To Overcome Cognitive Bias Examine Your Faith As An Outsider

That's what Julia Galef says about other things we accept as true. She's the President of the Center for Applied Rationality. Christians, take the Outsider Test for Faith if you want to do the same.

Ed Clint Interviewed About Skeptic Ink Network (SIN)

"In this podcast, Chas interviews Ed Clint, co-founder of Skeptic Ink. Ed explains his history in the movement, why he and John Loftus decided to create a new network of bloggers and how he and John hope to maintain a network of positive, skeptical thinkers who are willing to explore any thoughts/philosophies being bounced around in the movement. We also touch on Atheism+ and Ed Clint's run in with Free Thought Bloggers." Link.

Some Mistakes of Moses (Continued)

A note from Julian Haydon, who is choosing these excerpts each week from Robert Ingersoll: "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."

New Writers Join Skeptic Ink Network (SIN)

Check them out: Beth Ann Erickson of Incongruent Elements. Caleb Lack, the Great Plains Skeptic. Damion Reinhardt of Background Probability. And for a different perspective The Prussian. More are coming. Subscribe. Tell others.

Professor Matt McCormick's Double Whammy

He just keeps getting better and better. His book Atheism and the Case Against Christ is the best of its kind, a superior debunking of Christianity and why it leads to atheism. He has also argued for two tests for faith, the moral test and the defeasibility test, which I've endorsed. Recently he has two posts which I consider a double whammy.

Tomorrow I’ll Post My Most Devastating Article on the Bible I’ve Ever Written

I have come across a MAJOR fact that will destroy the Bible’s very foundation as a religious document of truth. In all my 42 years as a student of Biblical history and languages, I’ve NEVER heard any apologist address this fact nor have I ever heard any atheist or agnostic use it! The tentative title is:

When One Major Fact Is Considered, The Bible Must Be Rejected As Both History And Theology,

Stephen Law on the Apologist Claim that Animals Don't Feel Pain

You can see his post and watch the video below:



Dr. Law thinks William Lane Craig should admit he made a mistake. It's the honest thing to do. Ahhhh, but intellectual honesty isn't a trademark of the deluded mind. He's not unlike Randal Rauser. For more on this topic read chapter 9 in my book The Christian Delusion, titled "The Darwinian Problem of Evil."

How Would the Gospels Look Different if...

Jason Rennie is did a series of interviews with believers and skeptics exploring the question, “How would the Gospels look different if …?” My interview can be heard here. He also did one with Robert M. Price that can be heard here. Enjoy.

Christian Apologist Douglas Groothuis Brought his Dog to Class

That's true, he says on Facebook, and asked his readers to guess why. He did it "to illustrate a principle from the ontological argument." I commented thusly: "You illustrated that if dogs could conceive the greatest possible being their conception of that being would be like them? ;-)"

Xenophanes, who preceded Socrates by over one hundred years, said something similar:

But if horses or oxen or lions had hands or could draw with their hands and accomplish such works as men, horses would draw the figures of the gods as similar to horses, and the oxen as similar to oxen, and they would make the bodies of the sort which each of them had.

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: