Here is a great compilation of evidence on a single page.
Good intellectual ammo for debating creationists.
Good intellectual ammo for debating creationists.
I have to tell you, the worst part about writing books is sitting on your hands for the year-long lag from completion of the manuscript to the day it hits the bookstores. As a result, you end up biding your time pathetically posting in your blog even the most trivial updates on the book which, come to think of it, is exactly what I’m doing right now.
I personally see ‘freethoughtblogs’ as unrepresentative of the wider rationalist community in:
1) The disproportionate amount of attention it gives to sexism compared to other issues.
2) The way that those who disagree on the matter of sexism are attacked with a disproportionate amount of strawmen, invective and branding (misogynist, MRA, etc etc). This is a behavior more in line with bullying than free thought.
.. and this puts FTB on a trajectory to be more of a fringe group that is intolerant of non-conformity, than a haven for free thought. An ill wind that really doesn’t blow anyone any good. Link.
With an eye towards answering his critics, he has revised, expanded, and improved the book. This new version is a stunning tour-de-force criticism of the Christian faith both from an outsider’s and insider’s point of view. Mr. Loftus confronts the problem of evil, the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit, miracles, the veracity of holy texts, the ‘problem’ of science, and so much more in this volume. Anyone doubting their faith or anyone who wants to defend it must deal with the issues Mr. Loftus raises in Why I Became an Atheist.- Reviewed by Jonathon Howard for the Sacramental/San Francisco Book Review.
The reason I like Pharyngula is that PZ doesn't give a shit what the religious think except when they try to make their stupid ideas and actions affect those outside their sanctuary. Then, it's no-holds-barred ridicule.
It always puzzles me at the idea that someone might assume one person, be he named Matthew or Sam, just sat down one day and decided to write a book called the Gospel according to Matthew from memory or from his own notes. Is this how literary scholars think things got written? It seems much too simplistic to me.
"They (New Atheists) accuse the God of the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) of being an evil, sadistic being (to put it nicely). They defame God’s name and delight in calling Him unjust. In all of this, however, they betray their complete lack of knowledge about Scripture, God, and the universe. ...there are (among many others) two primary ways that the New Atheists are in error when they attack God in such a way. These two ways are:
1) They forget that if God does indeed exist, then they are in no position to judge God.
2) They ignore Christology, which is of utmost importance in any discussion of God.
Wartick then provides the following argument:
1. If the God of classical theism exists, then He is sovereign (i.e. the ultimate authority in the universe)
2. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the God of classical theism exists.
3. Therefore, God is the ultimate authority in the universe."