don’t have the capacity to see it. Whether this is due to severe indoctrination, or merely the unwillingness to believe otherwise, these people are best reached through arguments against the internal consistency of the Bible, the inconsistency of God’s qualities, or other such arguments. Only then can the blinders be removed and they will begin to critically examine the virtues of their beliefs. Link

What the Bible Says About Apostates Like Me

There is an irreconcilable conflict between Jesus and Paul and Peter when it comes to how to view apostates that were once followers of Jesus. So argues former Pastor Bruce Gerencser.

Does the Emperor Have Clothes On Or Not?

The Emperor's New Clothes is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that are invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" This in turn allows others to admit he has no clothes on.

This story has been used by skeptics with regard to religion--that the Religious Emperor has no clothes on--and so we must tell believers what we see in hopes they will see what we do.

So, does the Religious Emperor have clothes on or not?

There is something about the Emperor story that resonates with me. But there is a difference. In the story people all see that he is naked. So there is empirical evidence of that fact, at least in the story itself. But what if people do not see that the Emperor is naked because they are blind? Then what? How do you convince the people in the crowd he is naked, especially when an overwhelming majority of people in our world are blind? My suggestion is to meet them head on with arguments that they can understand and appreciate, not neglecting to tell them the Emperor has no clothes on. But I would not keep harping on that story. I would recommend the best critiques of a particular religion to the practitioners of it, and I do this as best as I can.

What's Wrong With the Courtier's Reply of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins

Trust me, I'm very thankful for the brilliance of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins. There's no doubt about that. In some sense they are my intellectual heroes. But the Courtier's Reply as an answer for theology needs to be discussed critically. First off, I do not expect anyone to understand any particular theology in order to reject it. We all do this easily. I doubt very much anyone understands all of the religions they reject. I don't. No one does. We reject them all for the same reasons, because they have not met their own burden of proof. So I agree very much that neither PZ Myers nor Richard Dawkins needs to fully understand the various forms of Christianity in order to reject them all. They can certainly use the Courtier's Reply, and for them it's legitimate, as it is for me when rejecting Hinduism, which I know little about. Christians do not fully understand the other Christianities they reject, so why should anyone expect this from skeptics?

But here's the problem. PZ Meyers and Richard Dawkins, and others, have the clout to recommend those of us who do understand the various Christianities that exist who know how to debunk them on their own terms. But perhaps, and I'm only suggesting perhaps, they are so committed to the Courtier's Reply when it comes to their own lack of understanding of Christian theology that they don't realize this will not do if they want to change the religious landscape. If they do, then may I humbly suggest they recommend the work of Biblical scholars like Robert Price, Hector Avalos, Bart Ehrman and others like them, as well as philosophers like John Shook, John Beversluis, Richard Carrier, Keith Parsons, Matt McCormick and others like them. But they can't do it, because they are committed to the Courtier's Reply, and that's a shame. I can embrace the Courtier's Reply when it comes to religions I reject. But given the power and influence of Christianity in particular, they need to recommend and embrace those of us who know it and argue against it. The Courtier's Reply may some day be the blanket response to religion. It isn't yet. Until then let them recommend those of us who do understand the dominant religion of our land, both philosophers and biblical scholars. It takes all of us together with all of our talents, all of our knowledge, and all of our abilities.