An Explanation About the Books I Recommend

There are lots of books not listed in my sidebar. So let me explain my choices since some authors might feel slighted for not seeing their book listed. Hint: It probably means nothing at all.

There are other considerations.

I have not read everything. There are a lot of books I have not heard about yet. There are more being published every week, especially ebooks. And keep in mind I don't have the space in the sidebar to list all of the books I know. Furthermore, I have tested some books but they don't sell well here. Books that don't sell I don't keep on the list. Books that sell well factor in my choices. There are even a few books I place in the sidebar because they are important to be aware of, although I might not agree with some important aspects in them.

I hope this helps. If your book isn't listed it probably means nothing at all. Cheers.

------------------

If you'd like to recommend a book or two or more, do so below and tell us why you recommend it.

Defending Christianity Depends on Fallacious Reasoning

Christian apologists probably violate every informal fallacy at some point or another in order to defend their faith. See for yourselves:

About.com Agnosticism/Atheism: Logical Fallacies FAQ.

No Beliefs: List of common fallacies.

Humbug: The Skeptic's Field Guide.

The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: Top 20 Logical Fallacies.

How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age.

Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole.

William Lane Craig: "Christian belief is not based on the historical evidence."

This is the very last sentence Craig writes that can be read here, which is his conclusion after dealing with the problem of Lessing's Ugly Broad Ditch. This is where I think Christians are impaled on the horns of a dilemma. Let me explain.

Delusional on a Grand Scale: Assessing The Inner Witness of the Spirit

William Lane Craig claims the inner witness of the Spirit "trumps all other evidence." It is "an intrinsic defeater-defeater" for anyone who experiences to it. So even if I don't have that witness, and even if I don't like the idea of such a witness, I'm in no position to judge that he does not possess it. Craig claims this inner witness provides all the evidence he needs to know Jesus personally and that Jesus is his savior. This witness is sufficient for him. It defeats any evidence to the contrary as utterly irrelevant. But this is delusional on a grand scale. How do you convince a delusional person like this? I probably can't. That's the power of a delusion like this. So for people not impervious to reason let me speak to them. What Craig is doing is sophistry plain and simple. He's describing a subjective experience and claiming it's an objective veridical experience that defeats all other objective evidence. Now it's one thing to say a subjective experience is to be considered objective evidence, as delusional as that is. It's another thing entirely to say a subjective experience carries more weight than all objective evidence. People wonder why I call Christians delusional. You need not wonder any more.

Richard Carrier On The Eclipse of the Sun At The Death of Jesus

I've received an uncorrected advance reading copy of Richard Carrier's book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. I'll say more about it later after I've finished reading it. But he highlights a serious problem for inerrantists that I'd like to share. In chapter three he evaluates the claim of the gospels that at the death of Jesus "there was darkness over the whole world from the sixth hour until the ninth" (Mark 15:33; Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44-45). If it was meant to be taken literally per Luke, who claims it was an eclipse of the sun ("...for the sun stopped shining"), it could not have happened.

"Why We Must Treat the Bible No Differently Than Any Other Book" By Biblical Scholar James A. Metzger

...many theologians and biblical scholars continue to speak of the Christian God in only the most sterling manner: as, for instance, all-loving, just, infinitely wise, and inexhaustibly merciful. But this is not the God of the Bible – not even close. If that were the God of the Bible, I would retain little respect for its authors, who would have proven themselves far more interested in promoting a fiction they liked than in bearing witness to the terrible, unpredictable Power they felt best accounted for (often unseemly) facts on the ground. There’s just no way that the omnibenevolent, all-wise Sovereign of traditional Christianity created and presides over this place. No, if there’s a God at all, he’s likely just the sort we find in the Bible – magnanimous and cruel, loving and spiteful, noble and base, impulsive and deliberate, intelligent and incompetent, responsible and spectacularly negligent. A little like us, in fact, but with a lot more power. Link

"On Visions and Resurrections" by Gary J. Whittenberger

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the hallucination hypothesis is a plausible explanation of the post-crucifixion “appearances” of Jesus, and to defend it against some of the current criticisms of Christian apologists. Link

The Empty Rhetoric of Christian Apologists

Previously I described several deceptive apologetic strategies. I want to highlight one more: The use of empty rhetoric utterly lacking in substance.

Dr. Avalos challenges the claim that our country was founded as a "Christian nation."

Dr. Avalos has a guest editorial in politically-influential The Des Moines Register that challenges this claim put forth by a previous letter. Read Hector's response right here. He's right! But even if he is wrong, which he is not, there is no going back in time. Many Christians themselves support a secular government, and for good reasons.

Julian Haydon Writes to His Nephew

You have probably never heard of Julian but he is one of the unsung heroes among skeptics. Here we see him writing his nephew on Adam's supposed free choice in the garden.

Not Even an Omniscient God Could Convince Me That I Willfully Reject Christianity Against the Overwhelming Evidence

I cannot conceive of an omniscient God being able to do this given all that I know about Christianity, the Bible, theology, philosophy, science, and the history of the church. For God to do this he would have to re-create this universe and basically rewrite history itself. But what is done is done. If however, it takes omniscience (or near omniscience) to show the Christian faith is true, then God should also know that without it I could not think otherwise. I might be wrong. But not even an omniscient God can show me that I willfully reject Christianity against the overwhelming evidence given that I am not omniscient and given what I find in this world. What the evidence leads me to think is that the Christian faith is wildly improbable.

There is No Hell! There is No Satan! There Is Nothing Here To Worry About!

It's like evangelicals never open a book by a biblical scholar. Please become informed, please. Stop reading only those texts that agree with your views. Expand your horizons.

Read Dr. Alan E. Bernstein's Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds.

Read Dr. T.J. Wray and Dr. Gregory Mobley's The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots.

Christianity: Where Emotions Rule and All the Rules of Logic Don't Apply

I think it can be demonstrated that when people are emotionally engaged they do not think or argue well at all. That's why it is said that "love is blind." Romantically involved couples do not see the faults in their lovers that others see. Likewise, when people are angry with someone there is literally nothing good that person can do. Emotions get in the way of sound reasoning. This can be seen everywhere we look. When people are experiencing a great amount of stress they are told not to make any important decisions. The reason is clear. Because they probably won't make good ones. When people have an emotional commitment to some sort of project they will continue pursuing it even after it has been shown to be a failure. That's why successful businesses need "new blood" with "new ideas" every so often.

I have argued that defending Christianity makes otherwise intelligent people look stupid. This is why. Christianity is where emotions rule and "all the rules of logic don't apply" (a reference to Bob Seger's song Chances Are). Believers think they have a personal relationship with Jesus. They are emotionally engaged in the same way as the examples above illustrate of the human condition. They cannot think or reason well at all.

The Christian Delusion is Never More Apparent

Just once--once mind you--I'd like to see just one believer, only one, who will say, "Hey, I'm like most people. What I believe is based on my cultural prejudices just like most everyone else." I have never heard one believer admit this, not one, even though in a scientific poll Michael Shermer found that 9 out of 10 people say that other people adopt their religious faith because of cultural influences and emotional reasons. Every single one of them claims to be the exception to the rule, to a person.

William Lane Craig: "No Amount of Evidence or Reasoning Could Convince Me I'm Wrong"

Essentially this is what Bill Craig says in his regular Q&A (Question 244). Just think what the strongest objective evidence against the evangelical belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus would be, if found. It would be the bones of Jesus, that is, DNA evidence. Craig admits that if the bones of Jesus were found it would falsify his faith, but this is an utterly empty admission, pure rhetoric without any substance at all. For Craig claims that even in the face of this strong objective evidence he would still believe Jesus was bodily raised from the dead. Why? Because for him, the subjective "witness of the Holy Spirit is an intrinsic defeater-defeater for anyone who attends to it." He even predicts "we can be confident that no such discovery will ever be made because we have the self-authenticating witness of the Spirit that Jesus is risen." That is, "given the witness of the Spirit, no such evidence could be forthcoming." Who in their right mind would ever predict what evidence can be found based solely on a subjective experience?

