Sam Harris on Morality and the Christian God

Peter Boghossian is Taking the World By Storm

...and creating one as well. Here are some links to the conversation and/or debate from Religion News Source, from Jerry Coyne who uses his definition of faith in his article for Slate titled, "No Faith in Science," from The Thinking Christian, and from his interview for the Secular World Outpost. Finally he shared the stage with Richard Dawkins:

With religion people were usually never argued into it in the first place, so they usually cannot be argued out of it.

Once religious people can admit this fact, then and only then do they have the potential for questioning what seems so obvious to them. But studies show they won't even admit this against the overwhelming evidence of psychological studies. Here then is an excerpt from The Outsider Test for Faith(OTF):

The Massively Incompetent Christian Revelation

A good friend sent me an ad he's placing in magazines and newspapers with this as a title. It's really good. See what you think:

Ever Wonder Why Religious Ignorance Breeds Dogmatic Belief?

Join Us!

My sixty plus years dealing with Christianity will let me provide a real Christian Truth:

Belief and missionary commitment are inversely proportional to one’s Biblical and Christian objective educational level, but directly proportional to one’s subjective indoctrination level.

Belief in God: What’s the Harm? (Rush Limbaugh Edition)

Right Wing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh likes to refer to himself a “talent on loan from God”.  He will be today’s exhibit of how beliefs have consequences, and how religious beliefs can cause harm
.

On the subject of human-caused global warming, Rush (who has millions of listeners) has said:  

"If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in man-made global warming. You must be agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he can't create.  It’s always been one of the reasons for my anti man-made global warming stance." 

The purpose of this blog post is not to generate arguments over global warming. I merely offer  the Limbaugh quote as an example of how a religious belief can drive irresponsible and dangerous attitudes which could have far-reaching implications for the planet.

Dan Barker is Writing a New Book On Life, Meaning, Purpose and Morality

It's tentatively titled: Life Driven Purpose: How An Atheist Finds Meaning (Foreword by Daniel Dennett). He's not offering reasons to reject faith but he does recommend some works that do, in these words: "A wealth of positive and negative criticism of faith can be found in the writings of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, the late Christopher Hitchens, Vic Stenger, Sam Harris, John Loftus, and many other capable writers." Wow, that's a nice list of people to be mentioned in the same sentence with. I'm humbled and very grateful. Thanks so very much Dan!

I was also honored that he asked for a blurb based on a draft of his book. Keep your eyes pealed for this one. I don't have an idea when it will be published. Here's my blurb:

"Dan says he's certainly not pretending to be a Deacon of Atheism or Bishop of Freethought, but he is. In this book Deacon Dan (aka Bishop Barker) uses good scholarship in offering convincing answers to some of the most important reasons why believers keep on believing despite the lack of sufficient evidence. Writing with the wit and story-telling of a preacher, this series of "sermons" will definitely reach the masses. I heartily endorse it. May it produce a revival, one of reason, logic and science." -- John W. Loftus, author of Why I Became An Atheist, The Outsider Test for Faith, and co-author of God or Godless?

Sam Harris - It Is Always Now!

Jesus Blames God (not Satan) for Human Suffering

As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. (John 9: 1 -3)

Here’s my commentary on these three verses in a nutshell:

Believing in Christianity is Irrational!

Let's try this again folks. The evidence for Christianity is historical evidence from the ancient superstitious pre-scientific past. That's it. Private subjective experiences do not count, since all believers claim to have them. Miracle claims in today's world do not count either, since the evidence for them doesn't even convince believers in the same faith tradition, much less other faith traditions. Just think Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, and Oral Roberts, or the many claims coming from Asia and the Southern Hemisphere which only convinces Pentecostals and Charismatics. The evidence does not convince many or even most evangelicals, much less moderates, even less so liberals. The evidence for them certainty doesn't convince people outside one's own faith tradition. Protestants don't accept the Catholic miracle claims at Lourdes, France, at the hands of the Virgin Mary, while Christians don't accept the Hindu claims of being healed in the Ganges river. Philosophical apologetics isn't evidence at all. This is merely argumentation that should be based on solid objective evidence or discarded as special pleading, as I have argued in some detail right here. For a Christian to say, "okay, but these kinds of things are still evidence for me," is quite plainly irrational. There is no such thing as privately convincing evidence. Evidence, if it's to be considered as such, is objective evidence, public evidence, evidence that can convince other rational people.

Through the process of elimination then, the evidence for Christianity is historical evidence from the ancient superstitious pre-scientific past, and that's it. Period. I don't see how any sane informed person can disagree. Really. This evidence is supposed to be good enough to convince rational outsiders that God sent his incarnate son to this planet, via a virgin, to atone for our sins, who subsequently was raised from the dead and will eventually reward believers and condemn nonbelievers. I have looked at this supposed evidence and it doesn't produce a scintilla of a reason to accept it. So let me take a different, surprising tact, to help believers see why this is the case.

Christian Excuses for God's Inactivity, Redux

News Headine: Tornadoes Kill 6, Injure Dozens, Destroy Hundreds of Homes in Midwest. I live in an area affected by this and was a bit worried, having to drive at the time it hit. If God was aiming at me then he missed yet again. Whew! Close call, that one. :-) Anyway, once again here are the top 10 Christian responses to this kind of tragedy, and my decisive rebuttals.

Am I a Poor Philosopher?

Randal Rauser seems to think so in agreement with a recent Christian review of our co-written book, God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions. (Not entirely sure).Rauser is also taken to task and he responds, right here. But given one of the charges against him, is he also a poor philosopher? You see, Rauser is accused of begging the question. In fact, he's even accused of not knowing what that means. I for one think Rauser does know what that means, but I'd have to agree with the reviewer that he does beg the question. Actually, to be more precise, he is special pleading his case. Don't all Christian apologists do that?

"50 Great Myths About Atheism" is a Great Book!

I have found that even among the very best Christian apologists there is a woeful, and perhaps even culpable ignorance about atheism. As I previously said, this is remedied by Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk's excellent book, 50 Great Myths About Atheism.In what follows I want to write a brief review of it while making a few observations. I will probably write more about it from time to time, especially when one of these myths is brought up in our discussions here.

How Do We Know We're Not Brains in a Vat?

In the comments here a Christian said, "you cannot use the scientific method to show you are most likely not a brain in a vat WITHOUT begging the question." Luiz Fernando Zadra responded nicely as follows:

The Definitive Answer to Who Has a Closed Mind

Doxastic closure is "belief closure." Doxastic openness is "belief openness." I'll use DC and DO in what follows to represent them. The person who has DC has a closed mind. The person who has DO has an open mind. Who has DC? Who has DO? That's the question I want to explore. It has been claimed by more than one Christian that atheists and agnostics have DC, whereas they consider themselves to have DO. The key premise is that it's better, more knowledgable, and virtuous to have DO. Having DO means someone is not closed-minded, is open to new information, and thus better able to decide what to conclude about matters of faith, science and truth itself.

Ed Babinski On Evangelical Conversions

The point is that VAST numbers of people don't convert but are simply enculturated into a belief system. The point is that even among those who DO convert, vast numbers convert at an immature age, and/or due to "silly" irrational desires, fears, prejudices, preconceptions. The point is that we know where the conversions fall, statistically speaking, which tells us that the continuance of Evangelical Christianity depends heavily on adolescents who "accept Christ" before they reach the age of 18. And adolescents do not know much about the Bible, history, science, psychology or religion; they are far from having peaked in their acquisition of worldly wisdom; and they are not known for their emotional maturity. Therefore, we have reason to doubt that such "decisions for Christ" are well informed. Yet Evangelical Christianity relies heavily on such decisions in order to continue at all.

Boghossian is Very Serious; He's a Crusader, a Radical, and I Like It!

I have written a few posts about Peter Boghossian's book, A Manual for Creating Atheists.To read other posts in review of his brilliant book click on the tag below. In this last one I want to highlight how much of a crusader he is, a radical, and how much I like it. He is dead serious. We know this from his radical remedies for the present faith virus pandemic.

Dr. Peter Boghossian Seeks to Revolutionize Our Academic Institutions

I'm writing a few posts about Peter Boghossian's book, A Manual for Creating AtheistsTo read other posts in review of his brilliant book click on the tag below. In this one I want to highlight how that he intends to revolutionize academic institutions, a big yet noble goal.

Quote of the Day, by Luiz Fernando Zadra

I don't accept your claim that knowledge flows from "unproven presuppositions", but that's irrelevant....The problem is, no knowledge flows from your presupposition that god is the immaterial, timeless, spaceless and personal creator of everything. All your arguments must assume one of several of these things to support themselves.

If you must presuppose something to achieve a conclusion later, and your conclusion (god is the immaterial, timeless blah blah…) is hidden in your initial presupposition, then you never achieved any further conclusion at all. No knowledge was ever produced according to your own epistemic standards. In this case, you are basically lying to yourself: you are pretending to know things you don't know. And pretending to know things you don't know is a guaranteed, certified method to keep yourself deluded about reality.

Washington Post Story: "5 Churchy Phrases That are Scaring Off Millennials"

The first line? "The statistics are in. The millennials are leaving the church, and nobody seems quite sure what to do about it." ;-) The five churchy phrases? 1) "The Bible clearly says…” 2) “God will never give you more than you can handle.” 3) "Love on" (e.g. “As youth group leaders, we’re just here to love on those kids"). 4) Black and white quantifiers of faith, such as “Believer, Unbeliever, Backsliding.” 5) “God is in control...has a plan...works in mysterious ways.” Take a look.

The Core Brilliant Argument in Boghossian's Book

I'm writing a few posts about Peter Boghossian's book, A Manual for Creating AtheistsTo see them click on the tag below this post. In this one I want to highlight his core brilliant argument.

Boghossian's Book Will Change Our Nomenclature

I'm writing a few posts about Peter Boghossian's new brilliant book, A Manual for Creating Atheists.In a previous post I mentioned the first thing I had noticed, that Richard Dawkins has had a change of mind! The second thing I noticed about Boghossian's book is that it will change our nomenclature, and this is one of the best things about his bestselling book, although there are many of them.

When It Comes to God’s Protection, Christians Are No Better Off than Atheists

"Think of a church, and you envision a place that's holy, peaceful.

Church Security Officer

But church security expert Carl Chinn says churches and other ministries were the scenes of 135 deadly force incidents in 2012, a 36 percent increase from 2011. Crimes like domestic violence and robberies. Seventy-five people were killed in those incidents."

Watch the News Video:  Protecting The Flock: Church Security

Poll: A Majority of Americans Approve of God's Job Performance

This is not a joke, but it should be given Typhoon Haiyan.

The Free Will Excuse

When Christians are asked why their all-powerful, loving god does not intervene when people are carrying out acts of horrendous cruelty and violence, they have an answer.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have an emergency exit.  This mental escape hatch allows them to stop wrestling with the implications of a god who stands idly by and allows psychopaths to carry out their cruelties, unopposed.

Long ago, Epicurus pointed out that a god’s inaction in the face evil calls into question its power and goodness: