Jesus as a Jewish Religious Bigot

The most harsh and racially charged position Jesus takes is in his love and protection of the faith of his nation Israel built on the exclusive covenant to the Jews have by its god Yahweh.

Why I HATE Christianity

I recently wrote a post on my blog explaining why I HATE Christianity which received over 3500 hits in one day, so I thought I would also submit it to DC to gauge the reaction here. I have put some of the Christian responses, and my counters at the bottom of the post. Enjoy!

Richard Carrier exposes New Testament problems

Here is a video, a couple of years old now, which provides some excellent questions. I am not a Jesus mythicist, but really rate the thought-provoking nature of this video. It is Carrier at his best. Much of it needs savouring and following up with detailed research and analysis.

From a God in a Box to the Universal Sky God: Eternal Blessing and Suffering for All

God is a consequentialist part 2 - the Old Testament inconsistencies

So now having exposed in the last post how God values moral actions, let me look into internal evidence from the Bible which shows that God espouses a moral absolutist code, and yet proceeds to contradict that ruling somewhat hypocritically in his actions.

Let me recap. By seeing moral value in the greater good that supposedly (this is just an assertion from theists to explain away the Problem of Evil) comes about from a moral action, God is deriving the moral value of that action not from any intrinsic character, but from the context; from the consequences. For example, the suffering and death of Jesus is excused from the greater good this supposedly entails (the confusing notion of atonement) and the 2004 tsunami killing 230,000 people and millions of other organisms is explained as morally good in the consequences which this brings about. We do not know what these consequences are since God decides it is a good idea not to tell us, but suffice it to say that we must (as theists claim) understand that this is part of God’s greater plan, mysterious as it is. Since God is morally perfect, the plan must also be morally perfect. Thus any action or omission (inaction, or choice not to act) is defined as being morally perfect. Therefore, the tsunami was both designed tectonically by God in actualising the physics of this universe, and allowed to happen by God choosing not to intervene and stop it due to some greater good which we struggle to fathom. As a result, we are assured (by theistic experts with no small dollop of question begging) that here is a greater good, and subsequently, as I have surmised, the good of such an action or omission is derived by the consequences.

Why John 3:16 is a Lie in Its Biblical Context

Compare this famous evangelical Gospel tract verse as cited in the late Gospel of John with both the older Bible traditions themselves as well as the New Testament itself.

In Defense of the Non-Ethics of Christianity

In this post, I am going to build upon one of my previous posts, namely, The Non-Ethics of Christianity, in order to further illustrate how the Pauline version of Christianity that has been adopted by the majority of Christians in our society (and many non-Christians as well) leads to moral laxity. I will use two examples of Christians who purport to undermine my case, but who in fact, support my case, and illustrate why the Pauline version of Christianity leads to moral laxity.

God is a consequentialist

In this post I will be starting to lay our what my idea of the morality of God is. Many theists, such as William Lane Craig, claim that God is the grounding of objective morality. Either that, or that God is the even less defensible basis of an absolute moral code. I will look at both of these issues.

Let me lay out some groundwork about morality. One popular secular value system for morality is called consequentialism. This broadly states that the moral value of an act is derived from the consequences which the act brings about rather than the intrinsic moral value of the act itself.

Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, was a deontologist. Deontologists believe that the morality of an action is intrinsic and is valued on how well it adheres to objective moral rules. One of the classic criticisms to this position is known as the Inquiring Murderer thought experiment and is as follows. If a murderer came to your house and asked you where his prey was, and you knew, you would be obliged to tell the murderer and thus facilitate the death since there is a moral worth in not lying. Deontologists often claim that you cannot use people for a means to an end, they are the end in themselves. Thus, in the trolley experiment, where changing the tracks will cause the death of one person and not five, it is morally bad to change the track to save five, thus allowing the one to die since you would be using the death of one person to obtain the life of five others.You would be using the one person as a means to an end.

We are not the 'Center of all Things'

The Thinking Atheist has created a well-produced video here. It gives a brief synopsis of humanity and shows us to be, in homage to Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot, rather insignificant on a cosmic scale. The sun no longer revolves around us. Lightning is longer the wrath of the gods. Flood myths are that. Myths.

Bullshit! Case In Point, Joel Watts

Joel is a high ranked Biblioblogger, just under DC in hits. I didn't quit because I failed. I succeeded. I didn't quit because no one listened to me. They did, on both sides of the fence. And I'm not gone. I am just done wasting large chunks of my time here. I said I might post something from time to time too. Furthermore, Christianity has emphatically not survived the attacks of the skeptics. Joel is so ignorant he doesn't even realize his Christianity is different than the Christianities of the past because of the attacks of the skeptics. It's so different he would be burned at the stake for heresy a few centuries ago. And I am NOT coming back to the faith. I eschew faith. Here is a Master's level student majoring in the exegesis (or the interpretation) of Mark's gospel. Where the hell are his exegesis skills? The same ones required to exegete a Biblical text are required when interpreting a blog post from me. Sheesh. If anything I quit because I'm tired of butting my head against the wall of stupidity. If anything I'm not going to play nice anymore. This is just a mundane example of what I dealt with daily for years. It's idiocy. And he thinks he can be objective about his faith? Bullshit!

Yahweh Condones Thievery--Well, Only in Certain Cases...;)

According to Christians it's ok to "steal" as long as it is from an oppressor, and as long as you are putting it to "better use." This, according to Bill Pratt over at "Tough Questions Answered." where he implies there are "conditions" to the commandment of "Thou Shall Not Steal." For the sake of argument, let's assume that Bill Pratt is correct.

It has been shown (by myself and many others) that the Bible has many contradictions in it, and Bill's example is just one more example to put in the file cabinet. Apparently, with their clever(?) use of Humpty Dumpty semantics (i.e., making words mean whatever they want them to mean) Christians now consider their thievery not to be thievery when it is put to a "better use," or, when it is thievery against a non-follower of Yahweh--which seems to be ok with him. Let me explain.

The Non-Ethics of Christianity

Why do normal people believe ridiculous things?

Why, indeed, do normal people believe ridiculous things? We have heard much from John Loftus about the OTF – the Outsider Test for Faith – which essentially illustrates that religion is a (geographical) accident of birth. It claims that if believers used the same critical powers they use to assess, and dismiss, other religions and their claims, then they are obliged to turn those critical faculties on their own. If they did, John would claim, then they would surely end up dismissing the claims of their own religion (this is a simplistic view of the OTF, no doubt).

What is interesting to me here is not so much the fact that people do special plead their own religion in this way (though that is incredibly interesting and important in itself), but how this comes about. I will put forward a theory which is fairly well accepted anecdotally, and see what you think. I will use an example which I experienced the other night which should show the theory with clarity.

Okay, The Time Has Come, I'm Done

[Edited July 6, 2012: Below is my original post where I said I was done arguing with Christians and done wasting so much time here. It wasn't long before I was back, this time arguing mostly with the atheists at Freethought Blogs, which can be read here in reverse chronological order. Now I am done arguing with atheists too, that is, unless there is something egregious that needs to be addressed by me. Again, I'll stick around, comment on occasion, and update people from time to time. I have assembled a good team of bloggers here so enjoy them. Back to your regularly scheduled program.]

I have no more desire to engage Christians. They are deluded, all of them. I have never been more convinced of this than I am now. I have better things to do. I spent 39+ years of my adult life on a delusion. If I add the years of my childhood that's almost my entire life. Yet this is the only life I will ever have. It's time to move on, or at a minimum take a very long hiatus. I just finished what may be my last book, on The Outsider Test for Faith, to be published by Prometheus Books early next year. How many times do I need to kick the dead horse of Christianity? I don't think I need to say anything more. If what I have written isn't good enough then nothing is good enough for some Christians. What I intend to do is turn this blog over to a few qualified people. I'll still be a part of it and I suppose I'll post something from time to time. But I see no reason to waste large chunks of my time on this delusion anymore. [Edit: For further clarification I commented below.]

Articulett Responds To The Question of the Origins of the Universe

Jeff Foley wrote: Let us keep it simple, then: prove or disprove the necessity of at lease one "being" which has the power of being "in and of" itself (aseity). All that exists is the result of this/these "being(s)." As a scientist and philosopher, you should be familiar with the proposition: Ex nihilo, nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes.) I am using the proposition as a postulate; at least one "being" must "be" (has aseity.) Either something must have aseity, or things pop into existence from "thin air." Let us call this/these being(s) God. Should I assume that you do not believe in God, and instead you believe that all that exists came from "thin air"? Articulett responds:

Why Do I Regularly Promote My Books?

I must apologize to regular readers of this blog since I promote my books often. It probably annoys a few of you. But I do so just like a mother wants to talk about her new baby. Why not? As you can see from the Blogger Pageviews we're getting 129,000 hits a month (no they're not all from me, either!). And many of these hits are new visitors to DC. So I want them to know about my book, Why I Became an Atheist, which is getting some superior reviews. Likewise for The Christian Delusion, and The End of Christianity.

The OTF is the Solution to Religious Diversity

I want people to see the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) as the solution to an incredible amount of religious diversity. This is a problem that needs a solution. No other methods have worked before. If people cannot find solutions to problems within a business they hire solution specialists who offer ways to solve it. Mediators find ways to bring people together by offering ways they can see their differences in a better light. That’s what the OTF does. The goal is to offer a fair test to find out which religion is true if there is one. The OTF grants that a religious faith can be reasonable and asks believers to test their faith with it, just as it grants that non-belief is reasonable and asks non-believers to consider the religious options available. It grants the possibility that one particular religious faith could pass the test, just as it grants the possibility that none of them do. To be a fair and objective test it must allow that any conclusion could result from taking the test, and the OTF does just that. If someone disagrees he or she will not only need to find fault with it, but also propose a better test. What’s the alternative?

The skepticism required by the OTF is expressed as follows: 1) It assumes one's own religious faith has the burden of proof; 2) It adopts the methodological naturalist viewpoint where we assume there is a natural explanation for the origins of that religion, its holy books, and it’s extraordinary claims of miracles; 3) It demands sufficient evidence, scientific evidence, before concluding a religion is true; and most importantly, 4) It disallows any faith in the religion under investigation since it cannot leap over the lack of evidence by punting to faith.

Believers may object that if they assume the skepticism of the OTF it will automatically cause them to reject their religious faith, and as such, doing so unfairly presumes its own conclusion. But I think not, not if there is objective evidence, sufficient evidence, for one’s religious faith. For if it exists then even a skeptic should come to accept it. Many people are convinced every day about issues when the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created us as reasonable people then the correct religious faith should have sufficient evidence for it since that’s what reasonable people require. Otherwise, if this evidence doesn’t exist in sufficient quantities then God counter-productively created us as reasonable people who would reject the correct faith. It also means that people born as outsiders in different geographical locations will be condemned to hell (however conceived) by God merely because of when and where they were born. This doesn’t bode well for an omniscient omnibenelovent but wrathful kind of God. Even apart from such a God concept the only way to settle which religious faith is true is to rely on sufficient evidence.

On Death, Part 1 and 2

Check these two videos out.

Evolution Occurs Faster Than You Think

Link

How Science Leads to Naturalism (At Least For Me)

We should be skeptics of extraordinary claims of miracles in the ancient past. Tell me why we shouldn't? There are too many of them in every culture, too many mythical stories.

Science must assume a natural explanation for every event. Historians must do likewise. When in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas we find that Jesus took clay, made it into birds and let them fly, how should a historian proceed? He cannot take that claim seriously.

My claim is that even if Jesus did miracles there is no way given the historical tools at our disposal to say that he did. Doing so against the tools available to us can only come by way of faith. But faith claims more than the evidence allows. So why should anyone embrace faith? If faith is a legitimate way of accessing what happened in the past then even though a historian must deny Jesus created birds out of clay anyone can simply say that he did based on faith. With faith anyone can say anything that was reported in the ancient past happened as reported. But we know better.

This is science.

So the question for a believer is that if a historian cannot conclude miracles occurred in the past then why do you believe the Bible? And if you cannot believe the Bible what would you really believe? That is, if there was no Bible, if there was no reason to believe it, what would you believe? If science produced the results I just described then you would trust science to help solve other mysteries of the universe.

Science is based on reason so it doesn't exclude philosophical analysis. Science and philosophy are bedfellows. You always see an experiment coupled with reasoning.

And if the Bible is no longer authoritative as God's word then you are free to conjecture other possible gods that might exist, like a scientific one who has been creating and then re-creating one universe after another to see how the creatures in his universes behave. I see no reason why a god could not have created this one last universe from a quantum wave fluctuation with all of the fine tuning needed to produce this universe before committing deicide. There are many possibilities like this, none of which would ever lead you to that a Triune God sent his son to die and rise from the grave. So at that point you jettison these other god hypotheses as irrelevant to properly understanding why we exist and you simply trust science to do its thing.

This is how it happened with me.

[First posted on 11/21/10].

Victor Stenger On Science and Religion

Link.

Are Skeptics Exclusivists? Apologist David Marshall Opines, "Yes." *Sigh*

I've tried to disabuse him of this. Anyone else want to try? ;-) He said:

You make the epistemic claim:

A1 "There isn’t enough evidence to positively assent to that belief."

or the historical claim:

A2 "Religionists have not produced the evidence to believe."

