Quote of the Day, One More Time

In my world miracles like virgin births and resurrections do not happen. What world do you live in? If they do not happen now then they did not happen in the ancient past either. And that's how historians must view the evidence. Yesterday's evidence has lost all of its power to convince. We do not believe in miracle claims in today's world and we live in this world. So how much more so is it the case that we cannot believe they took place in the ancient past! We can interview people in today's world and we still don't believe they happened. How much more so is this the case in the ancient past where we cannot interview the people involved! The overwhelming numbers of Jews in the days of Jesus did not believe he resurrected even though they believed in a miracle working God named Yahweh and the Old Testament. How much more so then is it the case in our world that we cannot believe when miracles are supposed to establish that Yahweh did a particular miracle in the past! Again, if they do not happen in our day then they did not happen in the past either. What world are YOU living in? --John W. Loftus

An Open Question to Christian Apologists

I saw my cousin Bill at the restaurant this weekend and told him a bit about how my books are being received and a few speaking engagements I've had recently. I asked him that maybe he'd want to come with me to one of them. He responded, "I don't want to hear any of your vile." Well then, he has his mind made up hasn't he?

My claim is that believers like him were brainwashed or indoctrinated by being raised to believe in their respective cultures. I know he was. If my claim is correct then believers must be confronted with the issues I raise to know whether in fact they are, since, without being confronted with them they will never know that they are, if they are. Christian do you agree?

William Lane Craig on Middle Knowledge and Hell

When it comes to foreknowing our future, Craig argues that God has Middle Knowledge such that he knows “what every possible creature would do under any possible circumstances,” “prior to any determination of the divine will.”[1] So despite his protestations to the contrary isn’t it obvious that if Craig’s God has this kind of foreknowledge he could simply foreknow who would not accept his offered salvation before they were even created, and then never create them in the first place? If he did that “hotel hell” would never have even one occupant. Why not?

In question #202 at Reasonable Faith Dr. Craig tries to answer this type of problem:

Is the "Is-Ought" Fallacy Really Fallacious?

Daylight Atheism, in discussing Sam Harris's controversial but insightful book, The Moral Landscape, argues we can step over the "is-ought" problem and I agree. Here's the money quote:

It's true that you can't take any catalogue of facts about human nature, however comprehensive, and from them distill the conclusion: "We ought to value human flourishing." But for the same reason, it's also true that you can't start with any catalogue of facts about human history or the world, however comprehensive, and from them distill the conclusion: "We ought to use the scientific method to study reality." Does this cast doubt on the legitimacy of science as a human endeavor? More importantly, does it imply that there exist other ways of knowing that are just as valid? No system of thought can be derived out of thin air. They all have to be based on axioms that can, in principle, be rejected. But if that's a strike against objective morality, it's also a strike against philosophy, science, mathematics, and every other branch of human inquiry as well....And what to do with those stubborn philosophical skeptics, who insist to their last breath that we can't prove that human well-being should be valued above other qualities? Let them be. If our approach to morality is correct, its superiority will be borne out in practice and people will eventually be persuaded to come along for the ride, just as theists switched from faith healing to antibiotics when they saw how much more effective the latter was. Link.

The Ten Most Influential Books That Debunked Christianity

Of course, there were lots of books for me to choose from. In a few cases I had to choose just one book even though the author wrote several. And in a few other cases Christianity merely adapted and changed in response to a book. But in their day each of these authors threatened Christianity to its core. You can still get them and read them for yourselves. Do so.

Scientists to Theologians: Put Up Or Shut Up!

Christian theists love to point out the limits of science, and it does have some. But to focus on them to the exclusion of the massive amount of information we have acquired from science is being extremely ungrateful for what it has achieved. To me that is one aspect of the denigration of science. The limits of science are based in 1) the limits of human imagination, and 2) the limits of that which we can detect. That which is undetectable does not fall within the realm of science, although, with further advances in our scientific instruments we can detect things that were previously thought undetectable. If science does reach its limits in the future, there won't be any cause for theistic celebration because scientists may not know they have reached its limits, and because there are probably some things they might never know. Why should that conclusion, if they reach it, be preferred to an evolving God concept in a sea of god-concepts without any means to settle which one is to be preferred as the best explanation of the same data? What is the theistic alternative method for squeezing the truth out of the universe? What is it? Until theists can propose a better method than science to learn about the universe, they should just shut up!

Can You Not See What It Takes to Believe? You Must Bash Science!

Yep, that what Vic Reppert and gang must do, and Vic is supposedly an intellectual whom Christians say stands head over heels above me! lol Is this not completely and utterly ignorant? This is why I cannot believe. To do so you must be ignorant! I need not even respond since someone named Doctor Logic already did. See below:

A Romp Into Theories of the Cradle of Life

As a non-scientist who appreciates how science works let's take a look through this recent New York Times article summarizing the proceedings of a gathering of two dozen chemists, geologists, biologists, planetary scientists and physicists who pondered "where and what Eden might have been." Here's the article.

BBC: A History of Christianity

What Do Moammar Gadhafi and Christianity Have in Common?

You're both going down eventually. Kick against the goads all you want to. You're in denial. Lash out if you want. It'll do you no good. See here. As Led Zeppelin sings, "Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good." ;-)

Plato and Augustine Are To Blame!

Immerse Yourselves In Religion and See What You Get!

Andrew Bowen, 28, of Lumberton, N.C., is spending the 12 months of 2011 being "spiritually promiscuous," he says with a wry sense of humor. Each month he immerses himself in a different religion, adopting its rites and rituals, learning from its prayers and scriptures, meeting with its believers and sharing what he learns with the world. Bowen calls this yearlong effort "Project Conversion." He said: "Although I'm not pretending to convert to any of these faiths, I am giving myself as fully as possible to their practices, beliefs, rituals and culture. It's 100 mph for a whole month. I have to digest material in 30 days that would take a normal devotee a lifetime. One cannot help but to start thinking, dreaming, acting, sleeping, eating, speaking, singing, even making love differently." Link

While Bowen is not religious this is something even better than the DC Challenge, Part 2. Any Christians want to do either of these things?

Those Nasty Secular Intellectuals, Shame on Them

[Written by John W. Loftus] Some secular intellectuals have changed the world who, for all I know, were not nice people, or so we're told by Paul Johnson in his book, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky. I read a large part of the first edition when it came out in 1998, but it's now been revised. From people like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, to Karl Marx, to Leo Tolstoy, Ernest Hemmingway, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and George Orwell, Johnson specializes in the dirt. From theft to divorce to womanizing to hypocrisy to opportunism to lies, he digs it all up. It's not flattering to any of them if true, and I cannot dispute his facts.

At the end of his book Johnson summarizes what is his main point:

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die, by Gregory W. Lester

Because senses and beliefs are both tools for survival and have evolved to augment one another, our brain considers them to be separate but equally important purveyors of survival information....This means that beliefs are designed to operate independent of sensory data. In fact, the whole survival value of beliefs is based on their ability to persist in the face of contradictory evidence. Beliefs are not supposed to change easily or simply in response to disconfirming evidence. If they did, they would be virtually useless as tools for survival....Skeptical thinkers must realize that because of the survival value of beliefs, disconfirming evidence will rarely, if ever, be sufficient to change beliefs, even in “otherwise intelligent” people....[S]keptics must always appreciate how hard it is for people to have their beliefs challenged. It is, quite literally, a threat to their brain’s sense of survival. It is entirely normal for people to be defensive in such situations. The brain feels it is fighting for its life....it should be comforting to all skeptics to remember that the truly amazing part of all of this is not that so few beliefs change or that people can be so irrational, but that anyone’s beliefs ever change at all. Skeptics’ ability to alter their own beliefs in response to data is a true gift; a unique, powerful, and precious ability. It is genuinely a “higher brain function” in that it goes against some of the most natural and fundamental biological urges. Link

Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable.

I have been arguing daily for about six years online. I tire of arguing with people who continually move the goal posts, who seek out the tiniest loophole to drive a truckload of Christian assumptions through, who refuse to see the implications of current psychological studies on the state of the human mind, and who refuse to see the obvious and clear impact of my Outsider Test for Faith.

I've heard it all. And it disgusts me. Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable. This is an utterly unreasonable demand. I cannot show their faith is impossible. I can only show it to be improbable, very improbable. Not only that, but they refuse to see what they're doing. Let's rehearse these things with a few examples, okay?

New Zealand Quake Kills 65 And Traps Hundreds! Isn't God Good?

I consider the evidential case against a good God from naturally caused suffering to be the most significant problem for believers.



Can anyone tell me why God did not do a perpetual miracle by averting that earthquake? If God was concerned about remaining hidden then no one would suspect he did anything if he averted it, because it would not have taken place. Anyone? Anyone?

Quote, Er, Argument of the Day, by clamat

I do think it’s fair to say New Atheists favor science and are suspicious of philosophy generally, and theology in particular. To my mind, there are several good reasons for this.

Like me, I suspect most New Atheists grew up seeing and benefitting from the ever-increasing fruits of science. It’s been said a million times, but I don’t think it can be over-emphasized: Science works. Science produces things. Philosophy and theology, on the other hand, seem only to produce more and more words.

Neither ever seem to resolve anything.

Here's Proof Christians are Deluded!

Want to see an utterly ignorant analogy by a Christian intellectual named Ed Feser? He's not alone. Victor Reppert linked to what he said. Feser's gripe is against the "New Atheist Types." He says that "Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, and their clones in the blogosphere routinely display exactly the sort of ignorance and bigotry of which they haughtily accuse their opponents."

But Feser ends up being the ignorant bigot on this one.

Dr. Richard Carrier Will Be Teaching an Online Course in March

Yep, with Dr. John Shook. Details here. It's probably not too late to sign up for it. Richard writes about it on his blog. I'm scheduled to teach a class for CFI in April.

The Top Ten Misconceptions About Atheists

Let me correct some of the most egregious misconceptions believers have about us, in reverse order:

The Debunking Christianity Challenge, Part 3

On the sidebar you can see two parts to the DC challenge. Now here's Part 3 based on what someone named Mike said in the comments section:

Atheism is a Full Blown Skepticism!

Believers ask me if I am skeptical of what I believe about religion because the brain distorts the information we receive. Let me be clear here. Atheism is born of skepticism and is a full blown skepticism. Precisely because I know how our brains distort information I am skeptical of that which I want to be true, and more importantly, I demand evidence for what I believe. Have you ever seen TV programs like CSI and/or Law & Order? Something like that. They need evidence to arrest someone just like I need evidence to believe. So how can I be skeptical of my conclusion that some belief doesn't have any evidence for it, if there isn't any evidence for it, or if the evidence is weak? Atheists are known as non-believers for that very reason.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Believers?

Every once-in-a-while believers show up to remind me that I'm not succeeding in debunking Christianity, at least not with them. Rob Lundberg recently said this: "I haven't seen an argument from you John that would have me think that you're right either. Cheers." Well, let me make a few comments and then I have a song for people like him.

For the More Philosophically Minded

Three noteworthy items have been made available by Keith Parsons and Wes Morriston.

A Review of “Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind”

Gary Marcus's book, Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind, is a body blow to religious belief. It performs a double service to us by showing how the evolution of our brain accounts for why we think so poorly, and in so doing goes a long way toward showing that religious belief is a product of this poor thinking. Very highly recommended.

Gary Marcus, professor of psychology at New York University, begins chapter one by saying: “If mankind were the product of some intelligent, compassionate designer, our thoughts would be rational, our logic impeccable. Our memory would be robust, our recollections reliable.” (p. 1). Instead, our brains evolved as a kluge. A kluge “is a clumsy or inelegant—yet surprisingly effective solution—to a problem.” Just picture a house constructed in stages by different contractors at later times and you can get the picture. The original bathroom might be extended, which in turn takes away some space from the living room, or an added bedroom which does away with the bathroom upstairs. Without starting all over with a completely new floor plan, we get a kludge