Quote of the Day, by B_R_Deadite99

"Believing is easy, thinking is hard."

Is There Any Evidence For Christianity At All? A Review.

Here's the evidence. Are you ready? Christians have the argument from ignorance which is a known informal fallacy, that is, the as yet unexplainable mysteries of existence. Then you have private subjective anecdotal religious experiences, something every believer claims to have, which basically nullifies that subjective private evidence. Then you have historical evidence from the ancient pre-scientific superstitious past. Historical evidence is paltry evidence indeed, especially when it comes to the ancient superstitious past. Am I missing anything? Christians basically got nothing, nothing substantial that is. Not in comparison to science. All Christians do is attack science at this point which is a mark of a deluded person. Who in their right mind would not see this as it is? There is no parity between the "evidence" to believe and the evidence that causes me to disbelieve, at all.

So Far So Good, a Review of SBs and a Clarification

Our new Skeptic Blogs Network has gotten off to a great start with 45,000 pageviews in 15 days. This is only the start. We have 13 excellent bloggers and 39 more applicants to join us, some of which are really good ones. In the next couple of weeks or more we’ll have some very exciting news to share so stay tuned, visit often, and subscribe so you don’t miss a thing. We think we’re about to blow the doors off this thing with the changes and explode into your living rooms. Okay, Okay, I get a bit excited. ;-)

People have asked me that since I now blog in two places, at my flagship Blog, Debunking Christianity (DC), and also at Skeptic Blogs (SBs), how do I plan on doing this? We’ll as Tevye says in the Fiddler on the Roof, “I don’t know. But it’s a tradition.” Actually, I have an idea.

Quote of the Day, by GearHedEd

I literally haven't prayed in decades, and my life is no worse for wear than anyone else's...Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Why I Am Justified in Telling God What To Do?

How dare I demand that God gives me what I need to believe? How dare I tell him how he should reveal himself to me? How dare I question the reasonableness of revealing himself in the pre-scientific past such that I must accept what ancient people claimed to have seen in a remote part of the world, or be condemned to hell if I don't? How dare I disbelieve because of the so-called mysteries of an eternal three-in-one God, who became incarnate, and who died for my sins, even though none of these doctrines make any rational sense at all.

Well I do dare to demand better of God, if he exists. That's the point. How am I to know he exists when his lack of divine forethought led to massive slaughter among Christians themselves over the stupidest of doctrinal trifles that if he had foreseen them and had even average communication skills he could have averted? Or, he could have told us more important things than what to do with our penises and vaginas, by giving us the knowledge to make vaccines and anesthesia for surgeries?

Why do I demand better things? It's simple:

If God created me as a reasonable human being, then I can doubt the reasonableness of a God who fails to give me what I need to believe as a reasonable human being.

If God created me as human being who seeks sufficient evidence to believe, then I can demand that he gives me the sufficient evidence I need to believe.

Connect the dots.

Of course, maybe he doesn't want reasonable people? Who knew? ;-) But then, why am I who I am? Still, if that's the case then he could snap his omnipotent fingers and take away my critical thinking skills so I would believe as others do. I did at one time. Then I grew a brain, just as ex-Mormons, ex-Muslims, ex-Orthodox Jews, ex-Scientologists and others did. ;-)

Emotionally Engaged People Do Not Think Clearly At All

Christians really believe they have a personal relationship with their God. They feel certain of it. They really believe their God listens to them and in turn is communicating to them, answering their prayers. They really believe their God agrees with what they believe too, which I find to be a dangerous thing. They are emotionally engaged just like most every believer in other religions with their own gods. So consider for a moment someone who was in love. Could you say anything of a critical nature of that lover and get a rational discussion? Have you ever listened to someone who was angry? Could you say anything of a positive nature of the person that anger was directed against and get a rational discussion? Not usually in most cases. Outside of religion in mundane examples we see this with crystal clear clarity. An outsider who is not emotionally engaged can have a better view of such things because emotionally engaged people do not think clearly at all. We already know this about human beings because the brain was built haphazardly by the process of evolution. How much more so when it's emotionally engaged. But wait, there's more!