A in both cases is in conflict with non-A, and therefore excludes it. A1 and A2 are also both universal claims to know what you can't possibly know. That kind of sweeping claim makes more sense on theism, in which God could presumably reveal it to you, than on atheism, in which you are just one, subjective, biased, brain in a skull with a few cords sticking out, like billions of other such brains, evolved with an eye to reproductive success, not truth. Link

Plantinga is Grossly Monumentally Massively Wrong

Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga defends exclusivism by arguing that it “need not involve either epistemic or moral failure, and that furthermore something like it is wholly unavoidable, given our human condition.” He tells us there are three alternatives to religious diversity, (1) to continue believing, (2) to withhold belief, or (3) to deny one’s belief. Against (2) withholding belief, he argues “there is no safe haven here, no way to avoid risk. In particular, you won't reach safe haven by trying to take the same attitude towards all the historically available patterns of belief and withholding: for in so doing you adopt a particular pattern of belief and withholding, one incompatible with some adopted by others. You pays your money and you takes your choice, realizing that you, like anyone else, can be desperately wrong. But what else can you do? You don't really have an alternative.” Against (3) denying one’s belief, he argues this “is not a way out.” For “if I do this I will then be in the very same condition as I am now.” For he will be denying propositions that others believe in and will no more be able to convince them they are wrong than if he didn’t do this. So he opines that the charge of intellectual arrogance “against exclusivism is hoist with his own petard,” for it is “self-referentially inconsistent.”

Given religious diversity the proper attitude, the adult attitude, is doubt. At the minimum it means withholding belief. At most it means denying belief. There is a huge difference between assenting to a belief and doubting it, just as there is between assenting to a belief and denying it. There are just too many ways to be wrong. So there is no epistemic parity between belief and doubt (or rejection) at all. Doubting (or rejecting) a belief is easy. We all do it all of the time. The hard part is to set forth a positive case for one particular belief out of the myriad number of them available. For Plantinga to say doubt (or denial) is “self-referentially inconsistent” is grossly monumentally massively wrongheaded. The person doing the doubting or denying something simply says there isn’t enough evidence to positively assent to that belief. And people all over the world do this with respect to the other faiths they reject. How is that “self-referentially inconsistent”? Is Plantinga’s denial of all other religions also “self-referentially inconsistent”? People cannot have a “self-referentially inconsistent” belief until they believe in something. The way he uses the word “belief” is akin to claiming that a historian who argues we do not know what happened at Custer’s Last Stand has a belief about what happened, i.e., that we do not know what happened at Custer’s Last Stand. Does that make any sense, that a historian who says “I don’t know what happened at Custer’s Last Stand” is saying “I know what happened at Custer’s Last Stand”? If such a conclusion is to be considered a belief then Plantinga is equivocating on the meaning of the word. For then the word “belief” is equivalent to the word “doubt.” Can we say Plantinga doubts Christianity? Can it be said that as a non-believer I believe in Christianity? Does it even make sense to say this about the relationship of Plantinga to Christianity, or me to Christianity? Hardly.

Occidental vs Oriental Ontological Arguments

When it comes to the ontological argument most believers can use it to their own conceptions of god. An eastern pantheist could easily begin Anslem’s ontological argument by conceiving that the greatest conceivable being is the One, that which cannot be conceived. This conception of the One denies that there is a personal god, something westerners conceive differently because of being born and raised in the Occident rather than the Orient. But by following the train of reasoning involved, the proper conclusion would be that therefore the One, that which cannot be conceived, exists. For westerners who think this is irrational the easterner could simply reply with a koan. A koan is a story, dialogue, question, or a statement which is used in Zen-practice to silence the questions of the rational mind. A famous koan says: “Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?” This is because to easterners, reason cannot approach or understand or conceive the One, the ultimate reality. People who say that they cannot understand something are emphatically not saying that they understand it. Polytheists, as far as I know, could also use the ontological argument to argue for the head god of their pantheon of gods, if they are unaware (and hence cannot conceive) that other people in other parts of the world have bigger conceptions of god.

Is Atheism a Religion?

No it is not! It's not even a worldview. No matter how you define religion it must include supernatural forces or beings, and atheists deny them. If a Christian reader thinks atheism is a religion then please provide for us a definition of religion that applies both to Christianity and to its denial. Define it such that it applies to all groups that believe in the supernatural and also to groups that deny the supernatural. My guess is that any definition of religion that includes atheism will either deny the inherent supernaturalism of religions like Christianity, or will end up reducing religion to the lowest common denominator of a social grouping. Give it a go, okay? One lame attempt would be to say that atheism is a religion because it takes a position on metaphysical issues, I suppose, but then by the same token, as Dr. David Eller wrote: "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby." [First published 5/20/09]