On God and Objective Moral Values, One More Time

I don't think there is a way to break through the thick skulls of many Christians on this, but let's try again. When it comes to morality, overwhelming numbers of people hold to basic ethics (as opposed to dilemma ethics), expressed even by C.S. Lewis in his book, The Abolition of Man (even though I disagree with his conclusions). What best accounts for this? Certainly not any given provincial deity. Otherwise everyone should embrace the rest of the moralities commanded by these deities. Yet they conflict with each other over a wide assortment of moral issues (theocracy, homosexuality, marriage and divorce, chauvinism, war), and religious issues as well (praying five times a day facing Mecca, genuflecting, washing in the river Ganges, wearing burkas, eating habits, fasts, hair length), since after all, they are also required by these same deities. Moreover, within the Christian tradition itself, the one I know the best, there are serious disagreements in justifying a specific kind of Christian morality that go beyond what most everyone accepts as basic morality. In order to become informed of this there is no better book to read than J. Philip Wogaman's Christian Ethics: A Historical Introduction. You see, Christians cannot come to an agreement about ethical theory much less the additional moral duties themselves.Come on, before you spout off the phrase "Christian morality" again, look at the facts. Stop your special pleading. Stop begging the question. There is no such thing as "Christian morality." Never has been. Probably never will be.

The Basis for Morality is Empathy

Do non-believers have a basis for saying some things cause harm? I think so. Just look at a burning child. We have a computer that computes the steps. Our brains. Such things cause harm. It's obvious. The basis for morality is empathy. The divine command theory has no room for it. If God is thought to command killing witches then empathy be damned. While there are two greatest commandments the only one that counts is the first one. Christians need not be concerned with the plight of human suffering, only loving the god in one's head.

An Interesting Book, Edited by John Brockman

Check it out: This Explains Everything: Deep, Beautiful, and Elegant Theories of How the World Works

Wedding Pastor Disaster

In this video, we witness a host organism (the priest) whose infection with the God Virus has progressed to an extreme state. He is performing a wedding ceremony for two living, breathing, human beings, but all he can think about is how offended his Invisible Friend must be by the photographers who are documenting the wedding.

“This is not about the photography, this is about God.”

Uhhh, no Reverend Douchebag. This is about the couple getting married, and their happiness. They hired the photographers that you are trying to run off, to capture memories of what should have been one of the happiest moments of their lives.

Another Review of My Magnum Opus (Which Randal Rauser Still Has Not Read)

If I must gloat I'll let others do it for me. ;-)

Those Who Believe Only Biblical Faith Creates Morals and Ethics Need to Consider the Fact that Charles Manson Was a Bible Believer

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22: 6

Jesus said: Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Matthew 10: 34

Raised by his fundamentalist Bible believing grandmother who required him to attend church and read the Bible daily plus memorize Bible verses, as an adult, Charles Manson was captivated by the blood, gore and prophecies in the Book of Revelation and saw himself and The Family as true believers ordained by God who would arise to rule a new post-apocalyptic world.

In a new biography, author Jeff Guinn looks at the strict religious world Charles Manson grew up in and how the Bible along with popular culture of the 1960’s created a religious psychopath.

An NPR audio interview with author Jeff Guinn about his new biography can be heard HERE

Join Me On Facebook

I don't Twitter and I don't make YouTube videos. On Facebook I post links to this blog but sometimes I post some personal stuff too. Today's my 59th birthday. Join me on Facebook to see the shenanigans.

Greg Boyd Joins the Apologetics Hall of Shame.

While I was still a believer, I found myself drawn to Greg Boyd’s books, in large part because he seemed willing to wrestle authentically with the tougher questions which challenge Christianity. In particular, I enjoyed his books Letters from a Skeptic, and God of the Possible.

Now Greg has a new book out: Benefit of the Doubt: Breaking the Idol of Certainty and Rebecca Held Evans has interviewed him, regarding it. Partway through the interview, she asks him about the violent portraits of God found in the Bible, and how he would recommend that believers deal with these.

Greg answers that since Jesus is the ‘supreme revelation’ of God, then:

“…whether we can explain the violent portraits of God in the OT or not, it would be unfaithful for us to ever allow anything we find in the OT to compromise what we learn about God in him. “

This of course, is a very convenient hermeneutic tool which allows Christians to distance themselves from, and override, distasteful content in the Old Testament. The writers of the New Testament shamelessly used their ‘new revelation’ to recycle, reinterpret and supersede the Jewish scriptures - as the occasion requires.

Greg basically pats the troubled Christian on the head, and says, “There, there. Don’t worry about those nasty Old Testament scriptures. Just keep your eyes on Jesus. He’s all that matters. He’s what God is really like.”

The New Science of Mind, by Eric Kandel

Link.

James Randi: Secrets of the Psychics Documentary

There isn't any difference at all between people who are deceived by psychics and theistic believers in the pew. The common denominator is that they have a need to believe. They don't really want to know the truth. Yet they deceive themselves into thinking that they do.

Why Have My Critics Fallen Silent?

My book, The Outsider Test for Faith, came out in March where I responded to all of the criticisms coming from Christian apologists Matthew Flannagan, Norman Geisler, Mark Hanna, Steve Lovell, David Marshall, Rados Miksa, Randal Rauser, Victor Reppert, David Reuben Stone, and Thomas Talbott. Here it is, six months later, and no response has been forthcoming from them or their supporters, with the exception of Marshall's ignorant non-response in a review on Amazon. It's hard not to conclude I have silenced them.

Even God Struggles to Understand the Dogma of Intelligent Design

Male or Female?

“He made him in the likeness of God.  He created them male and female”   (Genesis 5: 1c – 2a)

"The child was born with intersex condition -- sexual anatomy that fits the definition of a male or female."

"Court records indicate that at birth, M.C. was identified as a male. During a reflux surgery, female organs were discovered. Doctors at the Greenville Hospital System concluded the baby was a 'true hermaphrodite.'"

State Sued Over Hermaphrodite Child Sex Surgery

My Book, WIBA, is "Too Thorough" ?

 Very thorough...too thorough, September 7, 2013

By 

C. Medina "RedCat" (Richmond, VA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

This review is from: Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (Kindle Edition)

This is a very very thorough explanation of a huge amount of research into why Loftus chose to become an atheist. I was expecting a much more personal account but this is extremely academic. Very very lengthy, only for the very studious mind. Lots of great info, but too much. This covers philosophy, history, anthropology, biblical studies, you name it, this book is the mega thesis.

---------

When I say it's my magnum opus I really mean it. Randal Rauser didn't read it before inviting me to co-write "God or Godless" with him, and he has still not read it. Is it just too big of a book for him, too academic, outside his expertise, or what? ;-)

Silly Sayings of Jesus: Like Little Children

And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3

Well Jesus, this was silly because you revealed too much (kind of like a magician telling how he does his tricks). A childlike mentality, and childhood conversions are the fuel on which Christianity runs.

Kids are trusting, uninformed about life, and unskilled in the art of reason. The line between fantasy and reality is blurred for children. It’s not unusual for them to have invisible friends, which makes them perfect victims for spiritual salesmen!

"Jesus Christ Superchimp?" by Robert Price and Edwin Suominen

Most readers of Debunking Christianity have been deep enough into Christian theology at one point or another to appreciate a nuance to the evolution vs. Christianity conflict that is significant but little discussed: How could the half-human, half-divine nature of Jesus possibly be rationalized scientifically? As this excerpt from Robert and Edwin's book Evolving out of Edenmakes clear, the whole idea of a virgin birth is utterly foreign to modern science, based on ancient, paternalistic ideas about fertilization. The book goes on to explain what a theological mess believers are left with, even if they can make that impossible leap of faith: Jesus would’ve had all the supposedly sinful natural inclinations that Christianity gives humans so much grief about—lust, anger, etc.—because he carried Mary’s human DNA and a supposedly divine portion that would have needed to be defective by design in order to match up with it.

There was no Jesus, there is no God – Why I wrote the book

There are many excellent atheistic books available today. We have mega-selling books on the social issues, such as whether religion is good or bad for society (The God Delusion, The End of Faith). We have inspiring books by prominent atheists who have liberated themselves from religion (Godless, Why I Became an Atheist). We have books on specific issues, such as the traditional claims that are often at odds with science (A Universe from Nothing, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, Why Evolution Is True). There are books that expose some of the more horrifying aspects of the Bible (The Skeptic's Annotated Bible), there are books that question the truth of the Biblical sources (Forged), there are books that raise questions on methodology (The End of Biblical Studies), and there are books advocating a religious-but-not-religious way of life (The Good Book, Religion for Atheists). There are even books on the seemingly irrelevant issue of Jesus’ possible ahistoricity (Proving History, The Christ-Myth Theory And Its Problems, The Christ Conspiracy). So why would I, a scholar, throw one more into the mix, when traditionally, academics keep to themselves?

My "New Books in Secularism" Interview

Looks like I've joined a great cast of growing interviews here. I haven't listened to it yet. I'm interviewed about my new book, "The Outsider Test for Faith." Check it out. Now I'm off to a bicycle beer run. Seriously!

5 Best Books To De-Convert A Christian

Whenever you see posts titled like this one always consider the source and the intended target audience. How widely read is the person recommending these books? Is he or she a former believer? Which type of Christianity do the recommended books target? On what level of scholarship do the books deal with? Are the recommended books philosophically oriented, biblically oriented or scientifically oriented, or general ones? Take for instance the recommendation to read the Bible itself. A fundamentalist won't deconvert upon reading it. A Catholic like Julia Sweeney did. Remember, Isaac Asimov's famous quote is this: "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." The question is which books help which readers properly understand the Bible? That's my focus, my specialty. My target audience are educated evangelicals in the pews and colleges. So with that let me whittle down my list of recommended books to just five (excluding my own):

Raphael Lataster's New Book on Jesus Mythicism

Raphael Lataster is bright young scholar from Australia.  In 2012, he submitted a Master's Thesis on Jesus Mythicism that was approved by the University of Sydney. As such, he may be among the first to have a thesis sympathetic to Jesus Mythicism approved by a world-class university.  Now, Lataster has used that thesis as the basis of a new book, There Was No Jesus, There is No God, to be available shortly on Amazon (Kindle version already available).

Although I am not a  Jesus mythicist, I do think that Lataster makes a good case that one cannot simply dismiss all versions or all aspects of Jesus mythicism. His work addresses the work of Bart Ehrman and W. L. Craig, among many others.  See Book Description. Here is also another link that may be more useful: Alternative link.

Questions In Genesis: Ken Ham’s Creationist Shtick

I have a confession to make. Over a decade ago, I took my family to a Ken Ham creationism event. My kids were taught that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, a few thousand years ago, and they also learned a magic phrase – one guaranteed to stop evolutionists in their tracks. More on that later.

In a presentation for the adults, Ken talked about how evolution attacks the very foundation of Christianity – the book of Genesis. After all, if Genesis is not literally true, then there was no Adam and Eve, no Fall of mankind through eating a forbidden fruit. No Original Sin. No need for a savior. This is something which I actually agree with Ken on.

My Further Response to Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis

As my readers know, I recently visited Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky and wrote about it here. Ken Ham responded with a post of his own, to which I responded, and I'm sticking to my story despite his claims otherwise. Now I want to dispel a couple of other things he said. He wrote:

I recently posted a Facebook comment about this man (me), with the title, “Atheist debunking—or an advertisement for the Creation Museum?” Like most atheists who write negatively about their museum experience, he simply described some of the exhibits and, with lots of hand-waving, just said we were wrong. His lengthy piece really offered no real rebuttals of the scientific displays. He mocked the exhibits more than anything.

First off, I went to Ken Ham's Facebook page and posted a link to my first response. Guess what? It was deleted within a couple of hours. Looks like he won't stand for a free debate and/or discussion. So much for him having the evidence on his side such that he can allow it to win in the marketplace of ideas. He can do what he wants there, of course. But that should be the first clue he is not being intellectually honest. Secondly, I want to show why his views are ignorant and delusional, not just tell what I saw at the museum. So here goes.

Prayer Failed for Jesus!

We can keep this simple. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus was God incarnate. In John 17, Jesus prayed that his current and future followers would have the kind of unity that he and his heavenly father enjoyed. He requested this so that the world would have a basis to believe that God had sent him.

“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.” John 17:20-21 (NASB)

That was the prayer.  What kind of results did the self-proclaimed Son of God get?

An Open Letter to the Secular Community

On April 2, 2013, Hemant Mehta published the following letter to the secular community. Let's all compare how we're doing after six months. If you've read my blog posts then you know that two of my biggest beefs are with divisive people within the secular community and atheists who embarrass the rest of us. That does not make me a divisive person or an embarrassment. I'm responding to them. I can only tolerate the tolerable and this isn't tolerable to me. I think I can tolerate a great deal more than most others though. I know there are reasonable people who disagree with me, who are not ignorant or irrational, simply because I have read widely and experienced a great deal in my life. So I support the following statement as well, with the caveat that I don't want the frustration and headache of moderating every comment. Shall we try again?

A Brilliant Discussion Flowchart!

A model for all future discussions. ;-)

Is PZ Myers a Demagogue an Opportunist or a Principled Man?

[Michael Shermer responds. Edited further on 8/25/13] What do you do when someone pulls the pin and hands you a grenade? I'm dyin’ here, people. It’s like people trust me or something. So I've decided to say what I think. There is a great deal of infighting going on between atheists and has been for some time. I could provide a fairly long list of issues that have divided us along with a number of people who have been trashed on both sides. There is one common denominator to this divisiveness, PZ Myers. I'm not saying he is the cause of it all. He's not. He has, however, conferred a measure of authority and power to other atheist bloggers by giving them a large audience, who would never have gained such an audience on their own. Many of them are divisive too, following in his steps. As far as I can tell, you either love PZ Myers or you hate him. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground among most atheists who are aware of him. PZ Myers is a polarizing figure, hands down, no ifs ands or buts about it. He is divisive whether people think he's usually right or usually wrong. When PZ Myers declared he was leaving the skeptic movement in May of this year, professor Massimo Pigliucci even rhetorically asked, "should we care?" Now this is some real divisiveness, apparently cutting ties with the large and influential James Randi Educational Foundation and like-minded skeptics around the world. Who does he think he is? So I got to wondering about the characteristics of a polarizing person and did some searching online. This is what I found: