What's It Like Being an Atheist?

I'm all ears. How does YOUR family treat you? My cousin wrote a genealogical book about my mother's side of the family. Along with his Dad (my uncle) they are putting together a big reunion to take place this Saturday. Guess what? I am not invited because I'm an atheist. My uncle says, "What fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14). Some people are unhappy about this but they are a very religious group of people, and they haven't seen him in decades. My uncle rejected his whole family 35 years ago because none of us were true Christians. Since he wants to associate with them now, it appears he's getting liberal in his later years. If only he could live another 100 years. Then he might accept me as a person too. What a nutcase!

Skeptic Ink Network (SIN) Has Launched Today!

Skeptic Blogs is now the Skeptic Ink Network (SIN). This new platform is much better and versatile, giving us plenty of room to grow with some nice graphics.

SIN already boasts an impressive group of talented writers and we expect to expand considerably. I am there. Dr. Stephen Law has recently joined us too. Stephen is the editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy Journal THINK, published several books, and is the senior lecturer in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London. His blog is "Believing Bullshit," which is also the title to his most recent book.

Click around to see the others. In the coming week or two you'll see six new writers. As you can tell I'm very excited about it. Please, everyone, let others know. Tell them via your own blogs, Facebook, twitter, reddit, by email, by horseback, train, space flight, and so on. We need the word to get out. We aim to do this right. Don't forget to subscribe by email at the top of the main page.

I Could Conceivably Be Wrong. So?

Randal Rauser repeatedly tells us that, "Faith consists of assent to a proposition that is conceivably false." I have repeatedly said that faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities, and as such, we should think exclusively in terms of probabilities. He claims I'm ignorant. I cannot hope to convince the deluded mind, but maybe more reasonable people can see what seems obvious to non-believers.

Some Mistakes of Moses, Continued

Note from my friend Julian Haydon who is sending me these excepts: "This was written 133 years ago; for a public beginning to receive "explanations" for absurdities; but still when many, as now, believed every word in the bible true. Ingersoll relentlessly drives home the full implications of what they believe -- but some of the learned doctors he quotes are in no way embarrassed."

Dissecting and Dismantling Rauser's Definition of Faith

Randal Rauser repeatedly tells us that "Faith consists of assent to a proposition that is conceivably false." I have repeatedly said that faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities, and as such, we should think exclusively in terms of probabilities. He claims I'm ignorant. Okay then, let's see. Rauser's definition is a Christian language game utterly irrelevant to whether Christianity is true, because it forces him to choose between being a skeptic, a non-believer, and beyond this an epistemological solipsist, or he is forced to admit we should think exclusively in terms of probabilities after all.

We Should Think Exclusively in Terms of Probabilities

Any questions? Faith has nothing to do with this reasoning process. Probabilities are all that matter. Faith is superfluous, utterly irrelevant, completely unnecessary, and even irrational. We should think exclusively in terms of probabilities.

Religion 101: Final Exam

If you're a believer then you shouldn't have any problem with this Final Exam.

Go ahead, see how you do. ;-) Hat Tip: Jim Jones.

Science Is Doing What God Can’t Do: Answering Prayers for Healing

Spray-on skin, made-to-order muscle, and print-out kidneys aren't just science fiction anymore. Dr. Anthony Atala and Dr. Stephen Badylak, two pioneers of regenerative medicine, talk about the latest methods for building new body parts, and the challenge of growing complex organs like the heart, liver or brain.

Audio @ NPR:
What the Doctor Ordered: Building New Body

THIS is how you debate the resurrection. (Arif Ahmed vs. Gary Habermas Debate)

Cambridge Professor Arif Ahmed undercuts all potential arguments for the resurrection with his opening salvo (a variation of Hume's argument against the probability of miracles/magic).  Habermas never really recovers, and his typical apologetics for the resurrection do not offer a coherent reply.

Some Mistakes of Moses, Continued

Note from my friend Julian Haydon who sends me these posts every week: "This was written 133 years ago; for a public beginning to receive "explanations" for absurdities; but still when many, as now, believed every word in the bible true. Ingersoll relentlessly drives home the full implications of what they beleive -- but some of the learned doctors he quotes are in no way embarrassed."

