God May Own the Cattle on a Thousand Hills, But What He Really Wants is that Dollar In Your Wallet

("For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills.” Psalms 50: 10)

Ironically, there are far more verses in the Bible about giving God your money than giving God your soul!

The Cover for My New Book On the Outsider Test

The production process is moving forward. Now there's a book cover:

Dr. Hector Avalos, on the New Holocaust Deniers

There is a new movement of holocaust denialists, and the prime architects of this movement are biblical scholars. I am speaking not of the Jewish Holocaust under the Nazi regime, but of the Canaanite holocaust reported in biblical texts. These Canaanite holocaust denialists argue that the Canaanite holocaust did not really happen. And if it did happen, then it was justified and not analogous to the Nazi holocaust. Link.

Christian, Why Not Just Shoot Yourself?

[Warning: For the cognitively ill what I'm about to suggest is something only a highly trained professional should attempt, if it should be done at all. Do not try this at home. ;-)]

Christian philosophers and apologists love to speak about several bizarre scenarios when it comes to the limits of knowledge. Is there really a material universe? What if we're dreaming right now? Maybe the real world lies behind a Matrix? What if we're nothing but brains in a mad scientist's vat? Who knows, right? Maybe. So they conclude we all have faith in the same sense as Christians have faith. We believe we are not in an illusory world, dreaming, in a Matrix, or brains in the vat they say, because there is no evidence that can discount these possibilities granting the various scenarios proposed. So therefore, we all believe unevidenced claims in the same way and in the same sense.

However, these scenarios are mere possibilities. Probabilities are all that matter. Faith is unnecessary and superfluous. Let me show this with one simple question. Why not buy a gun and shoot yourself? Why not? Think about this and you know it is much more probable that none of these hypothetical scenarios have the slightest degree of probability to them. So you do abide by the probabilities after all. You know all of these hypotheticals are improbable. Faith is not involved to see this. The improbabilities themselves do. Or, you could test them by shooting yourself. The problem with such a test is that if your aim is good you'll die and never know the result. Others will though.

Dr. Peter Boghossian on "How to Talk Others Out of Their Faith"

Check it out. You can skip through the fluff here to get to the substance.

If Christianity Were True Compared With If Christianity Were False

One of the things Bayesian thinking requires from us, aside from thinking exclusively in terms of the probabilities, is that we must compare the probabilities of alternative hypotheses. I don't do the math though, since I have a hard time assigning numbers to the probabilities. For instance, is it 1 in 100,000 that Jesus was raised from the dead, 1 in a million, 1 in a billion, or is it 1 in 60 billion (the number of homo sapiens that have ever walked the earth)? It's probably the later. Nonetheless, I can get along just fine without stating these numbers. It communicates better to the non-technical person, the educated person in the pew, the university student. So, let's compare these two hypotheses: 1) If Christianity were true what would we expect to find? 2) If Christianity were false what would we expect to find? Then let's see how each hypothesis fares. Join in with me.

Bible Inconsistencies

[First posted 9/20/07] Evangelicals will typically quote from the Bible to settle any question it speaks directly about, since they believe it’s God’s word. Some fundamentalists will repeat the phrase, “God said it, that settles it.” Using proof texts like those found in II Peter 1:21 where it’s said the prophets of old “spoke the words of God,” and II Timothy 3:16 which says Scripture is “God breathed,” they claim the very words in the Bible are from God (see also Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 10:35; 17:17; Romans 3:2; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 15:3; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 4:15; I Timothy 5:18; Hebrews 1:1; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 3:2). However, there are several serious problems with this view:

Confused? How to Decide Which Religion is True.

I'm writing a tract with the intention of it being something secular student groups can hand out on their campuses. I only have a limited number of words and was wondering if I should add something to it. See what you think of this draft below:

An Interview with Richard Carrier

See below:

An Interview with Robert Price

See below:

The Top 10 (and Worst) Educated States, and How They Voted

Two Original Thought Experiments Related to the Outsider Test for Faith

A professor of mathematics has come up with two original thought experiments related to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) that are akin to the Veil of Ignorance of John Rawls. I like them. Let's look at the first one below.

Quote of the Day, Concerning My Book

Well, you know an author can't help but like this quote from an email sent to me while I was on a speaking tour of four Colorado universities, even if it's quite an exaggeration: ;-)

"Why I Became An Atheist" is a book that can end Christianity on its own, and is to Christianity what the Iceberg was to the Titanic.

Al Stefanelli's Review of My Book "Why I Became an Atheist"

Al and I were writers at Freethought Blogs. Since then we've kept in touch. He now stays on his own blog where wrote a very nice (and humbling) review of my book. He calls it "exhaustive" and says:

At first glance, John’s book seems daunting. I’ve written a couple, myself, and when you look at a five-hundred-plus page book, it can be off-putting. Don’t let this sway you, because when you pick it up and start reading, and begin to understand the detail and clarity that John uses, you will soon realize that this book could have been written no other way. It’s exhaustive in content because it has to be. Everything in it is important, and the range of topics covered offer the reader a collective of information that I have not been able to find in one volume, anywhere.

Concerning the subjects in the first part of my book, Al writes:

John goes into such great detail on these subjects, tearing them apart, laying them out on a literary operating table, and surgically examining them with such a precision that this book has earned a spot on my shelf with the reference books.

Concerning the second part, Al writes:

The wealth of information here is astounding, and the way it is presented offers the reader one of the most detailed breakdowns of the problems with apologetics, and the cognitive dissonance that comes with religious belief.

He concludes: "To a theologian, he is a worthy adversary. To an armchair apologist, he is positively lethal."

Thanks so much Al! I appreciate all you do as well. Link. It's a shame that William Lane Craig, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, David Marshall and many others who comment here have not read it, or won't. Maybe this might change their minds. I'd like to have an honest review by one or more of them. But no, they've heard it all before they'll say. ;-)

Obama and Atheists

I am glad to see President Barack Obama re-elected.  He certainly has sought to include open atheists, such as myself, in his campaign from the beginning. I served on his Iowa Latino outreach committee in 2007, when this photo was taken in Des Moines, Iowa.  But he still has much more work to do to ensure that open atheists can feel more accepted in political office.

Mary at the Census? Er, no.

Here is my latest video offering to the world of You Tube. Let me know what you think.

President Obama Did It. Four More Years!

Woooooo Hoooooo! I'm happy for him and for our country. I voted before leaving for my Colorado speaking tour--I LOVE COLORADO! After he was projected to be the winner some lady in the hotel bar went on about how she and her kids have no hope for the future, blah, blah, blah. Wow, she might as well leave the country, or end her life. What pure poppcock. People on opposing sides of most presidential elections have said the same things. And yet, here we are, alive and doing fine. How someone can put that much faith into an election is beyond me. The processes of democracy grind slowly, sometimes very slowly. The US has checks and balances in place that help to keep it that way, like a written Constitution, the three branches of our government and a free press. I'm so glad the right wingers don't dominate the political landscape as they did in the 80's. Looks like we've learned some good lessons and are being more reasonable to me. But it's taken time. Anyway, here's your chance to weigh in on this historic occasion.

Robert M. Price exposes William Lane Craig

Writer and New Testament scholar Robert M. Price exposes some of the flawed reasoning of Christian apologist William Lane Craig.

William Lane Craig is Shamelessly Taking the Low Road

I've heard three interviews where Bill Craig says I didn't leave the Christian faith because of intellectual reasons but because of moral failures, like an addiction to pornography and adultery. I've seriously considered filing a lawsuit against him for defamation of character, and I might do it. When I spoke to him after he debated Sam Harris he acknowledged not having read my book. I suspect he still hasn't. So to falsely and slanderously describe my deconversion while not having read my book is reprehensible ignorance at best and criminal at worst. While I'm no prude I have never said I had a pornography problem. Such a suggestion conjurers up a pervert to Christians, even though many of them ARE perverts by his own understandings who watch porn and then later publicly condemn it, or who have gay lovers then publicly condemn homosexuality. Is Bill projecting his own porn addiction on to me, or is he knowingly lying about me? Believers have always spread lies about apostates. In a different era we were killed. There is no evidence for this porn accusation of his. But who needs evidence when one is constantly in debate mode in defense of a faith that cannot be defended.

Frank Moore Cross, Jr. (1921-2012): In My View

Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages Emeritus, Harvard University

The first time I heard Frank Cross was at the 1974 Society of Biblical Literature and American Academy of Religion meeting in Washington, DC where he delivered his SBL Presidential Address: A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration. His passing last month at age 91 will be felt throughout the world of Biblical studies especially by his students. For those of us who followed his influence and control over the Qumran Scrolls, his legacy will marked by how the Scrolls were subjectively denied access to the scholarly world especially in the United States to those who were not part of the Harvard community.

Some Reasons Why, by Robert Ingersoll

My friend Julian Haydon with another excerpt from the illustrious Ingersoll. He writes:

Ingersoll compares Biblical and Pagan morality: "If the Jehovah of the Jews had taken upon himself flesh, and dwelt as a man among the people had he endeavored to govern, had he followed his own teachings, he would have been a slaveholder, a buyer of babes, and a beater of women. He would have waged wars of extermination. He would have killed grey-haired and trembling age, and would have sheathed his sword, in prattling, dimpled babes. He would have been a polygamist, and would have butchered his wife for differing with him on the subject of religion."

God Hates Dogs And the People Who Love And Raise Them!

No other animal is as detested more in the Bible then the dog. Even when compared to swine, dogs fall at the bottom having the most contempt and disgust of all the animals ever created by God (though I do wonder why God created something He detested in the first place)! Even the Talking Snake in the Garden of Eden didn't do enough to hurt its own species to earn Gods eternal hatred as the dog.

Dr. McCormick's Lecture: "What's Wrong with Having Faith?"

Religious believers often appeal to faith to justify their beliefs. Believing by faith seems to mean believing a religious claim even though the evidence on the whole is contrary to, or at least inadequate to fully support, the claim. Having faith is widely thought to be virtuous, admirable, desirable, and at the risk of being technical, epistemically acceptable. While faith is widely employed as a defense of religious belief, this answer to questions and problems with the God hypothesis is riddled with problems. It robs the believer of an important ability: she can no longer claim that her belief is true. She opens the floodgates for other outlandish views to do the same. Link.

Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?

This is the title to the very last chapter in my forthcoming book, The Outsider Test for Faith, some blurbs of which can be found here. That chapter is about faith, which I define as "an irrational leap over the probabilities." Victor Reppert is claiming that if this is what faith is then he doesn't have it. Here's what he said and my response below. I think this exchange cuts to the heart of the issue:

What's Wrong With Other Religions?

What's wrong with Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Haitian Voodoo, Animism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Scientology, Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, the Unification Church, and the many tribal and folk religions? Faith. You know it. I know it. We all know it. The adherents of these religions do not believe based on sufficient evidence because faith is a leap over the probabilities, an irrational leap over the probabilities. If they thought exclusively in terms of the probabilities they would not believe at all. Now that we've got that straight, what's wrong with Christianity? Faith. :-) You know it. I know it. We all should know it.