I'm always gratified to know that what I write helps. I sure would like to see my book get a bigger audience simply because I'm passionate about changing the religious landscape. Dr. James East recommends my book, Why I Became an Atheist:
February 17, 2012
February 16, 2012
Reviews And Emails Like This Keep Me Going
By Fox (Charleston SC) - This review is from: Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (Paperback)
As a former fundamentalist Christian of 26 years, I shudder to think what my life may have turned out like, had I not randomly spotted this book at my local Good Will. I picked it up, expecting to have a good laugh at the stupid atheist. I never expected it would completely alter my life forever.
Ed Brayton, the Founder of Freethought Blogs, Comments
Ed wrote:
I’m really saddened by all this infighting, not because there is disagreement on how to approach these matters — such disagreement is inevitable, even healthy — but because it is becoming so personal and nasty. I think John has done and continues to do very important work; I would not have invited him to join FTB in the first place if that were not true. And I do understand his decision to leave FTB and do not harbor any ill will at all over it. I hope he continues to do the great work he’s always done at his own blog. But it is also clear to me that John is incredibly thin-skinned. Even civil disagreement, such as Natalie’s post, is called an “attack” by “mean-spirited” people who are out to get him. Natalie may well be wrong in her criticism — who among us has not been at times? — but that is easily responded to in an equally civil manner rather than with “Oh my god, they’re attacking me!”
I Do Not Like Arguing With Atheists
That's right. I don't. Not one bit. I learn from other atheists, that's for damned sure. But given my focus and goals I dislike it to the extreme. For it wastes my time when I should be spending it arguing against evangelical Christians, and they visit me here. That's one of the reasons I have not argued against other atheists much at all. And that was one of the major reasons I left Freethought Blogs. There were just too many atheists and not enough Christians. I found myself arguing with the atheist commenters, some of whom showed no better critical thinking skills then the ignorant believers I have encountered here time and again. Atheists do not, on the whole, have much better critical thinking skills than the general populace. We don't see it until there is a disagreement, for until then it looks like we agree because we are good thinkers. They also didn't show me much respect, at least, that's what I felt. So it's better for me over here. I wish them all well, a few of whom I consider my friends. They can do their thing. I'll do my thing. But I learned something. I might argue against other atheists from time to time when I see ignorance. Hell, maybe I'll even permanently change the header to this blog to "Debunking Ignorance." How does it look to you? ;-) [Edit, I've changed it back.]
Defending Christianity Depends on Fallacious Reasoning, Part 2
I introduced this topic previously. It's quite possible that if you can think of an informal fallacy then there are some Christians who depend on it to defend their faith.
Before going into several specific examples let me introduce the topic. Psychology has proved that as human beings we are not all that rational or logical. This is a fact about all of us to various degrees. None of us is like Spock in Star Trek, none of us. We are all social creatures, emotional creatures, and habitual creatures, as well as rational creatures. The rational part of us is subservient in many cases to the rest of who we are. Much of what we think and defend is what we prefer to believe, especially when we're taught it by someone we like and respect.
Educated people admit these findings. Christians, especially evangelicals, will respond with the all too familiar "you too" fallacy. They will argue that these findings explain why people don't believe in their particular understanding of the Bible; that skeptics prefer not to believe. However, one reason why this is fallacious reasoning is because there are too many "you's" to "too" as I've said before. Evangelicals would have to say this about anyone and everyone who does not accept their understanding of the Bible, which includes not just people who identify as skeptics or atheists, but people in all religious sects who are not evangelicals. The biggest reason why this is fallacious reasoning is because these facts say something about them too. They believe what they prefer to believe. They are not all that rational, and so forth. So to deflect what the facts say about themselves by fostering it on others is clearly fallacious reasoning. My contention is based on what psychology tells us, which means we should all be skeptics, we should all trust only what the sciences teach us. That point continues to be ignored by many believers. Instead, they turn into science deniers in order to irrationally maintain their faith against the probabilities.
Before going into several specific examples let me introduce the topic. Psychology has proved that as human beings we are not all that rational or logical. This is a fact about all of us to various degrees. None of us is like Spock in Star Trek, none of us. We are all social creatures, emotional creatures, and habitual creatures, as well as rational creatures. The rational part of us is subservient in many cases to the rest of who we are. Much of what we think and defend is what we prefer to believe, especially when we're taught it by someone we like and respect.