God Cannot Be Perfect Because Perfect Does Not Make Sense

So in a recent post on Skeptic Blogs I was talking about how God, prior to creation (at least according to classical interpretations of God based on the Ontological Argument), had ontological perfection. That is to say, he was in a perfect state of being (since this is built into the definition of God). The argument followed that, in creating the world, God would be either lacking something and thus having a need, which is incoherent with ontological perfection, or he was downgrading his perfect state in the process of creating this world.

Was Jesus Married? New Papyrus Fragment Fuels Debate

BOSTON (Reuters) - A previously unknown scrap of ancient papyrus written in ancient Egyptian Coptic includes the words "Jesus said to them, my wife," -- a discovery likely to renew a fierce debate in the Christian world over whether Jesus was married.

The existence of the fourth-century fragment -- not much bigger than a business card --was revealed at a conference in Rome on Tuesday by Karen King, Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Dr. Victor Reppert On Why He Doesn't Read Any Book I've Recommended

I don't think there is another blog where so many educated evangelicals and atheists converge for debate but here at Debunking Christianity. I like this very much and admire these Christians who wish to engage the opposition even though at times it gets a bit rough. Some of the best evangelical scholars visit and comment here like "The Big Four": Victor Reppert (ranked about 18th in all-time comments), David Marshall, Randal Rauser, and Matthew Flannagan (although Matt only comments when I write about him). I have even allowed guest posts by several other Christian scholars, like James Sennett, Doug Groothuis, Craig Blomberg, Kenneth Howell, John F. Haught, and even one by William Lane Craig (posted by proxy), all of which can be read here. Few of them however, have ever acknowledged that my arguments are any good (Sennett, Howell and Haught are the exceptions, but then they aren't evangelicals). Probably none of them have ever heard any really good faith-damaging atheist argument (the ones they acknowledge don't actually provide an under-cutting defeater to their Christian faith). Perhaps because I have interacted the most with "The Big Four" I've become convinced Christian apologetics is rank sophistry, or just plain blind willful ignorance. By sophistry I mean "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning," or rather, "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation."

For the record, Reppert seems to be the most biblically ignorant of the "Four" (because he focuses on his specialty, the Argument from Reason). Randal Rauser is biblically literate but is also almost pure sophistry. Vic is the most cool, calm, and dispassionate commenter, willing to take the heat without responding in kind, and the most willing to learn from his opponents (but as you'll see that doesn't mean much). Marshall is the wittiest and the most biblically literate (although that too doesn't mean much). Rauser loves to communicate in hypothetical stories which I find very interesting (although most of them utterly miss the point). Flannagan pretty much argues like I do although with a great deal of sophistry. Now for my case in point of the day, Dr. Reppert's ignorance.

Have Someone Different At Your Campus, Atheist Meet-Up, or Convention

I'm available for speaking engagements, debates, weddings, funerals, and other stuff like that. To learn what I can offer and how to contact me, read below.

Quote of the Day, by Thomas Paine On The Evidence to Believe

The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.

Analytical thinking erodes belief in God

Will Gervais asked 93 university students to rate their own belief in God and other supernatural agents such as angels. Then, several weeks later, they underwent "priming" for analytical thinking – they were asked to unscramble sentences that included words such as "ponder" and "rational", read text written in hard-to-read fonts, or even just look at a picture of Rodin's sculpture The Thinker

After tallying the results here is the conclusion:

Some worthy secular organizations need your help.

As I write this, three amazing secular organizations are all within striking distance of *major* money courtesy of the Chase Community Giving Program  The 46 charities who receive the most votes will receive a minimum of a $50,000 grant from Chase,  The Secular Student Alliance and Foundation Beyond Belief are in a close race with many other charities for the guaranteed $50k (Foundation Beyond Belief is only 15 votes away from 46th place!), and they could use a few extra votes to help push them over the top.  Camp Quest  is also in the running for a runner up prize of $20,000 which will go to those who place lower.   Voting is free, so please take a few seconds to help out these worthy organizations.

Some Mistakes of Moses, Continued

This was written 133 years ago for a mainly hostile public, and in a time when the Bible was regarded as "every word true and inspired by God". Ingersoll uses the Bible against itself. [Provided by Julian Haydon]

THE NECESSITY FOR A GOOD MEMORY by Robert Ingersoll.

It must not be forgotten that there are two accounts of the creation in Genesis. The first account stops with the third verse of the second chapter. The chapters have been improperly divided. In the original Hebrew the Pentateuch was neither divided into chapters nor verses. There was not even any system of punctuation. It was written wholly with consonants, without vowels, and without any marks, dots, or lines to indicate them.

These accounts are materially different, and both cannot be true. Let us see wherein they differ.

The second account of the creation begins with the fourth verse of the second chapter, and is as follows:

Quote of the Day, By Matt McCormick on Randal Rauser

One exercise that I run with my students is to have them spend time at the outset of an essay giving a clear, charitable, and accurate reconstruction of the author’s arguments they wish to criticize. I’m still not seeing anything like that in these posts. Link.

Three Fair and Impartial Tests For Christian Faith

There are three impartial tests for intellectually honest Christians who wish to test their faith. 1) We have The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) which I've written extensively about. But there are two others that Professor Matt McCormick has written about.

The Old Testament Caught in Lie, After Lie, After Lie

Each segment is 51 minutes long. If you don’t have time, please just watch the summation in video 4: The Book (I would love to see WL Craig try debate either Israel Finkelstein or Neil Silberman over the truth of the Bible! These videos will be a foundation for my forthcoming post.) "In God We Trust" . . . Like Hell!

The Bible Unearthed 1.The Patriarchs

The Bible Unearthed 2.The Exodus

The Bible Unearthed 3.The Kings

The Bible Unearthed 4.The Book

I Doubt Rauser is Even Trying To Understand Me

I have said that Dr. Randal Rauser is not being intellectually honest when it comes to his faith. This does not mean I think he's doing anything unethical or immoral. It means his faith blinds him from being honest with the arguments to the contrary. Let me try, yet once again, to persuade him to throw off his blinders with what I consider one of the dumbest rejoinders to my arguments I think I have ever heard. I do so in hopes he will see it for what it is, and then take seriously that this same blindness affects how he treats other arguments against his faith. I hope in vain though. Dr. Victor Reppert endorses what Rauser wrote, so hey, he's no different. Faith makes otherwise brilliant people stupid, and I mean this. They must hand out PhD's to almost anyone, is all I can say. Let me show you this stupidity from a post Rauser wrote titled, "Is John W. Loftus 'dumber than a box of rocks'?" Warning, this is going to get ugly.

Rauser, This Is Not A Intellectual Game of Chess With Me

How can I convince a deluded person that he is playing intellectual chess games when he is really really good at them? I probably can't. Case in point, yet once again, is Dr. Randal Rauser. I had previously written an open letter to him but to no avail. Perhaps others can learn from it on how not to search for the truth. That's who I write for, others, people searching for the truth, not Rauser. I do so in hopes they can see this for what it is, because he can't. I'm sure that if I were discussing the ideas that separate us with an equivalent Rauser type of Scientologist or a Mormon, I couldn't convince them either. He doesn't get this point. He may never get it. He discounts the overwhelming probability that the whole gospel is based on a lie. Now let's consider his rejoinder to what I had previously written.

Responding to Rauser On the Wildly Improbable Christian Faith

Dr. Rauser fancies himself as a Christian intellectual who seeks to straighten the rest of us crooked people out. We’re bent out of shape, you see. He’s gonna fix us. ‘Cause we need fixed. He wrote a review of my chapter in The End of Christianity titled, “Christianity is wildly improbable.” I had not read a word of Rauser's review until lately, after he practically begged me to comment on it. He shouldn’t oughta do that. ;-) Since I said I would comment, here goes.

A Note On the Bible and the Kingships of God and Jesus

{I’m working on a major post on the why the Bible cannot be trusted as either history or theology (complete with footnotes) which I hope to post within the week.}

With just the simplest reading of the Bible, we find that both God and Jesus are depicted as kings. That is, while they maybe divine, they rule as earthly kings just as the pharaohs of Egypt or the emperors of Rome ruled with absolute power and fear. Since the professional scribes of the Biblical world did not know of any other rule, plus the fact that religion was used to support imperial dictatorships, all ancient rulers were appoint by some King God (be it he Yahweh, Zeus, or Aten) to function as an extension of their God King. So to it was for even Paul and his justification of the divine rule of the Roman Emperor in Romans 13. Likewise in the final book of the Christian Bible (Revelation), the kingship of God and the kingship of Satan clash in one final battle over who will rule humanity as the last and eternal dictator.