Pew Research: Fewer People Believe in God in the United States

Philosopher Stephen Law On the Boogeyman Called Scientism

Here's Another Excerpt from My New Book, Posted by the Friendly Atheist

LINK, with 242 comments so far!

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about my new book.

This is a book that has a two edged sword to it. It tells wanna-be apologists how to argue correctly for their faith. In doing so they'll also learn that if they argue correctly they wouldn't do apologetics at all, because by doing apologetics correctly they will learn Christianity cannot be defended at all. You really should read it. It's really good, and I don't just say so myself.

Comments On the Official Release Day Of My New Book

The comments have to do with my book How To Defend the Christian Faith. First, by Lazarus:

Hi John, I'm a Catholic of the open-minded-lets-see-how-strong-my-faith-is type. I have received your latest book, and will start reading that today. I found your other books to be some of the very best atheist arguments out there, if not (yet) completely convincing. Your own essay on animal suffering is the single most devastating argument that I have ever read against my faith. I still don't have much of an answer against it. Well, let's see how you go with this one. I like the starting premise - an apparent Christian apologetics book that will most likely conclude that it's all a fool's errand.

Edit: He later added:

Your chapter on the five schools of evidence / apologetic argumentation is brilliant. That is the type of information that very few people would really get to engage with.

This one is from Phil Torres on Facebook:

I've read about half of this book by John W. Loftus so far, and I can tell you that it's fantastic. Exceptionally well-written, very thoughtful, and quite authoritative. I'm looking forward to reading the rest and posting a review on Amazon!

#1 In Hot New Releases in Apologetics

Link

#1 In Hot New Releases In Atheism!

#1 In Hot New Releases in Religious Philosophy

Maybe I can now call myself a philosopher?

The Kindle Edition of My New Book, My Best Book, My Most Unique Book is Now Available. BUY!

On Christian Theology and Absolute Truth: A Thought

The entire Christian Systematic Theological system is established on pure superstitious paranoia being doctrinally presented tens of thousands of different ways by each denominations under the rubric of Absolute Truth. 

You Can Now Read Peter Boghossian's Foreword To My New Book

At last. If you've wanted to read Peter Boghossian​'s wonderful Foreword to my new book in its entirety, here it is, posted on the Richard Dawkins site (RDFRS). Enjoy and spread the word. While you're there click on the link to buy it. At the RDFRS site you can also read James Lindsay's review of it, which I linked to earlier. It's a really good day for me. I think I'll spit some worms.

Ken Ham's Apologetics Is a Tacit Admission He Doesn't Think the Evidence Exists to Believe!

In an editorial review of Ken Ham's book, How Do We Know the Bible Is True?, we're told that Ham's book "approaches the issues from a presuppositional point of view, whereas most works on apologetics come from an evidentialist perspective. This doesn’t mean that we don’t provide any evidence for our positions; it means we start from the Bible and show why the evidence makes sense in light of Scripture and cannot be accounted for in a naturalistic, atheistic worldview." LINK. In my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, I have a chapter on apologetic methodology where I argue that if the evidence existed then no other apologetic method but evidentialism would be used by apologists (chapter 5).For if the evidence existed then apologists would never have come up with any other method. You know it. I know it. We all know it. So Ken Ham's presuppositional apologetics is a tacit admission he doesn't think the evidence exists to believe!

Introducing the X-Risks Institute (for the Study of Extremism)

What will the future look like? The further upwards one moves from the basement domain of physics, the harder it often gets to predict long-term trends. Nonetheless, we have some fairly good clues about what to expect moving forward. Moore's law, for example, enables us to anticipate with some degree of accuracy, at least on a timescale of decades, how the development of computer hardware will likely proceed. And many nanotechnology experts concur that it's only a matter of time before personal nanofactories become as common as the personal computer (or even more so, given their potential for self-replication).

But technology isn't being developed in a vacuum. This is a crucial point that constitutes, in my view, a major weakness in a lot of (otherwise good) work being done by secular futurists. To my knowledge, virtually no one is asking questions about the important relationship between advanced technologies and religion, the latter of which is one of the most pervasive and influential cultural phenomena in the world.

Ahhhh, the Mind of the Believer

The following discussion took place on the Facebook Wall of Paul K. Moser with a guy named Jonathan Parsons. It shows my readers what it takes to believe, and it's not pretty. Moser was liking all of this guy's comments. Why is it they don't get it? That's as baffling to me as the existence of a two-headed person in a circus (and unfortunately they do exist). See this yourself. What do you think? How would you try to convince someone of the science that lies behind cognitive bias studies, when he tries to skirt the evidence like this? [FYI: I could answer them. I just chose not to.]

Dr. James Lindsay Reviews My Latest Book

He just wrote a review of my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.Here are the first and last paragraphs that sandwich the meat of a really nice review:

Four years ago I wrote in my first book about what I called The Problem of Apologetics, making the case that the very existence of apologetics--lawyerly defenses of religious faith--is a major strike against the believability of the contents of any faith tradition employing them. In considering and formulating that set of ideas, I rapidly concluded that religious apologetics don't deserve serious consideration, and as a result I thought it wasn't possible for me to take them any less seriously. I was wrong. In his new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, John W. Loftus managed to convince me that the amount of respect I should give to religious apologetic arguments isn't zero, as I had concluded; it is less than zero.

Those who wish to defend the Christian faith should read How to Defend the Christian Faith with utmost seriousness, ponder its contents, and ultimately find something better to do with their time as a result. Others should read it to get a full sense of just how bad the case for Christianity really is. As I argue extensively in my newest book, Everybody Is Wrong About God, the time has come to give no serious consideration to the entire theistic enterprise, and How to Defend the Christian Faith shows us exactly why. The case is hopeless; it's time to move on. LINK.

More Than 20 Teachers and Employees Were Let Go at Cincinnati Christian University On Oct. 23

After just 18 months as the President of Cincinnati Christian University, Ken Tracy resigned. Due to a serious financial crisis more than 20 teachers and employees were let go. CCU is trying to keep this news quiet for now. I'm wondering if this crisis is due to suspicions that CCU had traveled down the liberal path too far, as was reported by Lee Mason of the The Christian Restoration Association in 2013? If anyone knows more let us know.

------------

EDIT: Jack Cottrell responded to a question abut "doctrinal stability" with this:

I am always concerned for doctrinal stability. That is my life's work. And this doctrinal stability is always threatened in one way or another. The issue discussed in the article by H. L. Mason is no longer a presence on the CCU campus.

A Reflection On Randal Rauser: Some Final Thoughts On An Interesting and Paradoxical Personality, Guest Post Written by Tristan Vick aka The Advocatus Atheist

Way back in October of 2013 I sat down and read Randal Rauser’s book The Swedish Atheist the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails and then, as is my habit, wrote a series of brief reviews about my impressions on my philosophy of religion blog The Advocatus Atheist.

Initially, I think the thing that struck a chord with me about Randal was that he didn't seem like he was rehashing all the same old Christian apologetic fanfare. Rather, there seemed to be some genuine thought behind his arguments, and I found that rather refreshing (for a religious apologist). Randal is articulate and approaches perceived problems in Christianity differently than other apologists (heck, he even admits there ARE theological problems in Christianity that need addressing – so kudos to him).

I Highly Recommend "The Faithless Feminist"

Check out Karen Gorder Garst​'s site "The Faithless Feminist." She tells us:

It was not a simple decision...when I left behind my faith.

However, I could no longer ignore the historical and social truths that surrounded me.

For me, the Bible became a book written by men that reinforced a patriarchal view of society. I began to identify as an atheist.

I could have left it as a private decision shared only with friends and family. But I became troubled as I continued to see the reach of religion into women’s private lives. I reached out to other women who had left religion behind and asked them to write about their journeys.

I am currently in the process of getting their 18 stories published in a new book.

This website is intended to continue that discussion with posts not just by my authors and myself, but by others who want a forum to discuss current events on the intersection of women and religion or other topics relevant to “faithless feminists.”

I highly recommend her site. Read this guest post by Shanna Babilonia​, who discusses five reasons why organized religion might have problems with educated women.

You Want Polls and Statistics? Bernie Sanders Is the Only Democrat Electable Who Wins In the General Election

H. A. Goodman, writing for the Huff Post Politico Blog, argues: "Bernie Sanders is the only electable Democrat for president, and also the only person setting the Democratic agenda in terms of ideas and policies in 2016." In fact, "Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election." If you think otherwise then deal with his polls and statistics.

God Cannot Be Perfect Because Perfect Does Not Make Sense

In another post I was talking about how God, prior to creation (at least according to classical interpretations of God based on the Ontological Argument), had ontological perfection. That is to say, he was in a perfect state of being (since this is built into the definition of God). The argument followed that, in creating the world, God would be either lacking something and thus having a need, which is incoherent with ontological perfection, or he was downgrading his perfect state in the process of creating this world.

Bernie Sanders Can and Will Win!

Like I've said, Bernie Sanders will win the democratic nomination. The enthusiasm is growing and they're now saying he can win. LINK. Onward we go. It's too bad a few important atheists have said he doesn't have a chance. Apparently they don't understand the importance of social media, crowd enthusiasm, and a huge number of small individual donations. When it comes to donations, people who donate to a political campaign are much more likely to tell others about the candidate and to get involved in other ways. This is not just a grass roots movement of voters. It's a grass roots movement of activists. Come on. Be on the right side of history.

Why Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky are Both Right

Sam Harris recently appeared on Kyle Kulinski’s radio show to discuss his views on “progressivism, torture, religion, and foreign policy.” The impetus behind Harris’ appearance was to defend himself against the accusations of Glenn Greenwald and (the increasingly execrable) CJ Werleman, both of whom had previous public discussions with Kulinski.

What You Need to Know About Bernie Sanders Supporters, by Staks Rosch

I've found one secularist/humanist/atheist who is a big supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders, and has been so since May 22nd when he predicted Sanders will win the Democratic Party's Nomination. Now THAT'S some foresight! Who did this? Staks Rosch did, who writes for the network I co-founded, Skeptic Ink Network. His most recent post is titled as displayed above, LINK. I am very happy to join him in this goal and bid others do so as well, publicly, passionately, intelligently, with footwork and with money. I join Rosch in saying Sanders will win the Democratic Party's Nomination. Bold? I think not. The Bernie Sanders's movement is being conducted by passionate people who want nothing short of a political revolution. It's an idea whose time has come. It's a grassroots social media movement that's opposed by very influential people with obscene amounts of wealth. It's a modern-day Davy and Goliath tale with a twist. In this story a bunch of little people overthrow a bunch of big people. Kudos Staks! Go Bernie! [For more click on the "Bernie Sanders" tag]

Jimmy Kimmel Asked Bernie Sanders If He Believes in God

Where's the Secular/Humanist/Atheist Support for Senator Bernie Sanders?

My temporary goal is to help Senator Bernie Sanders win the Democratic Party's nomination for president of the U.S. When I first approached an important atheist thinker about this goal I was told, "Sanders has a zero chance to be president, zero." Well as you would guess, that didn't discourage me in the least. As I've said, I like those odds! ;-) I like proving the naysayers wrong, AND THEY ARE WRONG!

So let me tell naysayers why I think this is the most important goal we can probably pursue right now, and why more secularists, humanists and atheists should back Bernie's candidacy. After all, we're a strong important voting block that if fully engaged could make this happen. And if we make Sanders the Democratic Party's nomination then people in the middle will have to vote for him in the general election, since the Republicans only have nutcases vying for the same high office. If you read just one post from me on Sanders for President read the rest of this one.

Why Bernie Sanders Is Attracting Conservatives

This is a grassroots movement that will attract more and more conservative voters, explains Rick Perlstein of The Washington Spectator. LINK. Sanders explains:

Republicans “divide people on gay marriage. They divide people on abortion. They divide people on immigration. And what my job is, and it’s not just in blue states. . . [is] to bring working people together around an economic agenda that works. People are sick and tired of establishment politics; they are sick and tired of a politics in which candidates continue to represent the rich and the powerful.”