Educated people admit these findings. Christians, especially evangelicals, will respond with the all too familiar "you too" fallacy. They will argue that these findings explain why people don't believe in their particular understanding of the Bible; that skeptics prefer not to believe. However, one reason why this is fallacious reasoning is because there are too many "you's" to "too" as I've said before. Evangelicals would have to say this about anyone and everyone who does not accept their understanding of the Bible, which includes not just people who identify as skeptics or atheists, but people in all religious sects who are not evangelicals. The biggest reason why this is fallacious reasoning is because these facts say something about them too. They believe what they prefer to believe. They are not all that rational, and so forth. So to deflect what the facts say about themselves by fostering it on others is clearly fallacious reasoning. My contention is based on what psychology tells us, which means we should all be skeptics, we should all trust only what the sciences teach us. That point continues to be ignored by many believers. Instead, they turn into science deniers in order to irrationally maintain their faith against the probabilities.
How To Increase Traffic to Your Blog or Website
[First Posted 12/16/09] Since I get asked this from time to time let me share what I did a few years ago to increase traffic to DC...
When I started Blogging there weren't as many blogs so it was easier to get noticed. But what I did tirelessly was to read other blogs and then link back to something I said on my own blog. I did it often, all of the time. That got me noticed. Then people would read what I wrote. If they liked it they came back. And I engaged popular blogs where many people already visited. I challenged the Christian sites, or on skeptical blogs I made substantive comments. Then what happened is that sometimes the authors would respond in a post of their own, which drove even more traffic my way. Remember, even bad publicity is publicity[!] Being the atheist that I am, Christian sites will tear into you so be better prepared for that than I was. It's very hard not to wallow in the mire with people who personally attack you, but that's what happened. Nonetheless, these sites have readers who will come and stay at your blog for a while.
When I started Blogging there weren't as many blogs so it was easier to get noticed. But what I did tirelessly was to read other blogs and then link back to something I said on my own blog. I did it often, all of the time. That got me noticed. Then people would read what I wrote. If they liked it they came back. And I engaged popular blogs where many people already visited. I challenged the Christian sites, or on skeptical blogs I made substantive comments. Then what happened is that sometimes the authors would respond in a post of their own, which drove even more traffic my way. Remember, even bad publicity is publicity[!] Being the atheist that I am, Christian sites will tear into you so be better prepared for that than I was. It's very hard not to wallow in the mire with people who personally attack you, but that's what happened. Nonetheless, these sites have readers who will come and stay at your blog for a while.
February 15, 2012
Why Must People Always Personally Attack Apostates?
It's typical of human nature to say nasty things about someone who leaves a church, ministry, or social grouping of any kind. "He wasn't one of us in the first place." "He has some big problems." People do this. When it happens we should expect it. Christians do it with former believers. Skeptics do it too. They do it with people who become believers again. They also do it when one leaves their social grouping. I left Freethought Blogs. Now the attacks have started even though up until recently I have not said anything negative about my experience there. If Natalie Reed's post is not indicative of the “mean-spirited” atheists at Freethought Blogs then what is, even if many of them are not like her at all.
Six Thoughtful Links
Professor Matt McCormick's slides for a lecture on What is Atheism?
Christianity Disproved.
Debunking the Arguments of Fundamentalists by Winston Wu.
Adam Tells God Goodbye.
Christianity Disproved.
Debunking the Arguments of Fundamentalists by Winston Wu.
Adam Tells God Goodbye.
Brilliantly Stupid: How To Kill a Creationist Bill
On January 31, 2012, the Indiana Senate voted 28-22 in favor of Senate Bill 89, which was previously amended to read: “The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.” As a Hoosier from Indiana I'm pleased to learn this bill is now dead in the water. You can read more about it right here.
February 14, 2012
Private Subjective Experience is No Evidence At All: Against William Lane Craig's Inner Witness of the Spirit
Since I've written a lot against Craig's claim of the inner witness of the Spirit I've decided to gather together the most important posts about it here. Christians are claiming I am ignorant about what he claims. Nope, I'm not. That's a typical response. I understand that Craig is not claiming this inner witness is sufficient to convince other people to believe. He's claiming instead that this supposed inner witness is sufficient to convince him. Thomas Larsen even asked if I've read Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief, as if that would straighten me out. He said the questions I pose about this "are elementary and, frankly, quite embarrassing for you." But given the looks of Larsen he was still in diapers as I was taking a master's level class with Bill Craig at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on Plantinga's epistemology. And I have read through the important parts of Plantinga's book and dissected them in Why I Became an Atheist.
My argument in a link below is that it doesn't matter how you dress it up philosophically. A delusion is a delusion is a delusion. I'm arguing that Bill Craig is deluded to claim such a thing and that he should know better. I know he's not trying to convince anyone else that he experienced it. He distinguishes between knowing Christianity is true from showing it to be true. He claims to know it's true by the inner witness of the Spirit. I'm trying to disabuse him of this claim, as impossible as it is to do so with a deluded person. And even if I can't, there are more reasonable Christians listening in who might be persuaded against Craig. I'm trying to point out to reasonable people how deluded such a claim is, regardless of whether any Christian sees it for what it is.
Listen up, God spoke to Moses privately, and privately to Paul, and likewise to Joseph Smith, and to Mohammed, and to many Pentecostals, and to David Koresh, and to many of the prophets we read in the Old Testament. Why does God always speak to people privately? Why do most people claim to know God in a private way? A private subjective experience has no more evidence for it than none at all. Given that most people are delusional when they make such claims it's extremely probable Craig is too. The ONLY reason evangelicals buy into this is because they need to believe. They would never entertain Craig's claim if they were a Mormon, or Muslim, Catholic, or Jew.
My argument in a link below is that it doesn't matter how you dress it up philosophically. A delusion is a delusion is a delusion. I'm arguing that Bill Craig is deluded to claim such a thing and that he should know better. I know he's not trying to convince anyone else that he experienced it. He distinguishes between knowing Christianity is true from showing it to be true. He claims to know it's true by the inner witness of the Spirit. I'm trying to disabuse him of this claim, as impossible as it is to do so with a deluded person. And even if I can't, there are more reasonable Christians listening in who might be persuaded against Craig. I'm trying to point out to reasonable people how deluded such a claim is, regardless of whether any Christian sees it for what it is.
Listen up, God spoke to Moses privately, and privately to Paul, and likewise to Joseph Smith, and to Mohammed, and to many Pentecostals, and to David Koresh, and to many of the prophets we read in the Old Testament. Why does God always speak to people privately? Why do most people claim to know God in a private way? A private subjective experience has no more evidence for it than none at all. Given that most people are delusional when they make such claims it's extremely probable Craig is too. The ONLY reason evangelicals buy into this is because they need to believe. They would never entertain Craig's claim if they were a Mormon, or Muslim, Catholic, or Jew.
February 13, 2012
Answering Some of My Critics
Around the web I have several detractors. They accuse me of a few things which I’d like to take the time to answer. I’m accused of being an egotistical self-promoting control freak who censors comments at DC and bans people off his Blog who disagree with me. I’m accused of wanting fame and financial gain. I'm accused of being childish and abrasive. Granted this comes from a small fringe of people but since their noise is discovered by search engines I should respond.
I’ve tried to resist responding to such ignorant and false drivel before. I know I cannot satisfy the people making such accusations. I also know that by responding I’ll give them more fodder. But here goes.
I’ve tried to resist responding to such ignorant and false drivel before. I know I cannot satisfy the people making such accusations. I also know that by responding I’ll give them more fodder. But here goes.
Some Atheists are Schmucks ;-)
Some of them remind me of Christians when disagreement arises. Enjoy.
David Marshall "Knows" God is Not Silent!
One of the arguments why Richard Carrier is not a Christian is that God is silent. David Marshall, author of several Christian apologetic books, says instead that he knows God is not silent. He said of Carrier and me that our claim is one we "cannot possibly know to be true. " Really?
The Scale of the Universe
Link. Drag the square at the bottom from left to right and back. Where is God? ;-) Nikita Khrushchev later said after Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin flew into space in 1961 that "Gagarin flew into space, but didn't see any god there." Such a comment was laughed at by believers, but there would have been a time in the ancient past when it would be startling news.
February 12, 2012
The OTF for Mormonism
Mormons assume other religions have the burden of proof. They assume human not divine authors to their holy book(s). They assume a human not a divine origin to their faiths. They critically evaluate all other religions by reason and science.