Some Mistakes of Moses By Robert Ingersoll (Continued)

First, here's a note from my friend Julian Haydon who is submitting something from Robert Ingersoll for us to read each week:

These are extracts from an 84 page paper written 1879 by Ingersoll. There were some Christians who were beginning to reject a talking serpent in favor of allegorical explanations; but there were millions who regarded every word in the Bible as holy fact. Ingersoll was contending with the latter. His tactic is to recount the story as told; drive home the clear meaning; allow the impossibilities and contradictions to speak for themselves; and draw stinging conclusions. Most of the biblical story is here omitted. Now to get to Ingersoll himself.

Dr. Matt McCormick's New Book Is Out. I Just Got My Copy!

How To Engage a Christian

Someone in my CFI online class asked me what the best strategy is for discussing faith with a Christian. What would you say? My response:

There are so many Christianities there is probably no one single way to proceed. You just have to start listening. I like to provoke at least enough doubt that they will read a book or two on it by atheists. I like to quote other Christians against each other. That has shown itself to be effective since it's not pitting their particular faith against atheism.

I like to show weaknesses in the Bible and the theology that comes from it, most notably its superstitious nature and the barbaric nature of Yahweh. My claim is that once the brain of the believer is divorced from the Bible he or she probably wouldn't believe at all.

One guy sent me a supposedly new cosmological argument for the existence of God. I responded by asking him if this is the reason he became a believer in the first place. He had to say no. So I asked him what were his initial reasons for believing in the first place, saying this question is much more important to me than anything else. He didn't like this at all. He wanted to debate this new argument of his. I asked because people who became believers in their different religions probably stated out young in their faith as taught by their parents in their respective cultures. Since the adult attitude is skepticism they ought to re-examine these reasons as an outsider or non-believer would. For if one's faith cannot be accepted by an outsider with such a perspective, then that particular God would be found condemning people for simply being born in a different culture, and that's unreasonable for a reasonable type of God.

Church Names Are Revealing

I saw a church yesterday that had this name: The Church of the True God. Yep, that was its name. Everyone else is going to hell. Church people are deluded. For the most part they all think that. This church states it with candor. Then I saw another church named "Prince of Peace Lutheran." These churches don't even know their Bibles. Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name."

A Major Second Temple Scholar Joins the Case Against the Existence of Jesus Christ

Did Jesus Exist?

Professor Davies is well known for his books, “In Search of "Ancient Israel: A Study in Biblical Origins” (now in its 2 edition) and his newest book, “Memories of Ancient Israel: An Introduction to Biblical History--Ancient and Modern”, Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.

Enjoy

24 Hour Youtube Atheist Marathon for Doctors Without Borders - Sept 8th 2012

The Youtube atheist community has raised over $100,000 for Doctors Without Borders over the past three years, and it is nearly time for their annual marathon.  It will take place the weekend of 8/9th September. Familiar faces will be appearing on the show including Aronra, Zomgitscriss, ProfMTH, C0nc0rdance, Matt Dillahunty, and Seth Andrews (The Thinking Atheist).  Here is DPRJones explaining how it works:

Thought For Today

“There are some people who can receive a truth by no other way than to have their understanding shocked and insulted.”

Carl Sandburg (January 6, 1878 – July 22, 1967)

On the Christian Doctrine of Salvation and Damnation: Fact or Faith?

We get confirmation here at DC all the time from Christians that God exists whether we atheist believe it or not! Thus, it is an affirmed fact that “God” does NOT and IS NOT based on faith . . . He exists and will judge both the good (Saved) and the bad (Damned) at the Final Judgment “according to their works:

Ockham's Razor and Christianity and why I have been scarce

I don't know if anyone has missed me, but I have become scarce around here as John, myself and the rest of the team at Skeptic Blogs have been setting up shop and getting things moving. I have migrated my old blog and revamped it over at SBs: A Tippling Philosopher. On the blog, I have guest posts from Andreas Schueler, Cody Rudisill and Aaron Adair, and accept other decent pieces from anyone else willing to contribute good sound writing to the cause.

Come join in the fun. Here is a piece I posted the other day, which I have embellished a little. Also, I hope to still contribute the odd piece here as time permits - I just thought I'd let you know what was going on.

Ockham's Razor and Christianity:

Here is a definition of Ockham’s Razor:

Ockham's Razor: the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.

The Meaninglessness of Sin

P1. If God created us as Christians claim, then God gave us “human nature.”

P2. If human nature allows us to sin, then God is to blame for the problem of evil.

C. Therefore, God is to blame for the problem of evil. Link

No Cross No Crescent, New To Skeptic Blogs

I was raised in the Islamic world...My goal in writing this blog is going to be presenting science and skepticism. I hope to bring more of an international perspective to the table and expose religious doctrines for the harmful they are, and the suffering they cause way too often for women, gays, dissenters and religious minorities. I wish to bring to light the religious roots of some of violent conflicts around the world causing graves tragedies and loss of life, as I think that this is a very serious issue that gets next to no attention in the media. From the threat the rise of dominionist and christian reconstructionists poses to US democracy, to plight of women in Afghanistan accused of “sexual crimes” under Islamic Sharia, I hope to make the issues visible, as the traditional media have always been giving religion the kind of deference it doesn’t deserve and has never earned. Link

Skeptic Blogs is the Reasonable Alternative to Freethought Blogs

Read why here.

A Review of Michael Murray's Book "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw"

Since William Lane Craig continues to tout Murray's book as a good answer to the problem of animal suffering, read what professor Mylan Engel Jr. of Northern Illinois University says about it:

Notung Joins Skeptic Blogs

Ed Clint invited Notung and we're happy to have him with us. He tells us, "My main philosophical interests are epistemology, ethics, logic and the philosophy of religion. The purpose of this blog is to concentrate on these issues, examining them as critically as I can." Link. While you're there check out Maria Maltseva's post, SB responds to Atheism +, where she writes about our kind of skepticism:

We fear being blindsided by groupthink and welcome dissension in the ranks. Even if you disagree with us on some of our goals, you’re welcome to join us and choose which battles you, personally, want to fight. No matter what, we will not dehumanize you (online or off) or allow ourselves to think that we are better than you. Whatever else, we will not hate.

A growing number of people are subscribing by email and following us on Facebook. Join us.

Rebecca Bradley Joins Skeptic Blogs

Who is Rebecca Bradley? She has a PhD in Archaeology from Cambridge, UK, and maintains a strong interest in examining pseudo-archaeological claims. Read her first post and welcome her.

Some Mistakes of Moses, by Robert Ingersoll, Part Two

It is not easy to account for an infinite God making people so low in the scale of intellect as to require a revelation. Neither is it easy to perceive why, if a revelation was necessary for all, it was made only to a few.

Below you'll read extracts from an 84 page paper written in 1879 that my friend Julian Haydon sent me. There were some Christians and even ministers who were beginning to reject a talking serpent in favor of allegorical explanations; but there were millions who regarded every word in the Bible as holy fact. Ingersoll was contending with the latter and defending the rights of the former, pushing them even farther and farther away from the Bible. Part one can be seen here. A bit of his language is antiquated but it is a great defense of freethought.

Justin Vacula Joins Skeptic Blogs

Who is he? See this. We keep getting better and better. More will be joining us. Be sure to subscribe by email.

Staks Rosch: Are Religious Believers Stupid?

Religious believers ask me all the time if I think all religious believers are stupid. My answer to this question is almost always the same. “Of course not; smart people can believe really stupid things too.” There is no doubt that the belief in the all-powerful god as described in the Torah/Bible/Koran based off of no valid evidence is stupid. Depending on how serious this belief is taken, it can even be ridiculously stupid. It would be like me telling people that Voldemort is real based off of my reading of the Harry Potter books. Link.

William Lane Craig vs Victor Stenger: Does God Exist?