Damn It! The Saint's Head Breaks Off

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=547659308642357

Now there's going to be Hell to pay!

How a Lie about Bill Gates Disproves Pascal’s Wager

Can you afford not to trust him?!

“Hey Facebook, As some of you may know, I’m Bill Gates. If you click that share link, I will give you $5,000. I always deliver, I mean, I brought your Windows XP, right? ” (And it’s still running on Facebook as a “Friend” Shared it with me.)

In just 16 years over 400,000 Facebook users disproved Pascal’s famous 360 year old Wager due to the fact that these Facebook believers took the Pascal’s Wager Challenge and ALL 400,000 proved Pascal’s Wager was wrong! Even though the facts were out for years, people just couldn’t believe that a picture of Bill Gates himself holding a promissory note shared by hundreds of thousands was a huge lie!

 Hey (according to Pascal’s Wager), go ahead; what have you got to lose except tens of thousands of dollars and can you really afford to be that foolish?!  So can you simply afford not to trust what over 400,000 people believed to have been the Gospel Truth?

Finally, someone needs to post a picture of Jesus Christ also holding up a sign claiming eternal Heavenly bliss if you not only believe yourself, but "Share" this divine promissory note with all your friends.  After all, if you’re a non-believer, what have you got to lose?

The Finalized Book Cover of "Christianity is Not Great"

This is the finalized cover of my anthology "Christianity is Not Great."

To see the description and contents follow this link. To pre-order it on Amazon, where you won't be charged until it ships, follow this link. It's slated for an October 14th publication date. 

This is a "great" book, get it? ;-)

James Lindsay On Ending the Philosophy of Religion

It is very difficult to see the matter of theism as something to treat seriously as a philosophical object. We shouldn't. It is a theological object, and theology is only "pseudo-philosophical," as Carrier puts it, and pseudo-academic, as I outlined above. No one is required to take such a thing seriously or engage its "best" arguments, as if it has any, as if the real contenders haven't already been dealt with thoroughly and repeatedly, and as if any argument stands up to the simple and straightforward question that's been waiting for them all along: "Where's the evidence?"

But because the idea that we should engage any position's best case is generally true in philosophy proper, and all academic debate, it is an easy value to turn into a false virtue. The principle simply doesn't apply here because theology is pseudo-academic, though. Misapplying it as a false virtue, a moral value defining a particular kind of thinker, I think, is exactly what apologists for the philosophy of religion are doing, and I think it constitutes a confusing and unproductive avenue in the conversation that should not continue. LINK.

Christians Have A Gambling Addiction

 I’ve been pondering Pascal’s Wager, and I think that he might actually have been onto something.  Not in the sense that his wager was valid, of course.  

His bet was far too simplistic.  Its fatal flaw of assuming that the Christian god is the only deity which might exist, is glaringly apparent to everyone except for believers.  Philosophers such as Homer J. Simpson have dissected it:

Objective Evidence Trumps Subjective Experiences Every Time

Q: What about someone who believes God exists wholly apart from evidence, say, on the basis of their religious experience, like William Alston and William Lane Craig argue, who claim the existence of God can be immediately known and experienced wholly apart from objective evidence?

A: I'd say such a claim itself is not based on objective evidence, which is the only reality check we can have against false subjective claims. For the evidence of subjective religious experiences is trumped by the objective evidence that the Christian god, the one they claim to have subjectively experienced, does not exist. That kind of objective evidence abounds. Objective evidence is also the reality check for all people of faith who claim similar subjective experiences are veridical. People of faith who reverse this by claiming subjective religious experiences trump all objective evidence are not thinking like adults, so they must go to the children's table. They are deluded. They are Epistemological Solipsists.

Quote of the Day On The Philosophy of Religion, by Loftus

Secularists should teach the Philosophy of Religion in the classroom the same way they write their books, although they should allow for student interaction and debate. If the discipline is to be taught then this is one of the ways to do it right.

Dr. Hector Avalos Calls For Ending Religionist Philosophy of Religion

I've been wondering what Hector thinks of my call for ending the Philosophy of Religion, since I'm basing it on his call to end biblical studies. So I asked him. He has not followed the discussion that much but enough to say this (per email):

My proposal is "to end biblical studies as we know it" (The End of Biblical Studies, p. 15),which means in its current religionist and apologetic orientation. So I am for ending the philosophy of religion if its only mission is to defend religion and theism. So, akin to my vision of the end of biblical studies, I would say that the only mission of the philosophy of religion is to end the philosophy of religion as we know it.

He also provided a progress report so far on his call to end biblical studies:

There is No Better Method Than Science

I Recommend Dr. James Lindsay's Blog "God Doesn't; We Do"

Look on his front page right here, especially the post titled "William Lane Craig talking bizarro."

Can religion be destroyed?

This is something I have posted in one form or another before, but I thought it would be interesting to see what you think about it here at DC. Before I set out, this is not a post to be confused with "should religion be destroyed" as that is an entirely different question.

Dr. Paul Draper on "What is Philosophy of Religion?"

Earlier I linked to what philosophers of religion think of Philosophy of Religion (PoR). The essay Jeff Lowder has linked to is by Paul Draper, who offers four suggestions on how to best approach the discipline in hopes of reforming it. I want to examine these suggestions in a little detail here.

How A Doctorate in Bible or Christianity Can Stop Scholastic Objectivity

So you decided to go for the big one  . . . that earned doctorate in Christian studies; you know the one that is suppose to prove to the world you really know the real objective truth behind the Christian tradition.  You strongly believe that that a doctorate demands respect in the religion field, especially in Christianity.  Though you know that many churches have signs stating that the minister is Rev. Dr. Egghead, but your earned PhD will vindicate you as a master of objective truth. 

My Thought on the Blood Atonement of Jesus

If Jesus had been slain (shed his blood) by King Herod as an infant, there would have been totally no need for the New Testament with all its theological Bull Shit; the Hebrew God’s need of blood sacrifice would have been eternally but quietly satisfied and all humanity could have forgotten this finished Judeo-Christian religion forever! The fact the crucifixion must be continually re-enacted and preached on really proves this whole theological story never happened and is condemned by its own core theology as a hypocritical lie.

When considering the continuing value of the Bible, it is best summed up a by Jesus himself: “It is finished!” 

Jerry Coyne: Let’s stop teaching philosophy of religion in secular colleges

I'm pleased he links to me. He's now expanded the debate by going after Divinity Schools in secular universities, which I also applaud. Let's have done with them too.

What we don’t need are entire Divinity Schools or Schools of Theology in secular universities. This privileges an entire discipline based on a human endeavor that itself rests on dubious and unsubstantiated claims. Further, they concentrate largely (but not exclusively) on active Abrahamic religions. There are few, if any, courses on atheism in divinity schools, but they should be at least as prominent as courses in religious apologetics. That is distasteful in a country that officially favors no religion in particular. If we are to have such schools, let us then have Ethical Schools, or Schools of Moral Thinking, or The School of Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy. But all of these can simply be subsumed in departments of philosophy or history. LINK.

Christopher Hitchens - Christianity is Immoral

I'm Very Pleased My Call To End the Philosophy of Religion Made The Richard Dawkins Foundation Site

LINK. In a similar vein Matt DeStefano, a Ph.D. student, weighs in on this issue over at the "Secular Outpost" with a fair and balanced review, which I responded to. And Keith Parsons offered a major statement in agreement with me, saying "If proclaiming the 'death of PoR' only means the death of a certain way of doing it, then I would certainly applaud this...I think that we have had enough of theistic apologetics. It's over." But then he advocates "a post-Christian POR." LINK. However, the death of Christian apologetics posing as the POR means the death of the POR itself as a discipline. For when faith and apologetics are removed from the secular universities the secular professors would be undermining the discipline by arguing against faith and apologetics, at least if Peter Boghossian and Hector Avalos's proposals are accepted, and I think they should be. There would eventually be no arguments to take seriously enough to have classes on them. Answer me this Keith, which Christian theistic arguments merit discussing in a secular university? That would be the question and secular professors would have to decide, but in deciding they would be saying these arguments are worth discussing, which legitimizes them somewhat, I think. You could no longer teach this discipline because you just couldn't stomach it. Which secular POR professors would continue to bother at that point is the question. Other classes in the university should take over at that point, or soon afterward.

In the end, with secular professors alone arguing against religionist POR they would undermine the discipline by arguing against it and convincing students of this. So eventually students wouldn't bother nor would secular professors. This program, if kept up long enough, would render the POR useless and irrelevant to people who are atheists living in an atheist society. The discipline would eventually run out of material and die. At least we're getting somewhere. Progress is still progress.

Sam Harris on "Why Don't I Criticize Israel?"

LINK. I wonder how many Christians will agree with what he says?

Edward Babinski On the Conversions of C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel

Ed Babinski agrees with me that very few Christians, if any, have converted after being intellectually committed atheists who fully accepted evolution and its implications, and none as far as I can tell, have converted to being card-carrying inerrantist evangelicals. I consider Ed to be the expert in conversion/deconversion testimonies, having written a fantastic chapter on The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience, and having edited a book of deconversion stories titled, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. Here's what Ed wrote:

Is This Christianity? A Bizarre Experience I Had Yesterday

Yesterday I was sitting on my gay friend's porch, drinking talking and laughing. Along comes a guy who asked if he could join us. We said okay and invited him to have a beer. He said he didn't drink. His shirt was a billboard for Christianity, you know the kind. So I asked him if he didn't drink because it was against his church teachings and he said yes. Okay, I said. When it got around to why he wanted to join us, he said he'd like to suck, er, have oral sex. When asked which one of us he would prefer he pointed to me. My friend was offended but laughed because he was off the hook. I merely told the guy I was not interested. Then I asked him if homosexuality was condemned by his church teachings and he said it was, but that he disagreed with them. Well, he left and we laughed. Nonetheless, is this Christianity? He agrees with his church when it comes to drinking but disagrees with it about homosexuality. And I'm equally sure his church would not approve of his wanton promiscuity. These are a few of the people who answer they believe in God and are Christians in those polls we've seen. This once again illustrates that Christianity is a pick and choose religion with a wide diversity among its adherents. Funny. We're still laughing.

Children Exposed to Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction

Researchers took 66 children between the ages of five and six and asked them questions about stories — some of which were drawn from fairy tales, others from the Old Testament — in order to determine whether the children believed the characters in them were real or fictional.

“Children with exposure to religion — via church attendance, parochial schooling, or both — judged [characters in religious stories] to be real,” the authors wrote. “By contrast, children with no such exposure judged them to be pretend,” just as they had the characters in fairy tales. But children with exposure to religion judged many characters in fantastical, but not explicitly religious stories, to also be real — the equivalent of being incapable of differentiating between Mark Twain’s character Tom Sawyer and an account of George Washington’s life. LINK.

Quote of the Day, By ORAXX

"A god that needs to be worshiped isn't much of a god."

More Liars for Jesus, This Time About Church Attendance

Two in five Americans say they regularly attend religious services. Upward of 90 percent of all Americans believe in God, pollsters report, and more than 70 percent have absolutely no doubt that God exists. There is only one conclusion to draw from these numbers: Americans are significantly more religious than the citizens of other industrialized nations.

Except they are not.

Beyond the polls, social scientists have conducted more rigorous analyses of religious behavior. Rather than ask people how often they attend church, the better studies measure what people actually do. The results are surprising. Americans are hardly more religious than people living in other industrialized countries. Yet they consistently—and more or less uniquely—want others to believe they are more religious than they really are.

Even as pundits theorized about why Americans were so much more religious than Europeans, quiet voices on the ground asked how, if so many Americans were attending services, the pews of so many churches could be deserted. LINK.

The fact is that Americans are leaving religion behind.

An Ad For My Book in the Free Inquiry Magazine

I was told that a full page advertisement for my book Why I Became an Atheist appeared in the current issue of the Free Inquiry magazine. It's pretty cool, see what you think:

Steven Pinker - The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity