Not a Good Year for Dinesh D'Souza

...writes Jerry Coyne.

We are Nonbelievers, We Don't Believe, Period.

I used to think the position I now hold to was philosophically naive at best, and I have taught university level philosophy classes. Tell me this, do you know the sun will rise this morning, or do you believe it will rise? I know it will rise. Could I be wrong? Yes, but I don't need certainty in order to know something. If a truth proposition has that degree of probability to it then the fact I could conceivably be wrong means nothing. I know it. What does saying "I believe" the sun will rise do? It allows Christians to claim all knowledge is based on faith. Then they slip their Trinitarian incarnational god into that same crack. If the odds for a truth claim are calculated to be 70% then what does faith add to them? 50%? 15%? If we go exclusively by the probabilities there is no room for faith, no reason to believe anything at all. The problem is that we don't have separate words to describe the various probabilities. We only have one word, the word "belief." It covers the whole range of probabilities when we should be using different words to describe them. Other words better describe what we mean, like hope, trust, accept, think, know, conclude, and so on. The word "belief" is a Christian one supporting the Christian faith in the western world. We need a new nomenclature. We are nonbelievers. We don't believe. Let's use language commensurate with what we know.

"Is Belief in God Irrational?" Chris Hallquist Loses This Debate to Randal Rauser Who Wins a Pyrrhic Victory

I wouldn't want to debate a professional Christian philosopher on the topic of this debate. But Chris Hallquist did. He made some good arguments against Christianity but in terms of the question itself, debate judges would unanimously proclaim Rauser the winner, by a landslide. For Rauser it is nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory though. He won the battle but suffered serious loses in doing so. I judge Chris to be out of his league here, but he did manage to raise some issues Rauser didn't have good answers for, so Kudos to him. The problem of evil was his best argument. Rauser hammered Hallquist on the word "irrational" and won the debate because of it. However, unbelievably, given someone's ignorance about science then a Flat Earther would be considered rational too. Big crapping deal. What we want to know is if one's belief in God is true and Plantinga, Rauser's guru, never addresses that question. Hallquist did, but we all hold some conclusions that are false and we're not irrational in doing so.

If I were to debate Rauser on this question I would focus on the word "belief." Belief is always irrational. We should think exclusively in terms of the probabilities when it comes to the nature of the universe and it's workings. Hallquist didn't even do this. He thought if he could just show that believing in God was improbable then this is all he had to do. For anyone who continues believing despite Hallquist's arguments is irrational. Yet based on this standard of Hallquist's it is only irrational to continue believing in God once someone grants the arguments to God's existence fail, and these types of judgments are person related. Rauser thinks Hallquist's arguments fail instead. So until Rauser thinks those arguments succeed and continues believing anyway, his belief in God is not irrational. Check the debate out and see for yourselves.

Hallquist's position is just too extreme to be taken seriously. He thinks the arguments against the existence of God are so devastating that when it comes to William Lane Craig, and some other Christian apologists, they are intellectually dishonest. What Hallquist simply fails to understand is that there are many cognitive biases that keep honest people believing despite the strongest evidence to the contrary. There are many Christian apologists who think the opposite, that the arguments for God's existence are so strong that non-believers are being intellectually dishonest. If I were a Christian apologist I would hold up Hallquist as exhibit "A" in showing non-believers are intellectually dishonest, for surely he isn't ignorant about the effects of these cognitive biases. So they could conclude he is being intellectually dishonest when claiming William Lane Craig and others are intellectually dishonest. Because of this I must distance myself from him, even though I wish him well.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science, Religion and the Universe

Since the multiverse is mentioned here is the evidence for it.

Sodom and Gomorrah

Jesus Christ visits Sarah Silverman to discuss women's reproductive rights.

Open Thread for Comment

Yes, I've been silent lately. I'm working on a new book and dealing with other exciting things in my life. So give it to me. What's up? Anything new?

If Religious Faith Isn't The Problem Then What Is It?

A Screwed Up Book From the Beginning: Does the Bible Ever Know What It’s Talking About?

Left: The Jarvik 7 Artificial Heart (Could Jesus Live Here?)
Over a decade ago I debated a Christian apologist over the fact that the Biblical writers had no idea of what the human brain was.

My point was that, if the Bible was literally correct, than both the first artificial heart recipients Barney Clark and Robert Schrader (who died while on these machines) would have been totally  "unable to have asked Jesus into their hearts" since they had in fact had no hearts for Jesus to live in and thus ended up in Hell. This Christian apologist said this was "ridiculous" and was very adamant that the term "heart" in the Bible was used as a purely symbolic term being that the Biblical authors knew full well that the muscle we call the heart was not really the place emotions and thought.  By contrast, I strongly disagreed and reaffirmed the fact that what the Bible said about the heart (Greek: Kardia, from which we get Cardiac) is exactly what is meant. (You see, we atheists are basically Bible Believers!)

Why Didn't Jesus Tell Us About Germs?

This is a nice little argument from Richard Carrier. His debate with David Marshall can be seen here.

What's the Difference Between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism?

[First published on October 2, 2013, now updated]: Fundamentalist Christianity represents yesterday's conservative faith whereas Evangelical Christianity represents today's conservative faith...and the goal posts keep being moved. Evangelical Christianity therefore is the liberal faith that conservatives of yesterday rejected, while the Evangelical Christianity of the future will reject the theology of today's Evangelicals. Liberalism is the trend into the future. It's palpably obvious too.

Evangelicals in the eighties rejected Karl Barth, inclusivism, Hell as annihilation, the mythical interpretation of the Genesis creation stories, the late dating of 2nd Isaiah and Daniel, and they especially rejected evolution. These former Evangelical views are now being rejected by today's Evangelicals. The goal posts have simply been moved! For more read these posts of mine:

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

2) The More Conservative The Church, The Less Likely It's True

Two New Bible Movies Hit the Theaters for 2014

Tonight I decided to see Lone Survivor which is an excellent movie about an ill-fated mission by Navy SEALs in Afghanistan (Highly Violent). As usual before the main movie, our sold out theater watched about six movie trailers for forth coming titles in 2014. Among the secular titles; I was intrigued to see two trailers for upcoming Biblical movies.

It's Okay That Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

The Science Guy Bill Nye is going to debate Ken Ham at the Creation Museum in Kentucky on February 4th. Ham believes the universe is not more than 6,000 years old and that there was a world-wide flood that took place about 4,500 years ago. He believes the animals saved by a guy named Noah in his ark can explain biological diversity. Ham also believes dinosaurs co-existed with humans. Ham, in other words, is a crack pot. He represents the absolute worst kind of creationist there is, although they are all wrong. Scientists from Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and a whole host of atheist bloggers are saying Bill Nye shouldn't debate Ham. Here are some reasons why:

The DOs and DON'Ts of Prayer

Here is Andrew Lamprecht's Deconversion Story

Andrew Lamprecht is a former Christian living in Adrian, Michigan, who is an aspiring author. Enjoy. See if his story resonates with you.

Does God Exist? A Debate Between Dan Barker and John Mark Reynolds

Satanists Unveil Design for Okla. Capitol Monument

"The Satanic Temple says Oklahoma's decision to put a Ten Commandments monument at the Capitol opened the door for its statute."

"Oklahoma City — A satanic group unveiled designs Monday for a 7-foot-tall statue of Satan it wants to put at the Oklahoma state Capitol, where a Ten Commandments monument was placed in 2012."

See link:  The Associated Press

Also of interest: The Satanic Temple website

Dr. Matt McCormick On Immortality

Here's An Interview I Did With Red Tani of the Filipino Freethinkers

Get Peter Boghossian's Audio Book, "A Manual For Creating Atheists" for Free

Seth from the Thinking Atheist podcast has a link to get a free audiobook and to get 30 days free access. You can hear Dr. Boghossian talking about his new book right here, then you can go to this link to get it free. Just search for the title "A Manual for Creating Atheists," and listen to the free, unabridged version of the book as read by the author, Peter Boghossian himself. Plus, you're helping support TTA I'm told.

Anyone Want to Improve On This Quote of the Day?

Give it a try, I want you to:

Not only is fundamentalist Christianity the greatest threat in the United States to science, tolerance, and social progress, but it is also the most prevalent form of Protestant Christianity to be found in our nation, whether you like it or not. It is the fundamentalist religious right that holds the reigns of the Republican party (which currently controls the nation, in case you didn't realize), and it is this same fundamentalist religious right that lobbies for the teaching of lies in public school and fights against funding for embryonic research that could potentially save the lives of millions. Whether you like it or not, it is this flavor of Christianity that makes the loudest, most obnoxious, most dangerous impact on the world today, giving us plenty of good reason to direct the brunt of our attacks in its vicinity.

Russell Blackford Comments On the Book, "God or Godless"

Russell Blackford is a philosopher with numerous books to his name. On Facebook he said this:

I'm currently reading God or Godless?by John W. Loftus and Randal Rauser. From my perspective, the former is intellectually demolishing the latter. You may think I'm biased, but it's not that simple. I suspect that I would (to my dismay) have had the same response even in my Christian days. Loftus is very good in this debate, but even that is not the problem for Rauser. So much Christian apologetics may be internally consistent... but still looks bizarre and implausible the moment you try to look at it from the outside. There's not much Rauser can do about this.

Biblical scholar Robert Price said the same thing. Dustin Lawson, Josh McDowell's infidel disciple, agreed wholeheartedly.

This is all gratifying to me personally. For anyone who has not seen it, co-author Randal Rauser and I debated each other in Edmonton, Canada, on June 5, 2013. Enjoy it below:

The Science Guy Bill Nye to Debate Ken Ham

Bill Nye to Visit Creation Museum for Debate

"Bill Nye "The Science Guy" is set to visit Kentucky to debate evolution and biblical creation with the founder of the Creation Museum."

No Question About It, The Bible Debunks Itself

Pastor Mark Driscoll’s Holy Ghost Porn.

Mark Driscoll, pastor of the Seattle-based Mars Hill megachurch is no stranger to controversy.   Early in his career, he was known as the ‘cussing pastor’.  As things rolled along, he garnered a devoted following by preaching a macho Jesus who would probably enjoy watching a UFC cage match, deriding effeminate male worship leaders, and telling Christian wives that they should drop their husband’s trousers and ‘serve’ them by performing oral sex.   His sermon videos on the topic of sex are often too controversial to be carried by GodTube (the Christian version of YouTube).  Recently, he has been in a new kind of controversy, as charges of plagiarism have been leveled at him.

What is perhaps not as widely-known is his claim that he sees replays of sexual encounters and child molestations in his head, courtesy of a ‘gift’ of the Holy Spirit.  That’s right folks.  We have a pastor claiming that he has a Holy Ghost porn channel in his head.  As Mark puts it, “I see things.”

I’ll let him tell you about it: