The Cannibal Dreams of the Puppet Minister

Ronald William Brown had a dream .  He wasn’t content with just doing a Christian children’s TV puppet show, and warning about the evils of porn. 

He wasn’t satisfied by working with the puppet ministry of Gulf Coast Church of Largo, Florida for 15 years.  He wanted more than just picking kids up for church in a van.  He longed for something more fulfilling than living in a trailer park, and running his Puppets Plus business.  To fulfill his dream, Ronald Brown wanted to kidnap, sexually abuse, murder, and cannibalize a child - a boy from his church!  

Founder of World's Largest Megachurch Convicted of Embezzling $12 Million

The founding pastor of the world's largest Pentecostal congregation has been sentenced to three years in prison for embezzling 13 billion won (US$12 million) in church funds. LINK. Up until David Cho's conviction Christians would have held him up as a model pastor of a model church and a good Christian. Now he'll be denounced as not a true Christian at all. "He doesn't represent true Christianity" they'll say. Then what does? No really, what does? ;-)

Quote of the Day, From Randy Pitkin on Facebook

For discussion:

Miracles don't happen today, God doesn't change, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Therefore, miracles NEVER happened. Case closed, move along, nothing to see here.

A House of Cards Built on Faith: Without a Historical “Old Testament” How Can Judaism, Christianity and Islam Have Any Credibility?

People who accept religion (especially those in the Judao-Christian-Islamic belief systems) do so emotionally (as if they have found absolute truth) only to be made into doctrinal mental slaves. Without context, the Biblical Scriptures they deemed to be their foundation of authority, they tend to mentally focus all their energy on theology while their scholars continually assure them there was (at least one time) a pure uncorrupted text (or texts) generally known as the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as we find expressed in this typical Doctrinal Statement on The Scripture:

“We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally and plenarily inspired of God, are inerrant in the original writings, and are the infallible authority in all matters of faith and conduct (II Timothy 3:16).” (Emphases mine)

Quote of the Day, by Jamie Fanol

I have written before that even among the very best Christian apologists there is a woeful, and perhaps even culpable ignorance about what atheism means. I also offered a solution to this ignorance. Perhaps Christians perfer to be ignorant because as Fanol said on Facebook:

If Christians understood atheists and how we use reason they probably would become atheists!

Faith Is A Slippery Pig" f/Peter Boghossian

See below:

Trying to Understand The Mind of the Christian Apologist is Like Trying to Understand the Mind of a Serial Killer!

I have spent my years online, and in my books, trying to reason with Christian apologists in front of the watching world (whoever watches anyway). It is my specialty. And yet today I feel like I am no better at understanding the mind of the apologist than when I began. Just how badly does the faith virus infect otherwise reasonable people? They cannot even understand what we're saying. They don't even try. They are in defensive mode. They only hear what they want to hear when the evidence of what we're saying should be clear enough. My goal is to break through to them, so I am forced to understand them. It's like trying to understand the mind of a serial killer. I cannot begin to understand such a person. It appears I cannot understand the mind of the apologist either, even though I was once one. How do I break through to them? I feel that if anyone can do this I can. But I admit I can't. The virus of the mind is that strong. It's very maddening. It is the most difficult challenge I have ever undertaken. [I wouldn't be surprised in the least if one of them copied this post and inserted the word atheist in it.]

Former Pastor Bruce Gerencser on "Why I Stopped Believing"

Bruce answers this question. His answer is very well-stated. I adjure you to take a look. He says:

The hardest decision I ever made in my life was the day in late November of 2008 when I finally admitted to myself, I am no longer a Christian, I no longer believe in the Christian God, I no longer believe the Bible is the Word of God. At that moment, everything I had spent my life doing was gone. In a sense I had an atheist version of a born-again experience. For the past five years, I have continued to read, study, and write. I am still very much a work in progress. My understanding of religion and its cultural and sociological context continues to grow. Now that I am free from the constraints of religion, I am free to wander the path of life wherever it may lead. LINK.

