Jim Jefferies, "Stand Up About Religion"
Australian atheist Jim Jefferies, "Stand Up About Religion." this" is funny stuff!
Christians, Please Learn These Two Words!
To understand why the faith is in great jeopardy
“How do you know your religion is the right one?” It’s not hard to guess what kind of answers we’d get if we posed this question to people coming out of church on Sunday morning. Usually, the answers would be variations on, “I feel it in my heart,” which in turn is based on trusting what they’ve been told by ministers, priests, and parents about the Bible, visions, and prayers. These respected authority figures make sure their cherished religious “truths” are drummed into young minds. But rarely, if ever, do devout folks—seized with genuine curiosity or skepticism—ask, “How do you know these things are true?” Another way to ask this is, “What is your epistemology?” The purpose of epistemology is to sort out the ways of knowing that are reliable and trustworthy. Ministers and priests resist teaching epistemology to their parishioners, because that would involve the search for reliable, verifiable, objective data to substantiate belief (and theists have never been able to agree on where such data can be found). So, all ye Christian faithful, please learn this word: epistemology—and try to put it into practice.
George Carlin Expresses How I Feel About Religion
Let me express my feelings about religion through George Carlin. I'm not saying he understood the various nuances of religion or the specifics of any given theology. I can imagine believers saying to themselves over and over "but that's not what I believe." Nor do I think he convinced many people. I'm posting this because he expressed how I feel about religion. I respectfully talk to the people he berates and belittles for their beliefs. But deep inside I agree with him in ridiculing them. Yes, what I do can be done. I've done it for decades. Many of us do it.
Does The Outsider Test for Faith Unfairly Target Religion?
Here is the final section from chapter 8 of my book The Outsider Test for Faith (pp. 169-170). I summarize what is wrong with objections that the OTF unfairly targets religion.
My Response to All These Objections
Let’s just respond to all of these objections this way: Either the OTF is a fair way to assess the truth of religious faiths or it is not. If it is not a fair test, per the above objections, then why do believers use it to reasonably examine the religious faiths of others? That they do is clearly evident. When believers criticize the faiths they reject, they use reason and science to do so. They assume these other religions have the burden of proof when it comes to their extraordinary claims of miracles. They assume that their holy book(s) are written by human not divine authors. They assume a human not a divine origin of their faiths. Believers do this when rejecting other faiths. So this dispenses with all the red herrings about ethics, politics, science, and a material universe, for the OTF simply asks believers to do unto their own faith what they already do unto other faiths. All it asks of them is to be consistent. If there is any inconsistency at all, it is in how they assess truth claims. But if the OTF is a fair test, why do believers have a double standard, one for their own religious faith and a different standard for the religious faiths they reject? Let them use reason and science to examine their own faith. Let them assume their own faith has the burden of proof when it comes to their extraordinary claims of miracles. Let them assume human rather than divine authors of their holy book(s).
My Response to All These Objections
Let’s just respond to all of these objections this way: Either the OTF is a fair way to assess the truth of religious faiths or it is not. If it is not a fair test, per the above objections, then why do believers use it to reasonably examine the religious faiths of others? That they do is clearly evident. When believers criticize the faiths they reject, they use reason and science to do so. They assume these other religions have the burden of proof when it comes to their extraordinary claims of miracles. They assume that their holy book(s) are written by human not divine authors. They assume a human not a divine origin of their faiths. Believers do this when rejecting other faiths. So this dispenses with all the red herrings about ethics, politics, science, and a material universe, for the OTF simply asks believers to do unto their own faith what they already do unto other faiths. All it asks of them is to be consistent. If there is any inconsistency at all, it is in how they assess truth claims. But if the OTF is a fair test, why do believers have a double standard, one for their own religious faith and a different standard for the religious faiths they reject? Let them use reason and science to examine their own faith. Let them assume their own faith has the burden of proof when it comes to their extraordinary claims of miracles. Let them assume human rather than divine authors of their holy book(s).
Pop Quiz for Christians, Number 2
Would your devout friends get passing grades?
In 1927 Bertrand Russell delivered a lecture at the town hall in Battersea, England. The topic was Why I Am Not a Christian, and this is now the title of a book that includes several of his writings. In 2011 Richard Carrier published a 92-page book with the same title. Russell was one of the great minds of the Twentieth Century; Carrier is one of the top Jesus scholars of our time. I’m pretty sure that Christian book stores don’t carry either of these book—i.e., there isn’t a section, “Books Written by Our Atheist Critics.” Devout believers may boast that their faith is unshakeable, but we suspect otherwise. They might identify with the fellow who cried out to Jesus, “I believe, help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24) Thus they keep their distance from anything that might puncture faith.
The Gods Even Prefer Different Hats!
Here is another strong indicator that god's are created by human beings in different social cultures. Deities prefer different attire, eating habits, traditions, sexual prohibitions and positions, not to forget they prefer different social morals and beliefs. Hence the meme above left. They also prefer different hats! This shows religion to be made up mostly by men to control people, to become powerful, to be known as important and wise, and to get the women (don't forget the women). Look at all these religious hats below. [Someone noticed the first priest looks like me, presumably from the Russian Orthodox Church. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not confessing.] I provide a link to others.
PART 2: REASSESSING PAUL'S TIMELINE by Bart Willruth
If Part I is correct, that Paul lived and wrote in the 1st century BCE, the implications are immense. [For Part 1 see Tag "Reassessing Paul"] What would it mean? Here is a suggested paradigm for understanding Paul in an entirely different context. Does the shoe fit?
THESIS 2: PAUL WAS A RANKING (NAVAL) MILITARY MAN WRITING TO SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
Teaser: John Dominic Crossan wrote, "There was a human being who was called 'Divine,' 'Son of God,' 'God,' and 'God from God,' whose titles were 'Lord,' [sovereign] 'Redeemer,' 'Liberator,' and 'Saviour of the World. Most Christians probably think that those titles were originally created and uniquely applied to Christ. But before Jesus ever existed, all those terms belonged to...” [See below for the answer].
To review PART I: Paul likely lived and wrote in the first century BCE, and was likely a combatant or agent involved in the Jewish civil war. His incidental terms and people, as mentioned in his letters, seem to be consistent with a timeline in the 40’s to 30’s BCE. If this chronology is correct, Paul would never have heard of Jesus of Nazareth and couldn’t have been writing to Christians as we would recognize them.
Since I am suggesting that Paul was writing in a military context, I will list some straightforward facts about the Roman military of the time as background for how Paul might fit in:
THESIS 2: PAUL WAS A RANKING (NAVAL) MILITARY MAN WRITING TO SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
Teaser: John Dominic Crossan wrote, "There was a human being who was called 'Divine,' 'Son of God,' 'God,' and 'God from God,' whose titles were 'Lord,' [sovereign] 'Redeemer,' 'Liberator,' and 'Saviour of the World. Most Christians probably think that those titles were originally created and uniquely applied to Christ. But before Jesus ever existed, all those terms belonged to...” [See below for the answer].
To review PART I: Paul likely lived and wrote in the first century BCE, and was likely a combatant or agent involved in the Jewish civil war. His incidental terms and people, as mentioned in his letters, seem to be consistent with a timeline in the 40’s to 30’s BCE. If this chronology is correct, Paul would never have heard of Jesus of Nazareth and couldn’t have been writing to Christians as we would recognize them.
Since I am suggesting that Paul was writing in a military context, I will list some straightforward facts about the Roman military of the time as background for how Paul might fit in:
Rampant Idiocy in Christian Belief
And now we have a handy guidebook!
In recent days, Pat Robertson came out of the woodwork—or rather, out of retirement at 91—to explain to the world that Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is part of God’s plan to hasten the End Times, in a battle that will ultimately play out in Israel. What? We can be sure that Christians throughout the world condemn Putin’s aggression, and are appalled by the suffering caused by the ongoing invasion. Where did Robertson come up with this crazy idea? Well, it comes right out of the New Testament, even in the bad theology we find in Jesus-script: the coming of the kingdom of God—the End Times—will bring as much suffering as the world experienced at the time of Noah. Part of Robertson’s delusion is his conviction that he knows God’s mind well enough to coach the rest of us.
Reassessing Paul's Timeline by Bart Willruth, Part 1
REASSESSING PAUL'S TIMELINE by Bart Willruth.
Paul, the so-called founder of Christianity, may not have been who we think he was, or lived when we think he lived. In this presentation, I will take some things for granted. I am writing from the perspective of a Christ mythicist; that is, there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth, and Christianity developed on different grounds. This has been argued elsewhere, therefore I will not repeat the arguments here; see "The Varieties of Jesus Mythicism" edited by John Loftus and Robert Price.
I realize that any attempt to date, or re-date, Paul will be speculative, but that process also includes the attempt to maintain the traditional timeline. But lack of proof doesn't preclude assessing probability. That which I will present in brief below is a novel paradigm; I would point out that the value of a paradigm rests in its utility in answering questions and drawing together a coherent explanation for the data. This is still a work in process.
I began this survey several years ago as I noticed anomalies and problems in the traditional view of Paul. That Paul was not writing in response to a historical Jesus is, by definition, a conclusion of virtually all of the Christ-myth theories. That the gospels and Acts are not historically reliable is a corollary to that position and is the conclusion of The Acts Seminar (WESTAR) and familiar names such as Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty R. G. Price, David Madison, and others; they cannot be used to tell us anything firm about Paul's biography or thought. All recognize the principle of giving primary sources (Paul’s own letters) absolute priority. Nevertheless, many of my fellow Christ-myth proponents continue to assume Paul's traditional timeline, that he was in some way converted to a form of Christianity in the 30's CE, that he began traveling throughout Greece and Asia Minor in the 40's CE to spread the word to the gentiles, and wrote letters to the believers in various cities during the 50's CE. But what are these dates based on? The answer is clearly the chronology of the gospels and Acts. But if there was no historical Jesus and Acts is theological/historical fiction, what ties us to these dates? We are effectively cut loose from those constraints except by habit and presupposition. In conversations I've had with other mythicists (most of whom are well known to the readers of John Loftus' books) the common responses to this problem are all variations of, “I agree that Acts is not reliable history, but it’s all we have,” or "These dates are overwhelmingly accepted by scholars. Why should we change them?" Of course, most of these scholars they reference are accepting some level of historicity for the Jesus of the gospels and Acts, so we end up in a circular defense chain with one major broken link. I still find some mythicists repeating some version of the phrase "within a few years of the crucifixion" or "the presumed date of the crucifixion." This imposes the later beliefs of Christian writers into the earlier writings of Paul as though he was writing in response to a historical Jesus which is a conclusion at odds with that of the Christ-myth theory. It is simply improper methodology to assume a chronology for Paul based on the later assignment of a date for a historicized Jesus and the immediate inauguration of the Christian movement. Bottom line: reassessing Paul's timeline is a direct and necessary consequence of deeming the Gospels and Acts as non-historical. Re-dating Paul would likely impact our understanding of his thoughts and purpose.
As an aside, Robert Price, in his book "The Amazing Colossal Apostle" suggests that Paul's letters date from the late first century CE to the second century CE. While we differ on where to assign a re-dating of Paul, we both recognize that there is no reason to hold to traditional dating. In his post, "How do we know the Apostle Paul Wrote His Epistles in the 50's AD", Richard Carrier acknowledges that "I don’t consider this matter as settled as mainstream scholars do. Paul’s Epistles do fit remarkably well the 50s B.C." However, he still wishes to maintain the traditional timeline.
Some other points to consider: According to the Acts Seminar, “Acts and Christian Beginnings”,
*Christianity did not begin in Jerusalem. It likely began in a Hellenized region.
*Acts was written in the second century.
*The author of Acts was writing a theological apologetic, not history.
*Acts cannot be considered a source for Paul’s biography.
*Acts must be considered non-historical unless proven otherwise.
I started questioning how we would assign a chronology to Paul without the gospels and Acts; that is, if we just discovered Paul's writings in a cave and didn't have the baggage of tradition and presuppositions about his timeline and the timeline of Christian origins, how would we date them? This question is so important that it should be repeated. Since we have no contemporary external data referring to Paul, we are essentially in that position of having just found his writings in a cave. Relying solely on internal clues, how would we assign a date of authorship to these writings. I began a survey of the boring details regularly skipped over by exegetes who are in a hurry to get to the theology; the people Paul mentioned, places mentioned, events, and terminology used, all in the attempt to find historical clues to tie him to a particular timeline. Very quickly, it became apparent that there is no historical marker referenced in Paul's writings which tie him to the traditional timeline, once the historical Jesus is removed from the equation. Yet, Paul does mention quite a few people, events, places, and terms which elicit questions vis a vis the traditional chronology as well as his identity and that of his addressees. After examining the clues available, it has become apparent to me that his timeline is defective and needs to be reassessed. At the same time, it would appear that his biography needs a second look.
Paul, the so-called founder of Christianity, may not have been who we think he was, or lived when we think he lived. In this presentation, I will take some things for granted. I am writing from the perspective of a Christ mythicist; that is, there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth, and Christianity developed on different grounds. This has been argued elsewhere, therefore I will not repeat the arguments here; see "The Varieties of Jesus Mythicism" edited by John Loftus and Robert Price.
I realize that any attempt to date, or re-date, Paul will be speculative, but that process also includes the attempt to maintain the traditional timeline. But lack of proof doesn't preclude assessing probability. That which I will present in brief below is a novel paradigm; I would point out that the value of a paradigm rests in its utility in answering questions and drawing together a coherent explanation for the data. This is still a work in process.
I began this survey several years ago as I noticed anomalies and problems in the traditional view of Paul. That Paul was not writing in response to a historical Jesus is, by definition, a conclusion of virtually all of the Christ-myth theories. That the gospels and Acts are not historically reliable is a corollary to that position and is the conclusion of The Acts Seminar (WESTAR) and familiar names such as Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty R. G. Price, David Madison, and others; they cannot be used to tell us anything firm about Paul's biography or thought. All recognize the principle of giving primary sources (Paul’s own letters) absolute priority. Nevertheless, many of my fellow Christ-myth proponents continue to assume Paul's traditional timeline, that he was in some way converted to a form of Christianity in the 30's CE, that he began traveling throughout Greece and Asia Minor in the 40's CE to spread the word to the gentiles, and wrote letters to the believers in various cities during the 50's CE. But what are these dates based on? The answer is clearly the chronology of the gospels and Acts. But if there was no historical Jesus and Acts is theological/historical fiction, what ties us to these dates? We are effectively cut loose from those constraints except by habit and presupposition. In conversations I've had with other mythicists (most of whom are well known to the readers of John Loftus' books) the common responses to this problem are all variations of, “I agree that Acts is not reliable history, but it’s all we have,” or "These dates are overwhelmingly accepted by scholars. Why should we change them?" Of course, most of these scholars they reference are accepting some level of historicity for the Jesus of the gospels and Acts, so we end up in a circular defense chain with one major broken link. I still find some mythicists repeating some version of the phrase "within a few years of the crucifixion" or "the presumed date of the crucifixion." This imposes the later beliefs of Christian writers into the earlier writings of Paul as though he was writing in response to a historical Jesus which is a conclusion at odds with that of the Christ-myth theory. It is simply improper methodology to assume a chronology for Paul based on the later assignment of a date for a historicized Jesus and the immediate inauguration of the Christian movement. Bottom line: reassessing Paul's timeline is a direct and necessary consequence of deeming the Gospels and Acts as non-historical. Re-dating Paul would likely impact our understanding of his thoughts and purpose.
As an aside, Robert Price, in his book "The Amazing Colossal Apostle" suggests that Paul's letters date from the late first century CE to the second century CE. While we differ on where to assign a re-dating of Paul, we both recognize that there is no reason to hold to traditional dating. In his post, "How do we know the Apostle Paul Wrote His Epistles in the 50's AD", Richard Carrier acknowledges that "I don’t consider this matter as settled as mainstream scholars do. Paul’s Epistles do fit remarkably well the 50s B.C." However, he still wishes to maintain the traditional timeline.
Some other points to consider: According to the Acts Seminar, “Acts and Christian Beginnings”,
*Christianity did not begin in Jerusalem. It likely began in a Hellenized region.