Michael Licona Refuses to Debate Me

Michael Licona is a Christian friend of mine. I have met Mike and had pleasant conversations with him. He moderated the debate I had with David Wood on whether God exists, seen here. The first time I met him was at the 2009 Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting where I was on a panel discussing Bill Maher's movie Religulous. My talk can be read here.

Michael Licona's scholarly expertise is on the resurrection of Jesus where he wrote a massive book on the topic.

But he refuses to debate me on the resurrection.

Here is our recent email exchange:

How to Win Friends and Influence People to Atheism

I have said that I try to persuade believers by overwhelming them with a plethora of arguments, and I am vilified for it. But given the fact that believers must be convinced their faith is nearly impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, this is what their faith forces me to do if I want to convince them they are wrong. You see, I know a lot more than I can tell. Based on everything I know, I know Christianity is a delusion. The only thing left to do at that point is to convince Christians they are wrong. And they are. In the September/October 2009 issue of American Atheist (pp. 18-20) David Eller argues this is what Christians have been doing on behalf of their faith. They seek to persuade. And they have been doing it a lot longer than atheists. I've just learned from what they are already doing.

The Outsider Test for Faith is For People Who Really Want to Know the Truth

The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is for people who really want to know if their faith is true. If they do, then it can be likened to a commitment to go on a diet. Just like a person who wants to lose weight so also the OTF demands the same kind of personal commitment. No one can make such a commitment for another person. But that's the first step. It takes resolve. It takes discipline to begin it and to consistently carry through with it.

It's Possible God Exists Even Though All Life Has Evolved

The implications of evolution are enormous, as I have said before. But even though all life has evolved it's still possible for a supernatural force (or being) to exist. To see this all we need to do is look at what dog breeders do on a regular basis. They manipulate the breeding habits of their dogs to produce new breeds all of the time. In a like manner some kind of god could act like these dog breeders by manipulating the environment and breeding habits of the various species on earth to produce new ones. Doing so would not violate the evolutionary process. It would merely inject purposeful direction into it. I admit this. It's possible God exists even though all life has evolved. But how reasonable is it to suppose this scenario is the case? Not much. Let me discuss such a claim, and then open it up for more discussion.

John Green is Now Writing for "the Other Team"

John Green is a missionary pastor's son from a Pentecostal background who has written some things for Discipleship Journal and Wittenburg Door. Below is his brief story and an article he wrote on hell.

"My Christianity is Right"

Romulus and Jesus Compared

Richard C. Miller's "Mark's Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity," Journal of Biblical Literature, v. 129, no. 4 (2010) is a good read. According to Miller the story of an empty tomb as found in the earliest Gospel owes more to similar Hellenistic stories than Christian scholars have been wont to admit.

"Here it Comes" I'm Done With My Revised Book Files

This clip from "The Wrath of Khan" expresses my thoughts as I ponder the impact of my revised book, Why I Became an Atheist, which I am now officially done editing.

My Top 25 Substantive Posts in 2011

Here they are:

That Which Disconfirms UFOs From Mars Also Disconfirms God’s Existence

In 1971 a NASA space orbiter named Mariner 9 discovered that the canals on Mars were illusory. This discovery strongly disconfirmed the claim that there was intelligent life on that planet. Before this discovery many people claimed they encountered Martians. Afterward, Martians stopped visiting us and aliens started visiting us from Venus. Then after the surface of Venus was found to be hot enough to melt lead Venusians stopped visiting us too. Now they come from far more distant places in our universe. What best explains this? It’s because there were never any Martians or Venusians who visited earth.