A glimpse into the deranged mind of mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik

Click here.

I'll Be Speaking In Indianapolis Tonight

Indy is a centralized place in the mid-west. Come out if you can. Here are the details.

"Anders Behring Breivik Doesn't Represent True Christianity"

So say various Christians about right-wing fundamentalist Anders Behring Breivik, suspected of the bombings in Norway that killed more than 90 people. Naw, of course not. Your Christianity is the true one. You have evidence for your faith. He does not. And surely everyone knows there is no precedent for this in the Bible or in the history of the church. So Christians one and all, come here and tell us which Christianity is the true one. We're all ears. But you can't come to a consensus because you have no better evidence than he does for his type of Christianity. Faith is the problem, which can and does lead to fanaticism. Admit it you schmucks, or stay in denial. ;-)

A Review of "The Christian Delusion"

Since Richard Dawkins' landmark book, The God Delusion, was published in 2006, one frequent criticism that has been levied against it is that the treatment of Christianity is insufficient and too naive. Professor Dawkins has very little of a religious background, and I would agree that it shows in his book. The same may be said for Christopher Hitchens and god is not Great or Sam Harris and Letter to a Christian Nation. While there is still plenty to appreciate about each of those books, they have not offered a thorough refutation of Christianity. Although several other authors have produced wonderful works criticizing Christianity, this ex-Evangelical minister, John Loftus, has compiled an outstanding anthology of scholarly essays that strive to expose The Christian Delusion. [It] is the most comprehensive, well-written, and entertaining refutation of conservative Christian beliefs that I have come across yet. GodlessHaven.com

Quote of the Day, On The Ending of Christianity, by Jerry Rivard

I am an atheist. I believe that gods do not exist. I also believe the world would be a better place if all or most people didn't believe that gods exist, and in particular if children weren't taught to believe in something I consider to be a myth. And I would like to see a (peaceful) end to Christianity, and of all religious belief, within my lifetime. I have no illusions that is going to happen, of course, but I do believe that if we don't blow ourselves up in the next few hundred years or so that religion in general will become about as uncommon as, say, paganism is today. I believe that will happen because I believe that theism is false, and I believe that the power of truth is such that it will always emerge from the darkness, as I believe it always has – eventually. I believe that our increasing scientific knowledge will convince more and more people of that truth over time. For the same reason, I believe that this will be an improvement for mankind.

Once Again, Atheism is Not a Belief Nor a Religion With a Punch

[Written by John Loftus] Among other things atheism can probably best be defined as the view that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe in any one or more proposed gods, such as Zeus or Hathor or Odin or Baal or Yahweh. Everyone can understand this definition quite easily since we all know what it's like not to believe something that doesn't have sufficient evidence for it. So how is atheism a religion? How is nonbelief a religion? By contrast a religion is probably best defined as the belief in one or more supernatural beings or forces. So again, how is atheism a religion? How is the nonbelief in one or more supernatural beings or forces a religion? I really want to know. Theists have developed a deeply flawed view of these things because they fail to make at least two simple but critical distinctions.

Michael Licona's Book is Delusional on a Grand Scale

When it comes to the evidence that Jesus rose up from the dead consider what we don't have, but would like to, things that Michael Licona admits in this book The Resurrection Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (pp . 275, 587-88). We do not have anything written directly by Jesus himself or any of his original disciples, nor do we have anything written by the Apostle Paul before he converted telling us about the church he was persecuting, nor anything written by the Jewish leaders of that time about Jesus or Paul, nor anything by the Romans that mentions Jesus, the content of his preaching, why he was killed, or what they thought about claims he had resurrected. This means we have no written responses to Jesus from the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, or teachers of the law. Nor do we have any testimonies from Ananias, Caiaphas, Herod or Pilate about the events we find in the gospels. Jesus always had the last word over his opponents in the gospel accounts--something I have never seen in any real religious debate. So we really need to know what his opponents said in response to these claims. We have no records that they were converted either. Licona says that "what we do have is good." I think not. The Jews of Jesus' day believed in Yahweh and that he does miracles, and they knew their Old Testament prophecies, and yet the overwhelming numbers of them did not believe Jesus was raised from the dead by Yahweh. So Christianity didn't take root in the Jewish homeland but had to reach out to the Greco-Roman world for converts. Why should we believe if they were there and didn't?

Ozzy's Powerful Line

There are no unbeatable odds;
There are no believable gods.

Apologist Josh McDowell: Internet the Greatest Threat to Christians

[Written by John W. Loftus] According to Josh McDowell,

The Internet has given atheists, agnostics, skeptics, the people who like to destroy everything that you and I believe, the almost equal access to your kids as your youth pastor and you have... whether you like it or not.

Now here is the problem, going all the way back, when Al Gore invented the Internet [he said jokingly], I made the statement off and on for 10-11 years that the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism. And, folks, that's exactly what has happened. It's like this. How do you really know, there is so much out there... This abundance [of information] has led to skepticism. And then the Internet has leveled the playing field. Link

About Randal Rauser's Blurb for "The End of Christianity"

Someone questioned why a Christian professor would blurb an atheist book. Here is his response. Listen up, if God does not want informed people then this is a very sad commentary on the state of Christian affairs. As I said before, you must actively seek out disconfirming evidence if you really want to know the truth. Disconfirming evidence is decisive. At least Dr. Rauser knows this, even if we still disagree.

It's Ignorant to Say "There is No Evidence for a Historical Jesus"

Okay, having watched James McGrath and Tommy Baker duke it out with the fanatical mythicists (not all are fanatical), I want to put to rest the ignorant claim that “There is no evidence for a historical Jesus.” There most definitely is. It's called "confirming evidence" or evidence of things we would expect to find if there was a historical Jesus, and it is Legion.

Dr. James McGrath: "My Criticisms of Mythicism Must Be On Target"

That's his claim. See what you think. He even links to something I wrote that he considers relevant.

Spiritual Warfare Monger C. Peter Wagner: "Japan is Cursed"

This is the kind of crap that needs to be eradicated from a civilized society. I'm just glad no one is our President who thinks this way. Sarah Palin anyone? Christians, police your own ranks. Link

"Should I Stay Or Should I Go?" ;-)

Link.

Quote of the Day

The probability that God inspired the Bible is inversely proportional to the probability that it developed in ways indistinguishable from a purely human process (i.e., the more probable it looks like a purely human process then the less probable it has God as an author), and there is overwhelming evidence that it looks indistinguishable from a purely human process. -- John W. Loftus

Disconfirming Evidence is Decisive

[Written by John Loftus]

Pool of Siloam

I actually saw the Pool of Siloam for myself when I was in Jerusalem in 1989. What follows from this? The archaeological evidence is consistent with the Gospel stories about Jesus sending the blind man there who was healed (John 9:1-7). But it does nothing to show Jesus healed the man. Roswell, New Mexico, is an actual city too. Is this evidence of the existence of aliens? Both cases are equivalent. The existence of the Pool of Siloam and the city of Roswell are what we would expect to find if such claims were true, but that's all it shows. This is called confirming evidence.

Delusional on a Grand Scale, My Review of Michael Licona's book, "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach"

Link. It's sure to be hotly contested.

God and Evolution Don’t Mix, by Dr. John Shook

If God was trying to produce us through evolution, what does that tell us about a God that would use that method? Here’s some suggestions:

Dr. Avalos on the Minnesota Atheists Radio Show

Dr. Avalos talks about biblical slavery and ethics with Minnesota Atheists Talk in anticipation of his forthcoming book, Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship.

Science, the Flood, and the Bible, Oh My!

Today's assignments boy and girls are to 1) Study a chart on Belief in Evolution versus National Wealth. 2) Read Phil Senter's article, The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology. 3) Read an essay or two from Thom Stark on Religion at the Margins. 4) Then you can take a trip to Israel vicariously with Dr. James McGrath who is our guest teacher today.

Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”?

Hey Bible thumpers, if you won't listen to me then listen to one of your own:

One of the dodges by some Christian “philosophers”, theologians, fundamentalists, and others, is to suggest that the goal of higher criticism is to “destroy the Bible” or “destroy faith.” Typically, this is a rhetorical device intended to dismiss higher criticism in its entirety. This kind of argumentation is important as it leaves the person suspicious of higher criticism with a feeling of comfort, and much more importantly: they never have to consider any of the procedures or evidence of biblical criticism.

Dr. Avalos vs. Dr. Weikart: The Rematch

Dr. Avalos debates Dr.Richard Weikart on whether Darwinism or Christian anti-Judaism better explains the Nazi Holocaust. Enjoy.

The OTF Exemplified In Practice

Here is a debate between Valerie Dennett an atheist, Zakir Deedat a Muslim, Greg Turkel a Christian, Hugh Talmage a Mormon, and Moritz Duam a Jew. This is what I'm talking about!

Two Milestone Rankings Passed Today

The first one is that The End of Christianity reached a ranking on Amazon below 1,200th.

It may get even better before it's over. The question is how long it will stay down there. Hopefully for a couple of months or more.

Bart Ehrman's Lecture for the Commonwealth Club