Dr. Randal Rauser is a Liar! A Liar For Jesus. There is No Escaping this.

Previously I have hesitated to say Christian apologists are liars. I have excused them because of their delusion. No More. Randal Rauser is a bald faced liar for Jesus. We have no more reason to trust anything he says, anything in defense of his ridiculous faith, none. Lest he delete his post I'll reproduce it below with a link. First the title:

Loftus admits Boghossian doesn’t care 
about truth. I call that bogusian!

 Liar! I did no such thing. Here is what Rauser said, see for yourselves:

The Next Wave of Evangelicals Will Accept Theistic Evolution

Ronald E. Olson's new book, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering, is more evidence the next wave of evangelicals will accept theistic evolution.I've written about this phenomenon before: The New Evangelical Orthodoxy, Relativism, and the Amnesia of It All.

A Forum This Weekend Featuring a Debate Between Sean Carroll vs William Lane Craig Will Be Streamed Live

The topic will be: God and Cosmology: The Existence of God in Light of Contemporary Cosmology. LINK. This should be good.

Atheism Sighting: HBO's True Detective.

Existential bleakness runs deep in HBO’s excellent new Louisiana noir crime drama, where damaged cops investigate a murder marked by cultic overtones.  I found this scene to be fascinating, between a cop who believes that religion is useful and necessary, and one who thinks that “If the common good’s gotta make up fairy tales, then it’s not good for anybody.”  (NSFW language throughout.)

Great back-and-forth verbal jousting between the two viewpoints.  You will have had these conversations many times with believers. 

“If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother, that person is a piece of shit.”

“What’s it say about life… Hmm?  You gotta get together to tell yourself stories that violate every law of the universe, just to get through the goddamn day.  What’s that say about your reality, Marty?”

Lesson One for Randal Rauser On How to Properly Exegete the Bible or Any Other Book

The hermeneutics required to understand any book are the same. They teach hermeneutics in first year Bible College classes. Randal Rauser must have skipped out on that class or flunked it. Here is a link to several of these college level texts. Rather than rehearse this whole discipline of learning let me highlight just a few questions reasonable people must first ask in order to properly understand a text, any text. We must ask basic questions like, "Who is the intended audience?" "What is the main point of the text?" and "What does the author take for granted?" Here is a listing of others written for college students.

How to Deconvert / Deprogram a Christian with Two Simple Demands

1. Demand textual proof that any verse of the Old Testament was written before 200 BCE. (There's 23,145 verses to prove them right or wrong.)

2. Demand historical proof (apart from using the New Testament to prove the New Testament) that Jesus Christ existed. (Let's see absolute truth prove itself.)

We're Almost Finished With the Anthology, "Christianity is Not Great: How Faith Fails"

Yes, that's the subtitle Prometheus Books chose for this anthology, simple and to the point. Our book, named after Christopher Hitchens's God is Not Great, shows how faith fails to live up to it's claims. Here is a description of the book. Here is the finalized list of chapters and authors. I'm only lacking six chapters and they should come in over the weekend. The chapters I have seen are absolute killers from superior authors. It's pretty exciting as we enter the final stretch. Here is the dedication:

Dedicated to the memory of Christopher Hitchens (1949 – 2011) journalist, author, polemicist, debater, and the quintessential curmudgeon. Hitchens was a person of candor and integrity, who thought false claims of any sort were not entitled to immunity from criticism. The essays in this book reflect his commitment to unsparing examination of religious beliefs.

“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”

― Christopher Hitchens

Even if the Entire Testimony of Josephus on Jesus is Authentic, It’s Apologetically Worthless

Josephus composed his four works in thirty volumes in while in Rome and in Greek. These are chronologically: the Judean War (ca. 79 CE), the Judean Antiquities (20 volumes) & his Life (93 -94 CE) and finally Against Apion (ca. 98 CE) , but in this vast amount of literary work, only a short paragraph mentioned the Jesus of Christianity; thus the theme of my post.

Snake Handling Preacher Jamie Coots Dies of Snakebite

The Ten Commandments of Rational Debate

Today at 4 PM CST Dr. Hector Avalos Will Be Debating Creationist Juan Valdes

As announced earlier Dr. Avalos (who blogs here at DC) will be debating Reverend Juan Valdes on the question: "Is Genesis 1-3 a scientifically reasonable account of the origin of our world?” You can watch it live at YouTube Countdown where the countdown has begun. Comment here as it takes place.

Bill Nye Scolds GOP Congresswoman On Global Warming

See this LINK.

Bill Nye to Debate a Climate Change Denying Congresswoman

Nye will continue his crusade against misinformation this Sunday on "Meet the Press" with a debate against proud climate change denier Marsha Blackburn, the Republican congresswoman who serves as the vice chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

The host of the once popular after-school staple "Bill Nye the Science Guy" took on committed creationist Ken Ham earlier this month in a debate over the origins of humanity. LINK

Nye is my new hero! One wonders if Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, or PZ Myers thinks this is a bad idea too!

Dear Christian, Would You Kill Your Kid for God?

Christian parent, I have a question for you.

Would you be willing to murder your child to prove your loyalty to your boss?

Imagine that your boss came to you and said, “Look, I know you are a good employee and all, but I really need to know for sure that you are 100% loyal to my company.  So, next Saturday, I want you to take your son on a camping trip, and while you are in the mountains I want you to cut his throat and burn his body, to honor me as your boss.“

You would look at your boss like he was insane, and refuse to do it – right?  I hope that I am right in assuming that all of you would refuse such a vile request.

Let’s up the stakes a little. What if – instead of your boss – it was your god who told you to kill and sacrifice your child - to demonstrate your faith?

Would you do it, or not?

Richard Dawkins Proposed Replacing "Evolutionary Theory" With "Evolutionary Theorum"

I have been arguing that language matters and that scientists should stop using the word "theory" when describing the evolutionary paradigm or research program. What I had forgotten was that Richard Dawkins addressed this question before me in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.If you go to Amazon and click on the book itself you can read what he says on pp. 8-19, with the exception of one page, depending on a random calculation (if you go away and click on it a different time you might see the page missing the first time). Now will you take my proposal seriously? I'm saying the same thing as he did, only I've been suggesting different words to replace the word "theory." In any case, it's time to retire the word "theory" when describing the evolutionary paradigm or research program.

Language Matters: On Not Using the Word "Theory" When it Comes to Evolution

Previously I issued A Plea to Scientists to Stop Using the Word "Theory" When Applied to Evolution. With a dozen "Shares" on Facebook at least some people get it (quotes below).

Let me ask just one question: When do scientists stop using the word "theory" and say instead that a discovery is a fact? In my previous post I quoted Richard Dawkins who said "evolution is a fact." Jerry Coyne said the same thing:

Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about the details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect, supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that only benefit a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth. [Why Evolution Is True]

A Plea to Scientists: Stop Using the Word "Theory" When Applied to Evolution

Christians habitually repeat ad nauseum that since scientists describe evolution in terms of a "theory" they will say it is not a fact. Don't you think it's time to retire that language? As Dawkins has said in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution:

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips...It didn't have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact...No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it. (pp. 8-9).

Can it be any more clear? Use phrases like "the fact of evolution," or just "evolution." When referring to how a particular scientific discovery supports evolution, rather than saying "this supports evolutionary theory," say instead, "this adds more weight to the fact of evolution." We don't say "the theory of the solar system," nor the theory of other well-established scientific facts. We need a change in nomenclature, now! If you agree then share this plea with others, especially scientists.

[Edit: To see this defended further here my second post on the same topic.