What Kind of Atheist/Theist Are You?

I found an interesting discussion about the differences between atheism, agnosticism, gnosticism and theism which can be seen here. The "arrangement is an attempt to clarify and classify these words, so that their rogue meanings no longer confuse and muddle religious debate," we're told. The horizontal axis concerns what we think or believe (I don't have any beliefs). The vertical axis concerns what we think we can know. I found it unhelpful to truncate this graph like the author did later in his post, because there are people who think outside of it. In any case I placed a blue dot where I stand. The position of that blue dot has changed over the last few years since I'm becoming more and more of a gnostic. Where do you stand?

Welcome to Eternity Christian: What Heaven is Really Going Be Like!

{My first post for DC in 2006 (now revised)}

As a Christian, I heard the Bible verse of John 3:16 run into the ground about how “God so loved the world that he gave His only Begotten Son” to die for us because He loved us so much.

Why Nothing Bothers Me About Unbelief

Randal Rauser is at it again. Maybe I should just go along by playing his game? After all, he's invited me to his seminary in May to help promote our book, God or Godless? It looks like he wants me to do this pretty badly. He wants us each to say the "top three biggest problems that we face with our worldview," only now, it's "the things that keep us up at night." If he wants me to say what keeps me up at night, then it's some sort of sickness, or worry, or deep thought about something. But worry about unbelief? No, never! I do wonder about a lot of things though. Let me play his game by suggesting the three things I wonder about and show why they don't bother me in the least. Ready. Set. Go!

The Wikipedia Article on Atheism

This Wikipedia article looks very well-written. In the "See Also" part of it just before the "Notes" there is a link to a "List of Atheists." When you click on it and then click on a "List of Atheist Authors" yours truly is not there. Oh, well, maybe next time. I keep hoping! ;-) Some people like Dr. James Lindsay think my contributions "are often-overlooked." He said:

John Loftus blogs for Debunking Christianity, one of the biggest blogs dedicated to the task of examining faith versus relinquishing it, and his posts are nearly always deep, insightful, and well worth reading. This blog, however, is a far cry from why I think John Loftus is perhaps the most underrated author in this entire field. In my opinion, Loftus holds the honor of having come up with the most sterling silver bullet in the discussion since David Hume, surpassing, if I might suggest it, even greats of the early twentieth century like Bertrand Russell and and those of the late nineteenth like Robert Ingersoll. Link.

He's speaking of The Outsider Test for Faith, blurbs for my book on it can be found here. I'll have to await the judgment of history on these things (Hint: it'll be somewhere between 0 and 100 on that scale). For now I'll take whatever I can get. Perhaps one of the reasons I'm often overlooked is because I keep beating the evangelical horse that has been beat to death so many times before from all angles that most educated people don't care anymore. Until it completely morphs into liberalism as the New Orthodoxy evangelicalism has no chance of winning its case in the free marketplace of ideas.

More Evidence Christians Just Don't Think

They don't! Not most of them anyway. All they do is defend God not matter what. It's like they are defending themselves or something, and people always do that whenever threatened. We know people create their own religion, their own gospel, and their own God in their own image. We know this! Whatever they believe then God agrees with them about everything. Do you doubt it? Then read this study. So no matter what the problem is they will defend their God because they are defending themselves. Why? Because they are God. God is them. They are one with God anyway. They think the same things. They feel the same things. Argue against God and we are arguing against them. So they take it personally. And nothing we say can penetrate that 200 foot thick impenetrable castle wall around them to fend off attackers. Not even a bunker bomb. Want more proof? Here 'tis.

How do Believers Distinguish between Fact and Fiction?

Here are Four (among many) Christian miracles:

1. There was a talking snake in Eden that talked (in Hebrew) to Eve.
2. Joshua made the sun stand still.
3. Jesus arose from the dead.
4. St. Raymond of Penyafort had a Sailing Cloak.

Heretic!

Commenting on my previous post, Professor Jaco Gericke said:

Most Christians today would be condemned by Luther and Calvin, who themselves would be condemned by Aquinas and Anselm, who would be condemned by Athanasius and Augustine, who would be condemned by Paul, who would be condemned by James, who would be condemned by the Christ of John's gospel, who would be condemned by the synoptic characterizations of Jesus, which would all be condemned by most versions of Yahweh in the Old Testament, who himself would be condemned by yet older versions of the deity.

Dr. James A. Lindsay's Definition of Faith

Faith, he argues, is "a form of cognitive bias that tends to overestimate the probabilities that the hypotheses in which faith is placed predict the evidence (of the world) while underestimating the probabilities that alternative hypotheses predict the evidence we have." Or, in other words he says:

The Case Against the Resurrection

Here is Richard Carrier's case against the resurrection.  He comprehensively debunks the typical  apologetics (based on the Pauline epistles) used by people like Gary Habermas and Mike Licona.

(More clips below)

Howard Mazzaferro's Defense of the Indefensible

Howard Mazzaferro is a Jehovah's Witness scholar of sorts who comments here at DC. Harry McCall puts his culturally adopted faith into perspective with what I consider required reading. What I find interesting is that evangelicals reject the JW's but would accept everything Mazzaferro writes in defense of faith, the reliability of the Bible and of the miracles we read in it. Why is it that people of faith cannot agree? It's because that's the nature of faith. When faith is the foundation for knowledge anything can be believed. As Dr. James Lindsay says, faith is "a form of cognitive bias that tends to overestimate the probabilities that the hypotheses in which faith is placed predict the evidence (of the world) while underestimating the probabilities that alternative hypotheses predict the evidence we have." In any case, Mazzaferro did a good job of defending the indefensible so let's take a look.

Quote of the Day, by Articulett

To me, being a naturalist means that you don't believe in anything supernatural... the arguments against Randal [Rauser'] supernatural beliefs are identical to his own disbelief in myths past and other superstitious or far-fetched ideals. Not knowing a natural answer is not a good reason for plugging in a magical answer!-- And all religions plug in magical answers. They feel like answers to the believer, but they don't really explain anything. And there's no way to tell a true supernatural answer from the infinity of competing supernatural answers that would be false if ANY supernatural answer was true. So even if naturalism wasn't correct-- there is no method for distinguishing a true supernatural answer from a false one... no way to tell a true prophet from a false one-- or a real god from a demon or advanced space alien or tricky fairy or a myth! People who believe in these sorts of things tend to be people who were indoctrinated to believe such things --people who have a vested interest in believing those things-- and people who are afraid they might be punished if they don't believe such things. If there was actual evidence for any of these things than scientists would be testing, refining, and honing that evidence for their own benefit... especially if there was actual evidence that there was life after death. But how can one be alive or conscious without a brain? It makes no more sense than concluding a rock is conscious! Can one have a debate or discussion as to the problems with not believing that rocks are conscious? How is Randall's suggesting any more coherent than his being asked to demonstrate the problems with his non-belief in rock consciousness?

Jehovah Witness: A Made in America Religion

Christianity is one of the major religions of man a washed in a history of contradictions and confusion. Like cancer cells, Christianity not only mutates over time, but reinvents itself to deal with its new context both socially and theologically. This often entails receiving new revelations from God to make one flavor of a Christian faith appear as God very own favorite in a sea of competing Bible truths. Since God can’t be contacted for direction and the fact that Jesus is said to have gone back to where he had come from two-thousand years ago, believers are left to being creative with the Bible and often must receive new revelations form God.

Dr. Randal Rauser's Ideologue Barometer Test

I like new tests for faith, and I have written about three of them before. Randal introduces a new one as far as I can tell, the Ideologue Barometer Test, and guess what? After taking the test I am one. No, not a barometer silly, an ideologue. So?

Randal has graciously invited me up to his Seminary in May of 2013 to Edmonton, Canada, in order to help promote the release of our co-written book God or Godless. I'm pretty excited about this too. So, being the creative person that he is (after all, he creatively defends the indefensible), he suggested we do something new and different rather than the normal "he said she said" type of debate. What he suggested is this:

each of us talk on the top three biggest problems that we face with our worldview. I’d explain the top three conceptual or evidential problems with being a Christian and John would talk about the top three problems with being an atheist.

He's mentioned this to several people and the response has been "overwhelmingly positive" he reports. But he's not happy that I objected to it. So now he's taking his case to the streets, er, the blog world. He said we'd try to work things out. I didn't know this is how he wants to do it. Okay, I guess.

Dr. Doug Geivett Strongly Recommends Against My Book Proposal.

Previously I made a book proposal:

Let's have a four -five -six views book with this as a question: "Why are there so many ways to interpret the Bible?" A proposed title might be this: "Five Views on Why Christians Disagree," or something like that. Then invite me as a contributor. I've written on this issue, calling it The Problem of Divine Miscommunication. See here.

Doug Geivett, a Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology strongly recommends against it. Now isn't that interesting? Why would he do so? He doesn't explain. He refuses to explain. Here's the story:

The Talmagian Catechism, Ingersoll Winds Up His Great Satire

The Reverend De Witt Talmage, head of the Presbyterian Church in America, was so incensed by Ingersoll, that he devoted six sermons denouncing him as "The Great Blasphemer." Robert Ingersoll answered these seriously; and then followed up by satirizing the teachings of the Reverend in what he called The Talmagian Catechism. Here is the Final Part, sent by Julian Haydon.

John’s Top 25 Substantive Posts in 2012

Keep in mind these are chosen from what I wrote, not from what others wrote. In some of them are links to other things I've written on the same topic. For now I’ll just list them in order of appearance.