*Acts was written in the second century.
*The author of Acts was writing a theological apologetic, not history.
*Acts cannot be considered a source for Paul’s biography.
*Acts must be considered non-historical unless proven otherwise.
I started questioning how we would assign a chronology to Paul without the gospels and Acts; that is, if we just discovered Paul's writings in a cave and didn't have the baggage of tradition and presuppositions about his timeline and the timeline of Christian origins, how would we date them? This question is so important that it should be repeated. Since we have no contemporary external data referring to Paul, we are essentially in that position of having just found his writings in a cave. Relying solely on internal clues, how would we assign a date of authorship to these writings. I began a survey of the boring details regularly skipped over by exegetes who are in a hurry to get to the theology; the people Paul mentioned, places mentioned, events, and terminology used, all in the attempt to find historical clues to tie him to a particular timeline. Very quickly, it became apparent that there is no historical marker referenced in Paul's writings which tie him to the traditional timeline, once the historical Jesus is removed from the equation. Yet, Paul does mention quite a few people, events, places, and terms which elicit questions vis a vis the traditional chronology as well as his identity and that of his addressees. After examining the clues available, it has become apparent to me that his timeline is defective and needs to be reassessed. At the same time, it would appear that his biography needs a second look.
Biblical Fideism and the Demise of Modern Christianity
Earliest critics of the religion (100-250 C.E.), as I have discussed previously, described the nascent religion as a fraudulent superstitio, a system of cultic tall tales, myths, and legends to be accepted despite lacking and contrary evidence. Converts willfully embraced the fantastical world presented by the cultic movement as a strategy for ascesis, the philosophical transcendence of base human drives and the societal structures configured to tailor to such primitive impulses. Modern interpreters who investigate the earliest Christian reception and use of the New Testament, upon initial exposure, consistently encounter the befuddling replete reality of the ascetical function of these writings, as well as the early Christian preoccupation with allegorical (non-literalist) readings. Epistemic “knowledge” argumentation and evidentialist ground for any rational propositional case were conspicuously absent (not merely non-central) in the early Christian apologetic tradition. But why???
“The age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection…”
Kooks, quacks, lunatics, and con artists
It has been my depressing experience, a couple of times in recent years, to attend services at Catholic churches. Once for a funeral, once for a wedding. On both occasions—one for grief, one for joy—the Mass was celebrated: the theatre, the spectacle, of magic. Here were citizens of the modern world: they survive and thrive because they have a pretty good grasp of the realities of life. They know what to do to raise families, acquire cars and houses, pursue careers, plan vacations, and build portfolios for retirement.
Their family entertainments commonly include Disney and superhero movies—and, of course, the Harry Potter adventures. These make-believe worlds are fun, because on-screen magic is fun. But why, in the world of church theatre, is the magic taken seriously? During both ceremonies I witnessed, members of the congregation approached the priest—in splendid theatrical costume—to receive a fragment of the body of their god: to eat their god. On some occasions they drink its blood as well.
Why Did Randal Rauser Recommend "God and Horrendous Suffering"?
Inquiring Minds Want to Know!
It should be noted that despite his high recommendation of my work, Rauser is on a mission to discredit it, pejoratively calling me a "New Atheist" and a "Fundamentalist". He did a video about this where the only comment under it after 13 hours is, "This is stupid", by WCB. Hardy har har har!
As a Christian apologist, I can say that there is no intellectual objection to Christianity more daunting than the problem of horrendous suffering. In this important new book, John Loftus has gathered a diverse collection of voices that seek to build a comprehensive, multi-pronged critique of Christianity based on this most difficult problem. No Christian apologist can afford to ignore it.You can get this book from the Global Center for Religious Research. To read a nice summary introduction of the problem of horrendous suffering read this.
-- Dr. Randal Rauser, Professor of Historical Theology, Taylor Seminary, and co-author of God or Godless. Source.
It should be noted that despite his high recommendation of my work, Rauser is on a mission to discredit it, pejoratively calling me a "New Atheist" and a "Fundamentalist". He did a video about this where the only comment under it after 13 hours is, "This is stupid", by WCB. Hardy har har har!
God’s Inexcusable Negligence/Incompetence
It’s as if he isn’t all-powerful—or doesn’t exist
“…seven-year-old Adrian Jones was tortured repeatedly with some of the most inhumane practices, including being left standing overnight neck-deep in the family’s filthy swimming pool and being forced to exercise for hours without rest. In the end, he was confined to a shower stall where he was starved to death as he screamed through a vent, ‘I’m going to die.’ His torturers fed his corpse to pigs.”
This is one of several cases mentioned by Darren Slade in his essay, “Failed to Death: Misotheism and Childhood Torture,” in the John Loftus anthology, God and Horrendous Suffering. Slade explains that “failed to death” (FTD) “…originated from a 2012 investigative series by The Denver Post and 9News that examined the murder of 175 children in Colorado who were beaten, starved, suffocated, frozen, or burned to death.” (page 123)
Jesus Will Do Away With Democracy!
Perhaps in the comments someone can document what Fred Kohn wrote on Facebook. It needs some extended elaboration into other important areas, like theocracy and punishment.
Christianity is inherently theocratic, just like we find with the Hebrew religion in the Old Testament. It's wrapped in the language and culture of its day, which includes theocracy. The same language in Revelation says Jesus is expected to reign in a kingdom over people on earth, and later in heaven.
A reign over people assumes a theocracy. That was the political philosophy adopted in the Ancient Near Eastern world. The biblical god and his son are tied to a form of government that is rejected by modern, educated, civilized people. One cannot have a kingdom without doing away with democracy. So Jesus will do away with democracy! Christians still talk of a kingdom and a reigning Jesus. Heil Jesus! We also see this includes ancient forms of punishment that a king will inflict upon the disobedient. What could be problematic about this?
A Pop Quiz for Christians
There would be a lot of Cs, Ds & Fs 
There are, of course, so many different kinds of Christians: from snake-handling cults in Appalachia (see Mark 16:17-18) to High-Church Anglicans who hold on to the resurrection as a metaphor—and thousands of varieties in between. James B. Twitchell put a humorous twist on it: “A Baptist is a Christian who learned how to wash; a Methodist is a Baptist who had learned to read; a Presbyterian is a Methodist who has gone to college; and an Episcopalian is a Presbyterian whose investments have turned out well.” (p. 31, Shopping for God: How Christianity Went from In Your Heart to In Your Face, 2007) Based on my own experience as a pastor, I know Christians exist on a scale, from lukewarm occasional churchgoers to those who are committed enthusiasts—they mean it when they tell us they “belong to Jesus."
The Case Against Miracles
I thought I knew a lot on these topics—inasmuch as I was once a born-again Christian myself and made these arguments, then became a born-again Skeptic debating believers—but I learned more from reading this one book than all other works combined. The Case against Miracles belongs in every library and personal bookcase of both believers and skeptics. LINK
--From the Foreword by Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine.
Let's Debate The Real Issues!
I am being asked to a debate, so I offered two possible debate questions:
Is it reasonable to believe in miracles based solely on 2nd 3rd 4th handed testimony?
Is it reasonable to believe in a good god given horrendous suffering?
Is it reasonable to believe in miracles based solely on 2nd 3rd 4th handed testimony?
Is it reasonable to believe in a good god given horrendous suffering?
The End of Christianity
“No collection better demonstrates how taking Christianity seriously reveals its all too human origin. This superb, often witty, and exceedingly well-researched collection explains how early Christianity is only a pale resemblance of any of the diverse Christian sects today. As well, the authors reveal how vastly improbable Christian dogmas are, such as the notion that a god designed the universe; that life replete with personal identity continues after death; that hell represents divine justice; and the claim that morality is exclusively Christian. Overall, very sobering for Christians, and so wonderfully delightful for the rest of us.”—Malcolm Murray, PhD, associate professor of philosophy, University of Prince Edward Island; author of The Atheist’s Primer. LINK
The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails
"John Loftus and his distinguished colleagues have certainly produced one of the best and arguably the best critique of the Christian faith the world has ever known. Using sociological, biblical, scientific, historical, philosophical, theological and ethical criticisms, this book completely destroys Christianity. All but the most fanatical believers who read it should be moved to have profound doubts."
--Dr. Michael Martin, author of The Case Against Christianity and Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. LINK.
Jonathan McLatchie Exposed for Being Disengenuous
 | ||
| Albrecht is a Catholic apologist. | |
One might also ask why Gary Habermas recommends my book on miracles, if I "grossly misrepresented" apologetics. See his blurb!
Why would Gary do that?
Or, is McLatchie disingenuous, uncharitable, and not to be trusted on these matters?
Watch him double down folks. He could never apologize or change his mind. Sad. But that's usually what it takes to be an apologist. See my book on that.
The Endless Invention of Excuses for God
But there is such a thing as going too far
It’s a good guess that the apostle Paul is partly to blame for the common belief that nature itself is proof of God. He wrote this in his letter to the Romans (1:20): “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.” So just look around you to see God’s stunning handiwork. One modern theologian, Barry Whitney, illustrates how theists can get swept up in this sentimental view of nature:
My Magnum Opus!
I give this book two thumbs way up. In addition to courageously sharing his personal story, Loftus applies his considerable training and expertise into developing a cumulative case against Christianity and for atheism. I cannot think of another book like it on the market. Loftus is clearly familiar with the work of evangelical apologists like Copan, Craig, Geisler, and Moreland, as his book is filled with references to their work and objections to their arguments. In fact, his book might best be described as a “counter-apologetics” textbook.
--Jeffery Jay Lowder. LINK.
Sound But Not Convincing?
A sound argument is a valid one in which all premises are true and the conclusion follows from them. What reasons are there to remain unconvinced of an acknowledged sound argument? Let's say as a believer you think there is a sound argument from the problem of horrendous suffering that a good, all-powerful god doesn't exist. Then what are your reasonable options?
The Absence of a Human Jesus
Untangling the mess of Christian origins
Once upon a time—way back when the overwhelming majority of people were illiterate—God decided that the best way to tell people about himself was to write a book. That is, so the theologians assure us, he inspired humans to write it for him. Dropping a book in an illiterate world? This doesn’t strike us as a good plan, and it went downhill. Once the book was finally finished, God neglected to find a way to prevent mistakes as the manuscripts were copied by hand for centuries: thousands of errors were made. Scholars still haven’t been able to figure out for sure the wording of the original manuscripts. And, for centuries, God couldn’t find a way to make the book available to the masses. Even after the printing press had been invented, religious leaders resisted having the Bible translated into the languages of the people. Even now, with billions of copies available, this holy book is a dud, by which I mean that most of the faithful don’t like to read it. Actually read it, take to heart the idea that God’s word is there for the taking. If they really believed that, we wouldn’t be able to stop them from reading it.
My Critiques of the Christian Faith are Evidence Based
My critiques of the Christian faith focus on the lack of objective evidence for its claims, summed up in five powerful reasons
you can read here.
My critiques won't change no matter which philosophical theology is fashionable.
The Talent of Bible Authors for Making Things Up
Theology was more important than history
It is commonly considered an act of piety to read the Bible cover-to-cover. But once undertaken, this effort sometimes undermines piety—as it did for Mark Twain: “It is not the things which I do not understand in the Bible which trouble me, but the things which I do understand.” Not that I would discourage anyone from reading the Bible, in fact quite the opposite, as I argued in an article here a few weeks ago. Just don’t read it, however. Look at every chapter as an occasion to sharpen critical thinking skills; ask the right questions, e.g., where did this text come from, what was the motivation of the author, does it embody good or bad theology? —but especially, does it really pass muster as “word of a god”? Every Bible chapter should be scrutinized.
What's Wrong with Bayes' Theorem?
I posted an important essay on "The Secular Web" which was approved by their board of directors. It will challenge both Christian apologists and philosophical atheists. It takes issue with belief induced justifications by apologists, and dismissive attitudes by elitist atheist philosophers and their advocates, represented by this popular atheist meme above. It covers a lot of ground. The main issue is Bayes' Theorem and its proper use, as opposed to "Pop Atheist" Hitchens' Razor. It's a feast for thought. Enjoy and please, please share. LINK!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)