Another New Atheist Book is Out!
I've been very honored lately to be asked to write blurbs for upcoming books. Here's another excellent one I highly recommend, written by Lex Bayer and John Figdor, Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-first Century.
Of it I wrote, "Okay, so you've become an atheist. Now what? Read this book. That's my recommendation. It will help you build a new foundation for thinking and living a good life without God." There are plenty of other blurbs. Even if you've been an atheist for awhile it will encourage and enlighten you.
Of it I wrote, "Okay, so you've become an atheist. Now what? Read this book. That's my recommendation. It will help you build a new foundation for thinking and living a good life without God." There are plenty of other blurbs. Even if you've been an atheist for awhile it will encourage and enlighten you.Ronald A. Lindsay's New Book Is Out!
Ron is the President and CEO of the Center for Inquiry and he wrote an excellent chapter in my anthology Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails.
His excellent book is The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can't Tell Us What to Do.
I encourage everyone, both believers and non-believers, to get it and read it. I wrote a blurb for it along with several others. I said: "If this book doesn't convince readers of the necessity for a secular public square, as opposed to a sacred public square, then nothing can. Important and exceptionally argued!" I meant this. Get his book. Pass the word around. There's nothing quite like it on the market today by an important thinker and leader in the secular community.
His excellent book is The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can't Tell Us What to Do.I encourage everyone, both believers and non-believers, to get it and read it. I wrote a blurb for it along with several others. I said: "If this book doesn't convince readers of the necessity for a secular public square, as opposed to a sacred public square, then nothing can. Important and exceptionally argued!" I meant this. Get his book. Pass the word around. There's nothing quite like it on the market today by an important thinker and leader in the secular community.A Blurb I Wrote for A New Atheist Book
I just wrote a blurb for an upcoming atheist book. I said something like this:
If believers continue to believe despite this book then their cognitive faculties are just not functioning properly.The last phrase is a dig at Alvin Plantinga. I love it! ;-) Book to be announced later.
Through Atheist Eyes with Frank Zindler - The Throstlebottom Epistle
"An hour long spoof proving from the bible that the earth has to be flat. Done in a Scots-Afrikaaner Dutch Reformed Lutheran dialect, the program parodies fundamentalist faith in the bible by an "experimental" reductio ad absurdum."
New Extraordinary Book Detailing the Hard Evidence for God!
The book is called The Hard Evidence for God's Existence: A Comprehensive Guide.
It's published by Dr. James T. Jenkins, professor at Pittsburgh University, where he chairs the Scientific Advisory Council and serves as a reviewer on more than ten international journals.
Praise for the book: "The ideas in this book are presented so simply and clearly that even a child could understand them" - Brady Swanson, Author, Citizen Jesus.
"Unlike those who have tried to tackle this subject before him, Dr. Jenkins deftly handles this contentious issue." - Chase Richter, Founder, Controversial Thinking Magazine.
"Dr. Jenkins...manages to settle, once and for all, the debate between science and religion" - Dr. Andrew Lee, Professor, Hitchens University.
It's published by Dr. James T. Jenkins, professor at Pittsburgh University, where he chairs the Scientific Advisory Council and serves as a reviewer on more than ten international journals. Praise for the book: "The ideas in this book are presented so simply and clearly that even a child could understand them" - Brady Swanson, Author, Citizen Jesus.
"Unlike those who have tried to tackle this subject before him, Dr. Jenkins deftly handles this contentious issue." - Chase Richter, Founder, Controversial Thinking Magazine.
"Dr. Jenkins...manages to settle, once and for all, the debate between science and religion" - Dr. Andrew Lee, Professor, Hitchens University.
How Conservative Christianity Can Warp the Mind
LINK. Written by Drs. Marlene Winell and Valerie Tarico. Enjoy.
Tonight I'll Be Interviewed Live On Fox News Radio
Tonight I'll be on The Alan Colmes Show talking about my anthology Christianity is Not Great. It's scheduled for 8:05 PM EST. Wish me well.
Fundamentalist Readings of Genesis is Rooted in Christian Tradition
Since the cool pope, Francis, made
his recent statements about evolution, the internets have been abuzz. Voices like Ken Ham have argued that this is another indication that the pope is undermining Biblical authority. Others have rightly pointed out that this
consistent with Catholic teaching.
However, that does not mean current Catholic teaching reflects the consistent reflection of the Church, especially the early Church.
Like much of apologetics, this is a distortion of reality.
The term fundamentalism was undoubtedly coined last century. A series of threats to Christian dominance in the West culminated in the 19th century with not only Darwinian evolution but also Scripture exegetical approaches, namely higher criticism, which made believers nervous.
The Catholic Church reacted to the modernist threat with Papal statements like The Syllabus of Errors. While Protestants produced a series of 90 Essays between 1910 and 1915, which were compiled into a book called The Fundamentals, hence our word fundamentalist.
While the word fundamentalist has becoming synonymous with extremism, The Fundamentals actually features pretty ordinary Protestant apologetics, such as a defense of the deity of Christ. Far from bringing forth new teachings, The Fundamentalist movement simple sought to affirm what had previously been widely accepted Christian doctrine, especially for Protestants.
While previous generations of Christians would not have called themselves fundamentalist—because the word had not been invented—their beliefs could be characterized as such. In fact, the Church Fathers, who in many ways defined doctrines for all branches of Christianity, often had fundamentalist views. Despite the vocal apologetic claims to the contrary, they read the creation accounts of Genesis quite literally. I have catalogued some key statements demonstrating this.
Genesis says, “And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day” (1:6-8)
Augustine said:
It is of course doubtful that the
purveyors of such ludicrous allegories were in fact women.
Even Origen who can usually be counted
on to offer an allegorical interpretation completely divorced from the text
finds that the heavens were composed of a very solid dome:
In the Genesis account, God creates the sun after plants. This would have been a great time for the fathers to have intervened to tell us not to read the text too literally for even in their day there were “heretics” who quibbled with such a problematic ordering. But alas, the fathers insist on a literal reading.
John Chrysostom said:
Beautiful spirituality perhaps, but tells us more about Origen's imagination than how to interpret Genesis.
However, that does not mean current Catholic teaching reflects the consistent reflection of the Church, especially the early Church.
To
hear certain segments of the Christian population tell it, the history of
Christendom features centuries of enlightened allegorical interpretations, and
then Pat Robertson was born, confusing everyone about the sophisticated
symbolic meaning of Genesis giving rise to New Atheism. If only we would eschew
this modern innovation called fundamentalism, we would see that there is no
conflict between the theory of evolution and Genesis.
Like much of apologetics, this is a distortion of reality.
The term fundamentalism was undoubtedly coined last century. A series of threats to Christian dominance in the West culminated in the 19th century with not only Darwinian evolution but also Scripture exegetical approaches, namely higher criticism, which made believers nervous.
The Catholic Church reacted to the modernist threat with Papal statements like The Syllabus of Errors. While Protestants produced a series of 90 Essays between 1910 and 1915, which were compiled into a book called The Fundamentals, hence our word fundamentalist.
While the word fundamentalist has becoming synonymous with extremism, The Fundamentals actually features pretty ordinary Protestant apologetics, such as a defense of the deity of Christ. Far from bringing forth new teachings, The Fundamentalist movement simple sought to affirm what had previously been widely accepted Christian doctrine, especially for Protestants.
While previous generations of Christians would not have called themselves fundamentalist—because the word had not been invented—their beliefs could be characterized as such. In fact, the Church Fathers, who in many ways defined doctrines for all branches of Christianity, often had fundamentalist views. Despite the vocal apologetic claims to the contrary, they read the creation accounts of Genesis quite literally. I have catalogued some key statements demonstrating this.