Bayes's Theorem and the Outsider Test for Faith

Dr. James A. Lindsay clarifies the OTF using Bayes's Theorem. This is his first post on it. His second post offers a a bit more clarity.

Richard Carrier on Miracles and the Historical Method

Carrier provides more evidence that Christians are liars and have lost all credibility. Wonderful talk!

The New Evangelical Orthodoxy, Relativism, and the Amnesia of It All

I'm happy to have lived long enough to see that evangelicals are now embracing Karl Barth. I've personally seen how theology evolves. Back in my seminary days one issue of interest was Neo-Orthodoxy, stemming from what most people think is the greatest theologian of the last century, Karl Barth. Wanting to be on the cutting edge I did my master's thesis on his doctrine of the word of God, since Barth sparked a debate among evangelicals over inerrancy. Harold Lindsell's book, The Battle for the Bible, was heavily discussed among us. Evangelicals did not like Barth and neither did I. Due to the onslaught of nineteenth century biblical criticism Barth was forced to deny natural theology and basically argued that although the Bible contained myths and legends, God still speaks through it. For Barth, the word of God was not to be located in the Bible itself. No. Rather, God speaks through it. God's word, his revelation, takes place when God speaks to his people, and he can do so through myths, legends, and even a Russian flute concerto. It was described as the New (or Neo) Orthodoxy. It was all he could do to maintain his faith. To read up on those good old days see Robert Price's Inerrant the Wind: The Evangelical Crisis in Biblical Authority,where he made some predictions at that time which have proved to be true.

Does Any Christian Ministry Want to Buy This Blog?

Let's say you believe that because of our "deceptive misinformation" and influence we're leading people to hell, and you either cannot argue us down or you want to silence us. Well, then, buy this blog and do with it what you want. Can you raise the funds? Are there any serious takers? Then look at the price calculated by Worth of the Web which "estimates the traffic of a given website or blog by calculating the cost of advertisement." Guess how much you'd have to pay to get DC?

Dr. James A. Lindsay's Bayesian Analysis of the Outsider Test for Faith

I find his analysis very helpful. He summarizes his post in the following words:

Hey, I Found a Picture of God, No Really!

Let's say you're making a YouTube video about God. Aren't you tired of all those other cheesy pictures to choose from? I haven't seen one yet that truly represents God. So let me introduce you to God. Here's a snapshot of him I took the other day. Want to know what God looks like? This.

The United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament; the Book of Mormon and BYU’s Prof. Stephen E. Robinson, PhD

[Note: In light of my post tomorrow night dealing with the Jehovah Witness’s New World Translation and one of the Witness’ leading apologist, Howard Mazzalerro, I am reposting my December 2008 topic of four years ago on the Book of Mormon. This section was a part of a longer paper I delivered to the South Carolina Academy of Religion at Clemson University around 1989 entitled Translating and Revelating The Word of God: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.]

More Fun With Robert Ingersoll, The Talmagian Catechism

The Reverend De Witt Talmage, head of the Presbyterian Church in America, was so incensed by Ingersoll, that he devoted six sermons denouncing him as "The Great Blasphemer". Ingersoll answered these seriously; and then followed up by satirizing the teachings of the Reverend in what he called The Talmagian Catechism. Here is Part 2 of 3. Part 1 can be read here. Thanks to Julian Haydon for these excerpts!

I Don't Mind Criticism So Long As It's Unmitigated Praise ;-)

People have said my work is pretty damn good. But not even I would say some of the things said of it, and I like me best! Dr. James A. Lindsay, author of a book you should get, God Doesn't; We Do: Only Humans Can Solve Human Challenges,recently blew me away with some very high praise for which I'm extremely humbled:

John Loftus blogs for Debunking Christianity, one of the biggest blogs dedicated to the task of examining faith versus relinquishing it, and his posts are nearly always deep, insightful, and well worth reading. This blog, however, is a far cry from why I think John Loftus is perhaps the most underrated author in this entire field. In my opinion, Loftus holds the honor of having come up with the most sterling silver bullet in the discussion since David Hume, surpassing, if I might suggest it, even greats of the early twentieth century like Bertrand Russell and and those of the late nineteenth like Robert Ingersoll.

I came to know John Loftus's mind through his extremely clear and effective writing in Why I Became an Atheist... I literally cannot recommend this book highly enough for anyone that is interested in the discussion about faith and whether or not it should be left behind, particularly the Christian faith. The book is a true resource, spanning hundreds of densely packed, well-researched pages that truly demonstrate that Loftus is intimately familiar with the foundations of the Christian religion, its scripture, its philosophical defense, what it means to be a serious Christian, and why there is no reason whatsoever to accept or believe the Christian (or any) religion. It is truly incredible...Link.