WIBA Will Be Available in Four Weeks

I just received word that my extensively revised book, Why I Became an Atheist, was sent off to be printed today. It'll be available in four weeks. You can pre-order it off Amazon.com. This is my magnum opus. If you get only one of my books then get this one. Yes, there will be a Kindle or ebook version of it coming out, but when I don't know.

A Reasonable Faith is an Oxymoron

This is what I think. I’ve previously argued for this in a different way when I quipped, Faith is an Irrational Leap Over the Probabilities.

Jerry Coyne on the "Sophisticated Theology" of Plantinga

While Coyne is attempting to deal with so-called "Sophisticated Theology," something the New Atheists don't do, even he doesn't get it. Plantinga is not trying to prove God, and the essay he's criticizing is from Plantinga's old school version. For a better critique read Jaco Gericke's Fundamentalism on Stilts. Yet Coyne is right when he says:

To paraphrase Orwell, one has to be a theologian to believe things like this: no ordinary man could be such a fool...It is apologetics: the practice of making stuff up post facto to buttress what you already know must be true. And, at bottom—and despite all the intellectual gymnastics of Dr. Plantinga—it all comes down to revelation, to what a particular group of people happens to find amenable as a "basic belief."

Quote of the Day, by articulett

It's not that science has ever been wrong... it's that religion has never been right. Science has an error correcting mechanism; faith does not. That's why there is one science-- and it's the same for everybody no matter what they believe.

Biola University is “fundamentally at odds with the entire direction of modern biology.”

This spring semester the Center for Christian Thought opens at California’s Biola University. The center is the result of a $3 million John Templeton Foundation Award. But based on the doctrinal statement of Biola, this sectarian institution is "fundamentally at odds with the entire direction of modern biology,” so notes Thomas Albert Howard and Karl W. Giberson. Why? Because "Common ancestry today is, quite simply, as well-established in biology as the motion of the earth about the sun is in astronomy. To attempt to exclude faculty who might hold this view is tantamount to closing one's eyes in the face of an encyclopedia of genetic information." Link. Their Apologetics Faculty includes:

Faith is an Irrational Leap Over the Probabilities

You can quote me on this. Probability is all that matters. Faith is irrational. I want to drive this point into the ground once and for all.

The problem is that practically nothing is certain. So the word "faith" is used to describe any conclusion of ours that leaves room for doubt. Is it possible I'm dreaming right now? I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility. Is it possible a material world does not exist? I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility too. Is it possible a good omnipotent God exists given the world-wide massive and ubiquitous suffering in it? Again, I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility.

So what? Probability is all that matters. Accepting some conclusion because it's merely possible is irrational. We should never ever do that.

"Herding Cats?" by Secular Planet

It's said that organizing atheists is like herding cats. We're implicitly compared to believers, who have acknowledged leaders, authoritative texts, and formal organizations. The reason usually advanced to account for this phenomenon is that we atheists are generally rather individualistic and thus reluctant to follow someone else's lead on such matters. But there's another reason which I've never seen presented in the context of explaining the herding-cats idea: atheism is much too broad a concept under which to seek to organize. The proper comparison is not to individual religious sects but to theists as a whole.

"Reports of My Death Are Greatly Exaggerated"

I'm just relaxing a bit, taking a small break. I'm wondering if I have anything more to say that I haven't said before. I can revisit my arguments, review another book, link to a new site, do another podcast interview or other such things. But what additional things can I say if what I've already said doesn't change the minds of many believers? Most of them won't be able to even consider their faith is a delusion until they face a personal crisis. That's the power of the delusion. A crisis can and will force them to do what they should've been doing all along, critically examining their faith as outsiders. All I have to do is wait. ;-)

"The End of Christianity" Nominated Favorite Atheist Book of 2011

This is one of a few good atheist books in the yearly Readers' Choice Awards of About.com Agnosticism/Atheism. Last year The Christian Delusion won. Just to be nominated is pretty cool. I'm hoping The End of Christianity does well this year too. You can vote right here.

The Relationship of Religious Diversity to Moral Diversity

Religious diversity is one of the main reasons why there is moral diversity (next to gender, race, age, economic, and national differences). Religious diversity ultimately stands in the way of a healthy world society by pitting various religious groups against each other, each one claiming the exclusive privilege of possessing the divine moral truth.

The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics

I have run across not a few evangelical Christian apologists who have argued that their religion is "superior" because Jesus preached the Golden Rule, "All things therefore that you want people to DO to you, DO thus to them" (Matthew 7:12), while other ancient teachers merely taught the negative version of that rule: "Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT like done to yourself."

Is Richard Dawkins the Liar?: “Doctor” Jim West’s Dishonesty Revealed

Psychoanalysis is a common method for delegitimizing atheists. For example, Paul Vitz's Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism (2000) tries to show that atheism correlates with absent fathers. Jim Spiegel, a professor at Taylor University, gives us his psychoanalytic theory of atheism in the title of his book, The Making of An Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief (2010). Aside from offering poor and arbitrary evidence, this type of psychoanalysis also deflects attention from the merits of any case that atheists themselves express for their views. So, instead of actually listening to reasons atheists give, it is enough for such theists to couch their explanations for atheism in psychoanalytic jargon that features anger, bitterness, and immorality.

The Christianity of the Future is Innoxious

Christianity has always changed like a chameleon to its culture and times. It's emphatically NOT the case that the Christianity of the 1st or 2nd centuries has survived. The heresy of a previous generation just becomes the orthodoxy of the next one. Subsequent generations develop an amnesia about what Christianity used to be. That's it. The conservatives in one generation become the moderates in the next one who become the liberals in the following one. In each of these subsequent generations conservatives who object to this trend start their own churches, publishing houses and seminaries. Then these new churches, publishing houses and seminaries follow the same trend. And as they do, conservatives break off again and the trend starts all over. Do you want to know the Christianity of the future in America? I suspect it might look more like the inclusivist/universalism of Rob Bell along with the pop-psychology gospel of Joel Olsteen.

The Debunking Handbook Is Now Free

The Debunking Handbook, a guide to debunking misinformation, is now freely available to download. Although there is a great deal of psychological research on misinformation, there's no summary of the literature that offers practical guidelines on the most effective ways of reducing the influence of myths. The Debunking Handbook boils the research down into a short, simple summary, intended as a guide for communicators in all areas (not just climate) who encounter misinformation. Link

Richard Carrier vs Douglas Jacoby: Jesus, Son of God or Apocalyptic Prophet?

This debate occurred on January 14, 2012 at the Amador Christian Center in Sacramento California. You can listen to it below.

Is Whitney Houston in Heaven?

Kevin Costner gave a wonderful eulogy at Whitney's funeral today. He and others all claim Whitney Houston is in heaven. Is she? Whitney was a wonderful singer and actress. I loved her. I listened to her songs all of the time. But why is it that people we like are all going to heaven? In Matthew 7 Jesus tells us the gate is narrow and few find it, even people who think they will. Now I understand about eulogies. Who in their right mind would question whether someone is in heaven in front of believing loved ones? Not me that's for sure, and as a former minister I did funerals for people I doubted were in heaven. That would be insensitive to the max. But again, why is it believers think they're all going to heaven? Why is it that any deceased person associated with the church is believed to have gone to heaven? According to Jesus even believers should not have this hope. According to him most people who have this hope are deluded.

Some "Nice" Christians Are Praying For Me

Care to pray along?

I've prayed that if he [John] doesn't turn to Christ in good health (which I prefer), that God would make him sick so that either a) he realizes his need for Christ and converts, or b) dies so that he doesn't lead any more people to hell.

The problem is that there are many skeptics so you'd have to pray that we all convert back (how's THAT working for ya?), get sick, or die. And like it or not, my books will stay in print for decades. Either Christianity wins in the marketplace of ideas or it doesn't. If it does, then do it. If it doesn't then there's nothing you can do about it with this prayer. The Levee has broken, okay? So as Led Zeppelin sings (at 4:08 below) "Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. Now, cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. When the levee breaks, mama, you got to move."

Dr. Craig's Calamitous Cock-Up -- Bayes' Theorem and the Resurrection

Dr. James East Recommends WIBA

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:

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.

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.

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.