IQ2 Debate: Atheists Are Wrong

Link. Atheist Jane Caro (at 35:15) expresses one of the main reasons I am against religion, the oppression of women. I loved what she said and silently cheered as she spoke! Atheist Russell Blackford (at 54:15) was excellent as well.

The Debunking Christianity Challenges

Is anyone up to these three challenges? Think of it this way: If you're wrong about your Christian faith wouldn't you want to know? Here are three ways to find out. What are you afraid of? Really. What are you afraid of?

Quote of the Day, by Tony Campolo

I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night. Link. Hat Tip: James McGrath

I'm Giving Away Some More Books

Well it feels like that anyway, for a donation. I'm moving so I need the money.

Stephen Law's Opening Speech in Debate with William Lane Craig

Link. It's a very good one. I have argued the same things. You can see them here, and in chapter 9 of my book The Christian Delusion.

In Defense of Debates

I understand why some people don't like debates. I really do. Only in an honest dialogue can we get at the truth. In a debate format you'll probably never hear one side admitting the other side has a good point, or retract a statement that was shown to be wrong. No one concedes anything in such a contest because the goal is to win for their side. Just the same, let me offer six reasons in defense of debates.

Does God Exist? A debate between Eddie Tabash & Dr. Peter E. Payne

Eddie is a good debater and should do well. He tells me, "I am prepping day and night. I will spend Saturday with philosopher, Ted Drange." Perhaps that's what it takes. Link.

On Dealing With Apostates.

Some Christians think they have Biblical precedent to scoff, mock and malign those of us who are apostates from the faith because Jesus Paul and Elijah mocked their opponents. Let me try to reason with them.

I'm Giving Away Some Books on Jesus

Well it feels like that anyway, for a donation. I'm moving so I need the money. I also have no plans on writing something about the historical Jesus. For anyone interested in that issue these books should help for a donation.

This is How it Works: Getting Mileage Out of Craig's Refusal to Debate Me

An important context here is William Lane Craig's UK tour (starting this week). He is making huge attempts to publicize it through Dawkins' refusal to debate him. People aren't sufficiently aware of HIS refusal to debate John Loftus. When I pointed this out in a comment on one of Craig's video spots, the comment was removed and I was blocked. In so far as Craig has justified his position, his response seems uncannily similar to Dawkins, effectively 'it would look good on his CV not mine!' I agree with those saying 'Why I Became and Atheist' is a good book and contains more than enough to merit the author the kind of debating platform accorded to some other atheist authors. I do believe many of Craig's British supporters are not aware about the Loftus-refusal and they may get embarrassed when Craig gets called on this in debate questions in the UK. Link

None of Craig's stated reasons for refusing to debate me make any sense. I would hope someone during the Q & A would ask him why he refuses to debate one of his former students, me.

Who Speaks for Christianity?

Anyone care to step up and say "I do"? ;-)

Who Speaks For Atheism?

My publisher has dubbed me "a leading atheist spokesperson." I didn't say this. I don't care if I am. They do it to sell books. So let's explore this. Am I? Let's take the issue of whether or not there is a historical person behind the Jesus cult, okay? Do I speak for you?

Assessing The Minimal Facts Approach of Habermas, Licona, and Craig

[Written by John W. Loftus] Christian apologists Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have proposed a "minimal facts approach" to the resurrection of Jesus. Along with William Lane Craig in his debates, they want to stress that which most scholars agree on as facts and then seek the best hypothesis that explains all of these agreed upon facts. They do not want “to be saddled with the task of first showing that the Gospels are, in general, historically reliable,” writes Craig.[20] Instead, Craig wants to establish “that the Gospel accounts of the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb can be shown to be historically reliable without first showing that the Gospels are, in general, historically trustworthy.”[21] Habermas and Licona tell us about their own “minimal facts approach” in these words: “This approach considers only those data that are strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones…We present our case using the ‘lowest common denominator’ of agreed-upon facts. This keeps attention on the central issue, instead of sidetracking into matters that are irrelevant.”[22]

Christian Philosopher Victor Reppert on a Craig/Loftus Debate

Dr. Reppert said to me: "He should debate you. But I think he would win the debate." Thanks Vic! He should debate me. I know of no stated criteria of Craig's where he will only debate people who could beat him, otherwise very few people are qualified. So bring it. None of Craig's stated reasons for refusing to debate me make any sense. With the endorsements of Reppert, Jeff Lowder, and Keith Parsons, this debate possibility is gaining momentum despite a few naysayers. In a recent poll here at DC, if we discount the people who don't like these kind of debates at all, 83% want to see it. To anyone who wonders why I would want to debate Craig even if I would probably lose, I say that I don't think I would lose depending on how one defines losing. I think I would offer several doubt producing arguments and that's good enough for me. [Fair Warning: To anyone who presumes to offer unasked for advice about what I should want to do, be careful.] ;-)

In Defense of William Lane Craig

What follows is my four part defense of Bill Craig placed into one long post. I thought I'd put together all of the relevant posts and comments for further reference.

"Exploring Religious Violence" David Eller on Atheists Talk, Sunday

David Eller is a cultural anthropologist who has spent considerable time on the topics of violence and religion. In his recent book, Cruel Creeds, Virtuous Violence: Religious Violence Across Culture and History, he explores the intersection of the two. He examines the various types of religious violence and the interaction between the cultural and religious factors that contribute to that violence. He looks at how religion can shape a culture in ways that make violence more likely, or less. Please join us as we discuss this fascinating--and ever timely--topic. Link

Hey, Do You Want To Piss Me Off?

Just tell me I cannot do something. Tell me I shouldn't even try. Tell me to abandon my goals. Don't people know that one of the reasons I have done so well in putting together some great authors in anthologies with a popular blog is that I am a driven/passionate man? I said so in my book WIBA. Driven people get things done. It may be a fault with our types to get pissed off at naysayers, but then why fault the very thing that makes us who we are? Being a driven man is a double-edged sword. Without the one edge I wouldn't have the other. I have been proving naysayers wrong nearly all of my life. When it comes to my goal of debating William Lane Craig, I will show the naysayers wrong.

The Cover of "Why I Became An Atheist" 2nd Edition

I just heard from my publisher that we'll be starting work on the copy-edits for the revised book in two weeks, for an early January printing. I can't tell you how pumped I am about this.

It's rare when an atheist book makes it into a second edition. I re-wrote it during the months of March through to June. Almost every chapter was extensively re-written. A couple of new chapters were added. It's better said and better argued, with an additional 100 pages by my calculations. It is truly gonna be my magnum opus. It's a massively argued mammoth sized book with 285,000 words. Look for it the beginning of next year. I'm most proud of my new chapter on the resurrection where I break new ground.

My Comment Policy

At Debunking Christianity I welcome most anyone to comment on what is written. I like the challenge of educated discussions between educated people. I think educated people can disagree agreeably. Only people not fully exposed to alternative ways of thinking will claim their opponents are stupid merely because they disagree. But not all Christians who visit here are educated. I get a lot of utterly ignorant and even some threatening comments from Christians ("You are going to hell Loftus.") These kind of comments will not be tolerated. Nor will I tolerate personal attacks against me coming from my side.

Jeffery Jay Lowder and Keith Parsons on a Craig/Loftus Debate

They express my sentiments and are asking William Lane Craig to either confirm or deny that in 1985 he had said, "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine." Link. I personally would like for Bill to debate Lowder too.

Part of My Introduction to A Debate Book With Dr. Randal Rauser

As you read this book keep in mind that Dr. Rauser has by-passed what I consider the proper protocol. He has unfairly placed himself in the so-called final championship game by jumping in line, as it were, bypassing other worthy religious contenders in order to debate me, an atheist.

Christian Anti-intellectualism and Economic Terrorism

A Christian friend of mine refuses to buy my book WIBA, as he explained to me in an email: "I do not refuse to read your book, I refuse to support the book and the publishing company by purchasing it. I do not have access to a library because of where I live. But if I could borrow a copy or someone gave me a copy, I would have no problems reading it." I've heard this kind of crap so often I need to respond to this idiocy.

William Lane Craig vs Stephen Law On October 17th

Link. Notice in the video how Dr. Craig belittles Richard Dawkins for not debating him. Maybe I should do the same thing he plans on doing to Dawkins in Craig's home town of Atlanta, GA, sometime in the future? Hey Atlanta skeptic societies, care to help me plan for something like this when we know Craig is in town? Why not?

None of Craig's stated reasons for refusing to debate me make any sense. I would hope someone during the Q & A would ask him why he refuses to debate one of his former students, me.

Let's Recap Why William Lane Craig Refuses to Debate Me

[Written by John W. Loftus]
Let's recap some of Bill Craig's stated reasons for why he refuses to debate me. I think this might be instructive of what might be considered his underlying reason. You be the judge. I'm not asking anyone to respond for him. I'm asking Bill to respond himself should he choose to do so, for no one can really respond but him.

When I was a student of his he told his class something I thought was odd at the time. This was back in 1985 at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine." Keep in mind that Dr. Craig had only been teaching a few years before this to actually know of any student who might want to debate him. But that’s what he said. Again, he said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine." He cannot deny saying this, and I don't think he will. If he does it shouldn't be too hard for me to contact former students in that class to confirm it.

The OTF and Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Plantinga's EAAN argument is that "the combination of evolutionary theory and naturalism is self-defeating on the basis of the claim that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then the probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low." Below you can find professor Stephen Law's critique of the EAAN along with him debating Plantinga on the program Unbelievable.