On How Easily We Can Be Fooled: Victor Reppert Again

Victor, an evangelical philosopher (no surprise!) tells us about a paranormal event in his life:

When I was in the seventh grade, I won the District Spelling Bee. The defending champion, somewhat to my surprise, went out when there were six people left, stomped off the stage, and went crying to his mother. After winning the Bee (and qualifying for the state finals), I was asked to provide a picture for the newspaper. As it happened, my violin teacher had a Polaroid camera, and my parents and I knew this, so we visited him. He told me that he had been thinking about my spelling bee, and at one point had an awareness that my rival had gone down, and that he was very upset about it. He had this awareness at about the time when my rival went down. He said that he had sometimes had episodes of clairvoyance. Link

Michael Shermer: The Believing Brain

Victor Reppert is Blind as a Bat and I Can Prove It

I'll let you read this exchange between Vic and myself for yourselves. Do you see what I do? I said what I wanted to say there although I'll duplicate it below.

Look Inside My Book, "The End of Christianity"

I can't believe how many pages you can read for free when looking inside the book, but it's now available for preview. The price on Amazon is amazing: $13 for a $21 book. Buy two of them (one for a Christian friend) and the shipping is free. ;-) Or you can buy one of my other ones with it instead:

Talbott's Anticipated Objection to the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" Scenario

This post anticipates what Thomas Talbott might say to my suggestion that he should get behind the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance.

Talbott on Progressive Revelation Versus My Claim That Theology Evolves

I have been faulted for starting my critique of Thomas Talbott's essay at the end. The claim is that I have not dealt with the substance of his critique of the OTF, and that it is found in the earlier portions of his essay. If so, then Talbott himself was wrong to title his last section as "A Fundamental Inconsistency in the Loftus Approach." (p. 20) For what does it mean to use the word "Fundamental" if it is not Fundamental? In any case, I'm going through his essay with a fine toothed comb and will get to it all, so hold your pants on.

To Thomas Talbott on Rape, a Material World, and the OTF

If I cannot convince a person who argues for a rape ethic that he is wrong, then maybe we should just lock him up in advance. And if I cannot convince a person that there is a material universe, then maybe he should be under intense psychiatric care. In either case, people like them have abandoned reason and science to a delusion that stems from a religion. The OTF seeks to evaluate religion fairly according to reason and science. Tom, you intuitively know your faith does not pass the OTF. So you attack the test. But please tell us why you prefer a double standard, one for evaluating your own culturally inherited faith (with modifications, I know) and a different one for evaluating the faiths of others. This is the point, Tom. Why the double standard? Why? I cannot imagine this in our court system; that fairness means asking the judge to be unfair??? I can hear Tom before a judge now, "Your honor, I humbly request that you decide my case by ignoring the scales of justice in my favor." This is what Tom wants, and he's a Christian philosopher! No wonder I say he gives the philosophical disciplines a bad name, and I am serious, dead serious. Either adopt the same standard for judging all religions or you have been exposed as a deluded person not interested in the truth.

Articulett, A Woman, Responds to Talbott and Reppert on Rape

Watch out now boys! Get ready for this smack-down:

Another Response to Thomas Talbott, Informing Him Why Rape is Wrong

In a section titled “A Fundamental Inconsistency in the Loftus Approach,” Talbott says I have no reason to think rape is wrong based on the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF), and claims Victor Reppert’s “previously expressed arguments are pretty decisive in my opinion.” (pp. 20-21) One of these so-called decisive arguments has to do with why we think there is a material world, something I've already addressed. If I'm harsh with Talbott and Reppert then let it be said I don't appreciate Talbott's demeaning attitude toward me. If he can dish it out he should be able to take it.

Another Response to Talbott on the Existence of a Material World

This is funny but what I think:

Responding to Thomas Talbott: On Why I Think There is a Material World

Christian philosopher Thomas Talbott recently criticized The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) in what looks to be an article he might submit to a philosophical journal. I would hope if he does, the editor would include my response if he wants to fully inform his readers. I plan on responding in some detail to his essay in a series of posts. This is the first one.

Is It Faith? The Demon, Dream, and Matrix Conjectures

[Written by John W. Loftus] I've initially examined Timothy Keller’s argument with regard to faith. But there's more.

Again, Keller argues skeptics should “doubt your doubts.” He claims: “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternative beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B.” Writing to skeptics he claims that “The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B. Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith.” [The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Riverhead Books, 2008), p. xviii]. We have faith, he opines, whenever we accept something that is “unprovable,” and all of us “have fundamental, unprovable faith commitments that we think are superior to those of others.” [Ibid., p. 20]. So he argues skeptics likewise “must doubt your doubts.” [Ibid., p. xix].

It's Time Once Again Boys and Girls for The Outsider Test for Faith

[Written by John W. Loftus]
Let's try this one more time shall we? This time in short numbered points for the reading impaired:

How to Debunk Christianity

[Written by John W. Loftus] As you can see from this chart of denominations the Church of Christ is represented as the true church. I have not tried to verify the facts, but it’s roughly accurate I suppose in representing when they started and such. Notice that every denomination is part of "Babylon the Great Whore" depicted in the book of Revelation except those in the “Restoration Movement” “non-denominational” conservative middle branch of the Christian Church/Churches of Christ, of which I was once a part. In the lower right hand corner there is a strict warning that people in these other denominations will probably be doomed. A lot of other Christians in various denominations think the same way about the Church of Christ and condemn them as heretical.

God cannot know that he is omniscient

Theists, the world over, claim that God is omniscient. However, this is not an easy claim to make for a whole host of reasons, one of which is worth looking into here. I want to look at the idea that in many instances, you cannot know that you don’t know something. If there is a situation where you cannot know something, then if it is claimed that you are omniscient, this would invalidate that claim.

For example, there could conceivably be something that God does not know. Conceivably, perhaps another dimension run by another God exists that does not coincide at all with this dimension. If one eternal God can exist, why not another in an entirely different dimension and unbeknownst to the first God? Now, it is unimportant as to whether this is possible or not. What is important is that God could not know that he did not know this by the very nature of not knowing it!

Quote of the Day, by the Cynical Cipher

I agree with the evangelicals about almost nothing, but I do agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with humanity - but not for the reason they think.

When Atheists Should Side with Jehovah's Witnesses

As an atheist I often quote from the Jehovah's Witness New Testament. Why? Because their translators are not effected by certain doctrines like Trinity. They rely on the most likely version of the Greek text under consideration. Most believers look at John 1:1-4 to argue for Jesus as God.

I Do Not Believe in Atheism

This is a response to a previous thread but I think it important enough to post as a main article.

The Three Most Visited Articles on "Bible and Interpretation"

This is a good site I recommend.

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, by Mark S. Smith.

Did David and Solomon Exist?, by Eric H. Cline.

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood, by Robert R. Cargill.

The Cross and Blood Magick: Food for Thought

Jesus is portrayed as a sacrificial lamb and a propitiation for sin in the New Testament and Christianity in general. He is seen as a sacrifice that is once and for all. We notice that Christians therefore ceased to practice animal sacrifice. Judaism ceased its sacrifice of animals with the destruction of the Temple since by the time of Jesus it had become the only place allowed for sacrifice. I have not researched these factors but my questions below may point to some of my conjectures.

Quote of the Day, by Steven Bentley

John, your former friend Bill has his been convinced that he has in his possession a book of truths backed and endorsed by the creator god of the universe, to Bill, it's contents cannot be defeated, if you counter his truths, this proves to him that he is right and you are wrong, it has a built-in reverse psychology protection, if you disagree with his beliefs and his book of truths, then you're an adversary to his truths, therefore to him, you are an evil person and of a reprobate mind looking out only to destroy his faith and deceiving him to join you and Satan in the lake of fire at the judgment seat of Christ. Therefore to Bill, you're only out to deceive him and destroy his truth that he has been especially elected to receive through gods calling via the holy spirit. Link.

A Quick View to the Evolution of the Trinity

The idea of trinity was not found in the original manuscripts of the New Testament. The pronouns that refer to the holy spirit were neuter meaning "it" not "He." By the fourth century copies of the Greek started showing some of the pronouns changes from 'it" to the masculine, He. (such as Ephesians 1:14). Even in the Gospel of John the Paraclete (Advocate) is referred to by neuter pronouns and is itself a neuter noun.

A Ph.D. in Theology at Harvard Leaves the Fold, Writes a Book

Yep, just take a look at Breaking Up with God: A Love Story. Here is an interview with the author. Hat tip: Ed Babinski.

There are ministers who are atheists in the pulpit right now as we speak. My friend Bruce Gerencser and I are part of the Clergy Project and he tells what these ministers can do to get help. See this.

I Do Believe, I Do Believe ( Wizard of Oz)

It's sad and dangerous that people continue to fall for myths of Christianity. What is worse is the intentional affirmation and legitimating of these myths as absolute truths that are an imposition upon the activities of humankind. In seminary when I was a theological neophyte there was a worse myth. The neo-orthodoxy of World War I evolved into a theology that would make truth claims that the bible IS a collection of myth and fable as a positive thing.

Craig/Parsons Debate on Why I Am / Am Not a Christian

This debate between William Lane Craig and Keith Parsons isn't getting the hits it should. On YouTube it only has 67 hits. The best audio can be found here, with part two found here. Parsons owned Craig. [First Posted 4/9/08]