February 10, 2012
On Divisive Atheists and Some Freethought Bloggers
In February 2002, four years before his book The God Delusion was released in 2006, Richard Dawkins called atheists to arms in a TED talk. His talk wasn’t aired until April of 2007. He makes it clear he wants a campaign much like the gays used to gain acceptability in American society. His final sentence was, "let's all stop being so damned respectful."
At that point there was a split among atheists. A line was drawn in the sand. Although I admit that his approach has been very effective in getting people to take notice of atheists, at the same time I object to the demand that other atheists must adopt that same attitude or approach.
At that point there was a split among atheists. A line was drawn in the sand. Although I admit that his approach has been very effective in getting people to take notice of atheists, at the same time I object to the demand that other atheists must adopt that same attitude or approach.
Quote of the Day, With Examples
If the same kind of reasoning produces support for two different conclusions then the reasoning is delusional. By your host here, John W. Loftus ;-)--Example 1) Ontological arguments for God's existence equally support the Oriental conception of God, or a trickster god.
--Example 2) The same kind of arguments exonerating God from being evil also work in reverse to exonerate an evil God from being good.
--Example 3) Arguments deflecting the problem of divine hiddenness for the Christian God also work to deflect the problem of divine hiddenness for Zeus, Odin, Thor, Re, Hathor, Apollo, and Artemis.
--Example 4) Pascal's beneficial argument to support belief in the Christian God also works to support the evil Egyptian god Set (Seth), and the Greek gods Minos, Styx, Tartaros and Thanatos.
--Example 5) Arguments supporting the proper basically of belief in the Christian God also work to support the proper basically of belief in Allah. Somebody stop me!
BBC Program "Phantoms in the Brain" Hosted by V.S. Ramachandran
This is an episode from a BBC program hosted by neurologist V.S. Ramachandran that explains his key findings in certain instances of brain damage that have long been viewed as mere curiosities by the scientific community.
February 09, 2012
Is William Lane Craig Dishonest With the Facts? I've Drawn a Line in the Sand.
Most people know that I defend William Lane Craig against the charge that he is dishonest as an apologist. Among skeptics I am his biggest defender, perhaps the only one. But I have just asked him three questions about the inner witness of the Holy Spirit that if he refuses to answer I can only conclude he is not being honest with the facts, and will defend him no more. He might have other reasons for not answering them, but I can only conclude he can't do so reasonably. Here they are:
*Sigh* The Inner Witness of the Spirit Again
Christian, do you agree that objective evidence is external to the knower and can be verified by a third party at least in principle? Yes or no? How then can any third party verify a claim such as someone else's inner witness of the Spirit? At least someone's claim to be abducted by aliens is able to be verified in principle by a third party. Anyone in any religion or sect within one can claim to have had a veridical religious experience. These claims are a dime a dozen when they cannot be verified even in principle by a third party. That makes all of these claims subject to the charge of delusion, and as such, no evidence at all EVEN TO SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE HAD ONE! Q.E.D.
The 2011 About.com Readers' Choice Awards for Agnosticism / Atheism
[Edit: just a reminder] You can nominate your favorite book, blog, podcast, community, Ad and so forth, until February 15th, right here. Then you can vote for your favorites from February 22nd until March 21st. Winners will be announced March 30, 2012. My anthology The Christian Delusion won last year. With the publication in 2011 of The End of Christianity I'm hoping it could win this year. Nominate away. The more nominations it gets the better chance it will be selected for the voting that follows.
Richard Carrier's Book "Why I am Not a Christian" is Excellent!
Carrier's book can be found here,
which I highly recommend. Here's a brief summary of it:
which I highly recommend. Here's a brief summary of it:Bradley Bowen: "the devil is in the details"
Before reading what he wrote, Bowen tells us about himself:
I was a devout Evangelical Christian from 1970 to 1982. The study of philosophy, especially philosophy of religion, led me to see that my Christian faith was founded on weak and faulty arguments. I followed where reason led me, and left Christianity in favor of skepticism, critical thinking, and a secular humanist worldview. Background in Philosophy - B.A. in philosophy from Sonoma State University. M.A. in philosophy from University of Windsor. Candidate for PhD in philosophy from University of California at Santa Barbara.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)