Concerning the six days of
creation, Ephrem the Syrian:
So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things pertaining to these days were symbolic, nor can one say that they were meaningless names or that other things were symbolized for us by their names. Rather, let us know in just what manner heaven and earth were created in the beginning. They were truly heaven and earth. "Commentary on Genesis" 1.1.13 in The Fathers of the Church 91:74.
Genesis says, “And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day” (1:6-8)
The reader should
note that the dome (sometimes translated as firmament) is solid. Ancient Near
Eastern cosmology included a solid sky. Do the fathers offer an allegory for
this erroneous description of the heavens? No, they affirm it.
The matter was separated by the interposition of the firmament so that the lower matter is that of bodies and the higher matter that of souls. "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" 8.29 in The Fathers of the Church 84:165.
Basil “the Great” said:
But as far as concerns the separation of the waters I am obliged to contest the opinion of certain writers in the church who, under the shadow of high and sublime conceptions, have launched out into metaphor and have seen in the waters only a figure to denote spiritual and incorporeal powers. In the higher regions, accordingly, above the firmament, dwell the better; in the lower regions, earth and matter are the dwelling place of the malignant. So, say they, God is praised by the waters that are above the heavens, that is to say, by the good powers, the purity of whose soul makes them worthy to sing the praises of God. And the waters that are under the heavens represent the wicked spirits, who from their natural height have fallen into the abyss of evil. Turbulent, seditious, agitated by the tumultuous waves of passion, they have received the name of sea, because of the instability and the inconstancy of their movements. Let us reject these theories as dreams and old women’s tales. "Hexaemeron" 3.9. in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2 8:70-71.
Although God had already previously made heaven, now he makes the firmament. For he made heaven first, about which he says, “Heaven is my throne.” But after that he makes the firmament, that is, the corporeal heaven. For every corporeal object is, without doubt, firm and solid; and it is this that divides the water which is above heaven from the water which is below heaven. "Homilies on Genesis" 1.2. The Fathers of the Church 71:48-49.
In the Genesis account, God creates the sun after plants. This would have been a great time for the fathers to have intervened to tell us not to read the text too literally for even in their day there were “heretics” who quibbled with such a problematic ordering. But alas, the fathers insist on a literal reading.
Basil “the Great” said:
The adornment of the earth is older than the sun, that those who have been misled may cease worshiping the sun as the origin of life. "Hexaemeron" 5.1 in The Fathers of the Church 46:67.
He adds:
Look at the plants of the earth, which preceded in time the light of the sun. The bramble preceded the sun. The blade of grass is older than the moon. Therefore, do not believe that object to be a god to which the gifts of God are seen to be preferred. Three days have passed. "Hexaemeron" 4.1 in The Father of the Church 42:126
He created the sun on the fourth day lest you think it is the cause of the day. "Homilies on Genesis" 6.14 in Fathers of Church 74:85.
Augustine said:
The Manichaeans ask how it could be that the heavenly bodies, that is, the sun and the moon and the stars, were made on the fourth day. How could the three previous days have passed without the sun? For we now see that a day passes with the rising and setting of the sun, while night comes to us in the sun’s absence when it returns to east from the other side of the world. We answer them that the previous three days could each have been calculated by as great a period of time as that through which the sun passes, from when it rises in the east until it returns again to the east. This would be our answer if we were not held back by the words and evening came and morning came, for we see that this cannot now take place without the movement of the sun. Hence we are left with the interpretation that in that period of time the divisions between the works were called evening because of the completion of the work that was done and morning because of the beginning of the work to come….The day and the night had already been distinguished but not yet in relation to the heavenly bodies. "Two Books on Genesis Against the Manichaeans" 1.14.20-23 in The Fathers of the Church 84:68-70.
If you are thinking, Augustine
completely misses the point, you’re right.
The literal reading of the Fathers
makes it difficult to reconcile their position with what we know about the
slow, progressive evolution life. Ephrem and Basil certainly do not conceive of
a slow development of forms. The plants are created instantaneously, fully
developed.
Ephrem the Syrian said:
Although the grasses were only a moment old at their creation, they appeared as if they were months old. Likewise, the trees, although only a day old when they sprouted forth, were nevertheless like trees years old as they were fully grown and fruits were already budding on their branches. The grass that would be required as food for the animals that were to be created two days later was thus made ready. And the new corn that would be food for Adam and his descendants, who would be thrown out of paradise four days later, was thus prepared. "Commentary on Genesis" 1.22.1-2.9 in The Fathers of the Church 91:90.
Basil “the Great” said:
At this saying all the dense woods appeared; all the trees shot up. Likewise all the shrubs were immediately thick with leaf and bushy; and the so-called garland plants all came into existence in a moment of time, although they were not previously on the earth. “Let the earth bring forth.” This brief command was immediately a mighty nature and an elaborate system which brought to perfection more swiftly than our thought the countless properties of plants. "Hexaemeron" 5.6, 10 in The Fathers of the Church 46:74, 82.
Lastly, a key aspect of Darwinian
evolution is malleability. Forms have changed and do changed. Nothing was
created as it is today. However, the fathers, reading Genesis literally,
describe the creation of living things as being made of well-defined and static
forms in one moment of creation.
Ambrose said:
The rivers were in labor. The lakes produced their quota of life. The sea itself began to bear all manner of reptiles. We are unable to record the multiplicity of the names of all those species which by divine command were brought to life in a moment of time. At the same instant substantial form and the principle of life were brought into existence. The whale, as well as the frog, came into existence at the same time by the same creative power "Hexaemeron" 5.2-3 in The Fathers of the Church 42:160-62.
The bishop also said:
The Word of God permeates every creature in the constitution of the world. Hence, as God had ordained, all kinds of living creatures were quickly produced from the earth. In compliance with a fixed law they all succeed each other from age to age according to their aspect and kind. The lion generates a lion; the tiger, a tiger; the ox, an ox; the swan, a swan; and the eagle, an eagle. What was once enjoined became in nature a habit for all time. Hence the earth has not ceased to offer the homage of its service. The original species of living creatures is reproduced for future ages by successive generations of its kind. "Hexaemeron" 6.3.9.12 in The Father of the Church 42:232
Basil “the Great” said:
The nature of existing objects, set in motion by one command, passes through creation without change, by generation and destruction, preserving the succession of the kinds through resemblance until it reaches the very end. It begets a horse as the successor of a horse, a lion of a lion and an eagle of an eagle. It continues to preserve each of the animals by uninterrupted successions until the consummation of the universe. No length of time causes the specific characteristics of the animals to be corrupted or extinct, but, as if established just recently, nature, ever fresh, moves along with time. "Hexaemeron" 9:2 in The Fathers of Church 46:137.
How very wrong was he? How very off
the mark they all were? And How very literally they read Genesis?
There is someone who reads less
literally—Origen, but his interpretations should comfort no Christian. His
readings are clearly eisegesis with no connection to the text before him. For
example concerning the creation of lights, Origen said:
Just as the sun and the moon are said to be the great lights in the firmament of heaven, so also are Christ and the church in us. But since God also placed stars in the firmament, let us see what are also stars in us, that is, in the heaven of our heart. Moses is a star in us, which shines and enlightens us by his acts. And so are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, David, Daniel, and all to whom the Holy Scriptures testify that they pleased God. For just as star differs from star in glory so also each of the saints, according to his own greatness, sheds his light upon us. Homilies on Genesis 1.7. Fathers of the Church 71:55.
Satan Uses Police to Trap One of God's Servants: Welcome to the Buckle on the Bible Belt!
Upstate Gospel Quartet Member Accused of Soliciting Minor Boy for Sex
GREENVILLE, SC (FOX Carolina)
A former baritone singer in a local gospel quartet sits behind bars, accused by Greenville Co. deputies of soliciting sex from who he thought was a 15-year-old boy. Joseph Trusty, former member of the Carolina Boys Quartet, is being held in the Greenville Co. Detention Center charged with soliciting a minor. An arrest warrant for Trusty states he was e-mailing a person posing as a 15-year-old male. The report goes on to say Trusty agreed to meet with the supposed 15-year-old and engage in oral sex.
News Video Here
A Simple Question Addressed to Christian Apologists on the Use of Josephus to Prove a Historical Jesus
Fact 1: Josephus' time distance from the earliest texts we have of Genesis (Those from Qumran dated from 250 - 200 BCE) and the time he wrote his Judean Antiquities (JA) in 94 CE is about 334 to 294 years.
Fact 2: The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with a talking snake (Fact is, Josephus thought all animals could talk, “At that point in time when all the creatures spoke the same language, a serpent, living together with Adam and his wife felt Jealous . . ." JA 1:41) is totally unique and was ONLY recorded first by Jews in the Torah text of Genesis. Josephus believed Genesis 3 to be fully historical.
Fact 2: The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with a talking snake (Fact is, Josephus thought all animals could talk, “At that point in time when all the creatures spoke the same language, a serpent, living together with Adam and his wife felt Jealous . . ." JA 1:41) is totally unique and was ONLY recorded first by Jews in the Torah text of Genesis. Josephus believed Genesis 3 to be fully historical.
The Evidence of Israel's Polytheistic Origin in the Hebrew Bible
For the better part of a decade, I began most mornings with a recitation of the psalms. In fact, I began my morning as Catholic monastics do with a recitation of the 95th psalm. Every day, I chanted these words, “For the Lord is a great God, and a great king above all gods” (Psalm 95:3) without noticing that this statement stood in conflict with my monotheistic vision.
The Psalm is saying the LORD—this is actually YHWH, the divine name—is a great el (Ancient Canaanite (Ugaritic) word for god). He is not only great but he is king above all elohim (gods). Why not YHWH is great? This is certainly what one might expect if there is only one god (el) in the universe? How could one be kings of gods (elohim) if there is just god?
Like all good Christians, I read the litany of Old Testament passages condemning of worship of false idols as just that. God does not want his children doing something as foolish as worshipping wood and metal carvings. He wants them to worship the true God. However, a closer reading of the Hebrew Bible indicates that this is not at all the case.
The majority of the Old Testament is macho posturing. It is about one deity striving to demonstrate that he is greater than the other gods by bringing about the military defeat of the worshippers of other deities. It is a usurpation of the role of chief god among the pantheon of gods.
Of course, Israelite religion eventually moves from our god is greater than all gods (Exodus 18:11) to “they were no gods, but the work of human hands” (Isaiah 37:19).
But as Biblical scholars all know and as your pastor probably also knows, but won’t tell you, this was later development and that much of the Old Testament indicates throughout her history, Israel thought that the other gods were very real, and YHWH is jealous of them, like a husband is jealous of a very real other man.
Throughout the Biblical text YHWH seeks to demonstrate his superiority of the gods of the nation. YHWH sends plagues to Egypt because “on all of the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments” (Exodus 12:12). One does not judge things that don’t exist.
The Scripture writer than adds “I am the Lord” (12:12). This is not I am in charge—although that is the implication—but I am YHWH. I am YHWH is repeated over 150 times in the Old Testament as a way of boosting the particular deity who has triumphed.
However, the best piece of evidence of Israel polytheistic roots is probably found in Deuteronomy 32:
When the Most High apportioned the nations,
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the gods;
the Lord’s (YHWH) own portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted share (Deut. 32:8-9). (NRSV)
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the gods;
the Lord’s (YHWH) own portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted share (Deut. 32:8-9). (NRSV)
Deuteronomy 32 is Moses’s Farewell Song to Israel before his passing (of course, it was written many centuries after the exodus for which there is not much evidence).
The word Most High here is not just another word for God, but El Elyon, the name of the chief God in Ugaritic pantheon. According to Canaanite mythology, he has supposedly fathered 70 sons.[1] This is historical background of this passage.
The Most High (El Elyon) is dividing up the peoples of the world among his sons and setting boundaries for each god. YHWH is one of the gods and Israel is his portion.
This text is such a blow to the Bible’s monotheistic pretensions that most Bible translations cover it up with a more palatable translation. The NIV and NASB translates elohim not as it should “gods” but as “sons of Israel.” The NKJV opts for the gender sensitive but still inaccurate “children of Israel.”
This might make theological sense but it does not make syntactic sense. Why would God set boundaries for other peoples according to the number of sons of Israel? This would also implies that there are only twelve nations.
Over time, Israel decides that it is not enough for YHWH to have Jacob as his portion. The other gods are ineffective and they have to go.
Thus, God calls a divine council:
God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked?
Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked?
Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
I say, “You are gods,
children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince” (Psalm 82:1-4, 6-7). (NRSV)
children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince” (Psalm 82:1-4, 6-7). (NRSV)
Again, English translators of the Bible seek to cover the pagan origin of the psalm. It is well-known among Biblical scholars that the divine council is a Canaanite setting in which El reigns over the other gods. Thus, the NASB opts for “his own congregation.” The NKJV says, “the congregation of the mighty.” The NIV says “the great assembly.”
In addition, that there are gods in this assembly is also covered up by the NASB, which translates elohim as “rulers.”
Again, this only makes theological sense. If there is not a god addressing other divine beings, then the punishment does not make sense. The psalmist says:
I say, “You are gods,
children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince.”
children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince.”
It does not make sense to condemn a human being to die like a mortal or just a regular, old prince. The human being was already going to die like a mortal.
By the first century, Judaism was a solidly monotheistic religion, thus in the Gospel of John, we find Jesus interpreting the “You” are human beings.
The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled—can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:33-36).
And that is the story of how God, who was many, became one, and then became three.
Carolyn Hyppolite is the author of Still Small Voices: The Testimony of a Born Again Atheist. She lives in Toronto, ON.
I'll Be Teaching an Online Class Based On My Book "The Outsider Test for Faith" in November
This is just a reminder. I'll be teaching an online class based on my book "The Outsider Test for Faith" in November at secularactivism.org. Of it Dr. James Lindsay says:
The Outsider Test for FaithDr. Richard Carrier says of it:is a silver bullet argument for understanding how to grapple with the religious diversity of our world and how to answer the central question raised by it: How can we know which religion, if any, is true?”
Though this idea has been voiced before, Loftus is the first to name it, rigorize it, and give it an extensive philosophical defense…The end result is one of the most effective and powerful arguments for atheism there is. It is, in effect, a covering argument that subsumes all other arguments for atheism into a common frameworkSign up today!
Keith Parsons On The Amalekites and Options for Apologists
Even though I have master's degrees in the Philosophy of Religion (PoR), I have argued this discipline doesn't deserve a place in secular universities. I've said why in that link (in reverse chronological order). Let me stress a major criticism of the discipline. It usually doesn't deal in concrete biblical examples, and when it does, it takes for granted what no reasonable person should. I prefer to deal in terms of concrete biblical examples by far, so I cannot grant for the sake of argument most of the things philosophers of religion do. PoR departments are dominated by Christians in America, and most of them are evangelical leaning professors. Most of the published work in this discipline is likewise written by Christians. It's the last bastion for evangelicals who cannot defend what they believe because of the evidence coming from evolution, neurology, archaeology, comparative religion analysis, and biblical criticism. Being a philosopher of religion specializing in the analysis of ancient religions and a biblical scholar to boot, Dr. Jaco Gericke has said, "The trouble with William Lane Craig and and Alvin Plantinga is that their philosophy of religion conveniently ignores the problems posed for their views by the history of Israelite religion. They might as well try to prove Zeus exists. People sometimes forget 'God' used to be Yahweh and it is possible to prove from textual evidence that 'there ain't no such animal.'" Evangelical PoR is simply a Fundamentalism on Stilts. In fact, all Christian PoR is special pleading by degrees. It is pseudo-philosophy just as much as creationism is pseudo-science.
Get Carolyn Hyppolite's Book, "Still Small Voices: The Testimony of a Born-Again Atheist"
On Amazon she tells us:The Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta, Writes About "Christianity is Not Great"
If you click on the link you can read an excerpt of what I wrote: "Is Christianity beneficial or harmful to society?" LINK.
"Christianity is Not Great" Blasts Off With a Glowing Review By David Mills
Today Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails
is available online! And it blasts off with a humbling and glowing review by David Mills, author of the bestselling book Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism.
is available online! And it blasts off with a humbling and glowing review by David Mills, author of the bestselling book Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism.“Reverned Phillip Brown" Defends the Bible
Since you had a problem with the phase “conclusive evidence”, lets narrow the debate down to:
Be it resolved: There is no historical evidence for any of the
Hebrew Bible’s (Old Testament’s) Israelite personalities named in the New
Testament.
(This
would include among others, the Patriarchs, Moses, the Prophets, King David
and King Solomon; all believed to have existed by Jesus.)
The Very First Review of "Christianity is Not Great" by Aaron Adair
Aaron Adair is an Assistant Professor in the Physics Department at Merrimack College, and author of the book The Star of Bethlehem: A Skeptical View. He is the first to review the book Christianity is Not Great.
You can see what he says right here.
You can see what he says right here.Quote of the Day, By John Shelby Spong
Episcopalian John Shelby Spong on hell and conservative Christianity. He is a humanist first and a religionist second. He's wrong, but less wrong than most other Christians. In this ABC interview he correctly says: "The church doesn't like for people to grow up because you can't control grown ups."
My Former Professor Daniel Maguire Bites the Bullet, Acknowledges No God
He thinks the ethical narrative of the Bible is what matters. ;-) And it looks like he caught up to the 1960's, which was the heyday of the death of God theology, or secularized Christianity. I found it quite a surprise that both of our books are ranked about the same among other atheist books. He should read mine if he thinks there is something to the ethics in the Bible. ;-) At least he's less wrong than most other Christians!Frank Zindler, Eating Eggs, Blueberry Pie, Rhubarb, and Childhood Religious Indocrtrination
I spent the weekend filming a few interviews with Frank Zindler, who has been the president of the American Atheists organization, and who earned the title of atheist spokesman of the year a number of times. He has debated a number of Christians including besting William Lane Craig in a debate, and now is the editor in chief of American Atheist Press. It was great to get his perspective on a number of things. I view him as a renaissance man who knows a lot about a lot of things. I call him "Mr. Atheist."
While we were talking he told a story of how, as a child, he cracked open an egg and found that a baby chick was developing in it, and he was shocked and very upset. Well, his mother wanted to show him that was an extremely rare thing so she picked out another egg and cracked it open, only to find the same results. For a long time he would not eat eggs at all. Now, at the age of 75, he only eats hard-boiled, scrambled, and deviled eggs.
I had a similar experience when I was a child. One time I got a fork full of blueberry pie and out came a bug. Yep, a bug. On another occasion I found a patch of rhubarb and gorged on it until I was so sick I vomited. I wouldn't eat blueberry pie nor anything rhubarb for years afterward. I still have an aversion against eating them, although I do on occasion. I suppose many of us have similar stories.
What I want my readers to consider is that religious indoctrination can do the same thing to us, especially when it comes to the notion of hell. Marlene Winell and Valerie Tarico have written an excellent chapter for Christianity is Not Great on this subject. I consider it must reading. On her blog Marlene wrote about it saying:
While we were talking he told a story of how, as a child, he cracked open an egg and found that a baby chick was developing in it, and he was shocked and very upset. Well, his mother wanted to show him that was an extremely rare thing so she picked out another egg and cracked it open, only to find the same results. For a long time he would not eat eggs at all. Now, at the age of 75, he only eats hard-boiled, scrambled, and deviled eggs.
I had a similar experience when I was a child. One time I got a fork full of blueberry pie and out came a bug. Yep, a bug. On another occasion I found a patch of rhubarb and gorged on it until I was so sick I vomited. I wouldn't eat blueberry pie nor anything rhubarb for years afterward. I still have an aversion against eating them, although I do on occasion. I suppose many of us have similar stories.
What I want my readers to consider is that religious indoctrination can do the same thing to us, especially when it comes to the notion of hell. Marlene Winell and Valerie Tarico have written an excellent chapter for Christianity is Not Great on this subject. I consider it must reading. On her blog Marlene wrote about it saying:
The most difficult thing to overcome, by far, is overcoming the intense indoctrination of early years. As an adult, for example, the fear of hell can pop up and cause panic attacks even if a person rationally rejects the doctrine. LINK.If children can fear eating eggs, blueberry pie and rhubarb, then how much more intense is the fear of doubting one's own religious indoctrination. It takes a special kind of person, someone who really wants to know the truth and will follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Quote of the Day, by Dr. James East
He's beginning to write a series of posts on the resurrection of Jesus. He writes:
The burden of proof is on the apologist. The apologist should not demand a skeptic prove some specific “non-resurrection” hypothesis. Rather, the apologist needs to show that the “resurrection” hypothesis is more probable than the “anything but the resurrection” hypothesis. In my opinion, no apologist has ever succeeded in doing this, and this series will outline my reasons for coming to this conclusion. LINK.
Yuriy Stasyuk, On Why He Changed His Mind About Religion
Yuriy Stasyuk, who describes himself as a "Husband, amateur theologian/philosopher, and the guy with more questions than answers," has written a really good 5-part series on why he changed his mind about religion. He asks
Do you ever question what you believe and why you believe it? I grant you that this is a hard thing to do, in fact it’s so hard that most people on this planet live their whole lives without questioning their dogmatic assertions. Billions of people have died holding very strong beliefs that they never questioned. This includes: Greeks who believed in a mythological plethora of gods, the Persians who held to an ancient form of monotheistic Zoroastrianism, the many Near East cultures who worshiped multiple gods such as Baal, Dagon, and Marduk, and the Egyptians who believed their Pharaohs were gods, among many other fictitious deities. As well as the Romans who, like the Greeks, held strong beliefs in a whole pantheon of many gods and many forms of Eastern religion from Buddhism and Confucianism all the way down to Shintoism. Even in our own lifetime, there are billions who believe in all manner of various things. In your lifetime millions of Chinese will have died thinking that their indigenous faiths were the true faith. Millions of Indians will die, fully expecting that they will continue in a vast cycle of reincarnation. Likewise, millions of Muslims will die, fully confident that the Quran holds the recorded words of Allah, rather than mere human scribbles.He says:
This series will chronicle some of the experiences that led me to admit I was wrong on one thing or another, and therefore I had to wrestle with the cognitive dissonance and disillusionment, and forge an updated understanding of the universe. I will be honest, some of these shifts were the hardest things I have ever done in my life. I didn’t want to do admit I was wrong, but I was honest enough to know I had to. It was very difficult, because each time I encountered evidence which forced me to evolve my views, I lost friends, respect, belonging, affirmation, and affection. I didn’t make any of these paradigm shifts because I wanted to, I did it because I wanted truth with integrity, no matter the cost. LINK
“I Just Wanted You to Know Your Jesus is a Liar!”
This favorite statement of rage was often made by a former Fundamentalist Baptist evangelist to any Christian he met carrying a Bible or witnessing either from door to door or on the streets of Greenville, often leaving them dumbfounded; but first some background
information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)