Nudist tourists held in Malaysia for making ‘mountain spirits mad,’ sparking deadly quake
This is not a joke folks. People of faith can be this stupid. That's why I say faith (concerning the nature of nature and its workings) is irrational. LINK.
Death and Religion
Religion is a highly psychological affair. In fact, I would argue that the entirety of that which religion really is, to humanity, is psychological. Everything that religion is and does for its adherents is psychological in nature. One of the strongest dimensions of religion is its dealings with death. I have talked about this before with regard to Terror Management Theory.
The Politics of Duggar Family Values
Karl Giberson Says Adam and Eve Never Existed, What Next?
The utter resiliency of believers to continue to believe despite the beating their faith has taken over and over again, like we see in the 1967 movie Cool Hand Luke, is an amazing thing to behold.
I have become convinced that the only origins issue that really matters to most Christians is Adam and Eve. Leave Adam and Eve—and their Fall—in place, and most opposition to the Big Bang, evolution, and the great age of the earth will recede. The historicity of Adam and Eve is the single most important issue driving evangelical Christianity’s widespread, deep, and disturbing opposition to science.
Evangelical opposition to science is no small matter. It spills over into Catholicism, and moderate and liberal Christianity to a degree. It has taken up residence in the GOP where it is worn as a badge of pride by leaders who reject much of mainstream science and deflect concerns with the populist refrain “I am not a scientist.” This opposition plays a significant role in America’s declining global leadership in science. It plays into a general distrust of science in America that nurtures the rejection of modern cosmology, climate science and vaccinations.
Adam and Eve stand on the bulls-eye of this controversy, which has risen steadily over the past few decades as the human genome has been mapped. This progress has established with near certainty that humans are closely related to chimps and bonobos, with whom they share a common ancestor; that the human race originated in Africa millennia before the events in Genesis took place; and that the human race never consisted of only two people. Link.
Apocalypse Later: Harold Camping vs The End of the World
Zeke Piestrup did a documentary on Harold Camping, the preacher who predicted Jesus would return on May 21, 2011, and later died on December 15, 2013. This is an excellent case study in understanding the mind of a believer who knows with certainty Jesus is coming, but who ends up admitting nobody knows that day. It portrays Mr. Camping as a likeable guy, but at the same time delusional. Included are spot on comments from biblical scholars like John Collins and Bart Ehrman. It's entertaining, informative and very well-done! You can watch it at the Hulu link. But it's available on iTunes, YouTube, Amazon, Xbox, Playstation, Google Play, Vudu, others. Again it's really well-done! Watch it if you haven't already done so. LINK to Hulu
Michael Alter's Encyclopedic Book On the Resurrection Destroys Natural Theology
 |
| [Alter's book next to my favorite brew for size comparison.] |
Natural theologians claim they can argue to the existence of God and then argue there is sufficient evidence for the resurrection of Jesus afterward. I've argued they cannot legitimately do that right here. Alter's book is premised on all of the things that the arguments to God's existence grant. And yet, even as a Jewish theist who believes in God, the inspiration of Old Testament, miracles, and certain other things about Jesus, he rejects the resurrection. His book is a massive one at 746 pages of text with 81 additional pages of bibliography! [Below are a couple of pages as samples]On Keeping it Simple Stupid!
One of the highest compliments I've received from my work was written by biblical scholar Robert M. Price. Of my contributions in the co-edited book God or Godless?
he said I write "with unpretentious clarity, common sense, and broad but inconspicuous erudition." If anyone wants to see how high a compliment that is then look up each word he used. Let me highlight just two of his words, unpretentious and inconspicuous.
Unpretentious: I don't seek to impress my readers with Bayesian math, or the technical philosophical, theological, or scientific terminology, nor do I use the original languages of the Biblical texts much at all. I remember teaching my first philosophy class in 1985 at the College of Lake County, in Grayslake, Illinois. I lost about half my class because the students could not understand me. Yep, that's right. Having just come from a Ph.D. program at Marquette University I didn't know how to bring the information down to college students. Over the years I learned how to communicate to the average person. My goal is to keep it as simple as possible, and no simpler. The problem with this goal is that there are some readers who think I'm ignorant, for if I was smarter and better educated it would reflect in my vocabulary. Smart, educated people, it's assumed, use the nomenclature requisite with their educational achievements.
Inconspicuous: Even though Price says I have a broad erudition, it's inconspicuous or unnoticeable. It wasn't inconspicuous to him. But it's inconspicuous to others. The people for whom it might be inconspicuous would be the uniformed and ignorant, Price intimates. [Another equally high compliment of my work, which mirrors what Price said, was written by biblical scholar Hector Avalos.] It's extremely gratifying to know some important people say such things.
he said I write "with unpretentious clarity, common sense, and broad but inconspicuous erudition." If anyone wants to see how high a compliment that is then look up each word he used. Let me highlight just two of his words, unpretentious and inconspicuous.Unpretentious: I don't seek to impress my readers with Bayesian math, or the technical philosophical, theological, or scientific terminology, nor do I use the original languages of the Biblical texts much at all. I remember teaching my first philosophy class in 1985 at the College of Lake County, in Grayslake, Illinois. I lost about half my class because the students could not understand me. Yep, that's right. Having just come from a Ph.D. program at Marquette University I didn't know how to bring the information down to college students. Over the years I learned how to communicate to the average person. My goal is to keep it as simple as possible, and no simpler. The problem with this goal is that there are some readers who think I'm ignorant, for if I was smarter and better educated it would reflect in my vocabulary. Smart, educated people, it's assumed, use the nomenclature requisite with their educational achievements.
Inconspicuous: Even though Price says I have a broad erudition, it's inconspicuous or unnoticeable. It wasn't inconspicuous to him. But it's inconspicuous to others. The people for whom it might be inconspicuous would be the uniformed and ignorant, Price intimates. [Another equally high compliment of my work, which mirrors what Price said, was written by biblical scholar Hector Avalos.] It's extremely gratifying to know some important people say such things.
Joshua Willms's Excellent TEDx Talk Based On the Outsider Test for Faith
Joshua Willms gave an excellent TEDx talk on searching for religious truth, and he attributed the use of an "Outsider Test" to me at about 5:50. Willms is an M.D./Ph.D. student at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, and aspires to a career in medicine and neuroscience. He received a B.S. in biology and a B.A. in classics from Texas Tech University in 2014 and completed an Honors Thesis in philosophy on the fine-tuning of physics for abiogenesis.
For the Fourth Time Jesus Fails to Qualify as a Historical Entry In The Oxford Classical Dictionary
 |
The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th
ed.
|
A Booklist 2012 Editors' Choice
Selection
"For more than half a century, the Oxford
Classical Dictionary has
been the unrivaled one-volume reference work on the Greco-Roman world. Whether
one is interested in literature or art, philosophy or law, mythology or
science, intimate details of daily life or broad cultural and historical
trends, the OCD is the first place to turn for clear, authoritative information
on all aspects of ancient culture.
Now comes the Fourth Edition of this redoubtable resource, thoroughly revised
and updated, with numerous new entries and two new focus areas (on reception
and anthropology). Here, in over six thousand entries ranging from long
articles to brief identifications, readers can find information on virtually
any topic of interest--athletics, bee-keeping, botany, magic, religious rites,
postal service, slavery, navigation, and the reckoning of time. The Oxford Classical Dictionary profiles every major figure of Greece and
Rome, from Homer and Virgil to Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. Readers will
find entries on mythological and legendary figures, on major cities, famous
buildings, and important geographical landmarks, and on legal, rhetorical,
literary, and political terms and concepts." See: Oxford University Press
Dr. Hector Avalos's Blurb For My Next Book
My next book, to be published by Pitchstone Publishing in the Fall, is provocatively titled: "How To Defend The Christian Faith: Advice From an Atheist." Dr. Avalos kindly read it for a blurb and graciously wrote one:
I don't know anyone who can match the High Definition clarity of John Loftus when it comes to navigating the labyrinthine world of Christian evangelical apologetics for the general public. This is a relentless and incisive critique of the pseudo-scholarship that passes for genuine intellectual inquiry under the name of Christian apologetics.He joins others who have written one. Below you can see the book cover and Contents.
--Dr. Hector Avalos, Professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University and author of The End of Biblical Studies(2007), Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship
(2011), and The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics
(2015).
Pastor Dies Obeying the Demands of Jesus
 |
Rev. Darrell Morgan with Wife
|
An Exposé of the Dishonesty and Hypocrisy of Jeff Lowder
Received, Jerry Coyne's New Book "Faith vs. Fact"
Since his book is such a bestseller I also appreciate his high endorsement of the Outsider Test for Faith.
He described it and wrote, "This rational and quasi-scientific approach is promoted by the ex-preacher John Loftus...Given that beliefs matter, the wisdom of this approach is unquestionable. But if it's used honestly, its outcome is inevitable." (pp. 85-86)
Socrates Would Not Be Recognized As a Philosopher So Why Should We Recognize Jeff Lowder?
One of the responses from his echo-chamber of a blog is to compare Lowder to Socrates. If Socrates was a philosopher without credentials then Lowder can be one too. Lowder even "liked" such comments! *cough* Lowder is someone who, as far as I can tell, never read a paper at a philosophical conference, much less published in a philosophical journal. And he never taught a philosophy class either. He doesn't even have a Wikipedia page! ;-) At best he's self-taught, which isn't bad, but there is a big difference between a directed philosophical program taught by experts and being self-taught. It's much worse than this when it comes to Socrates. He not only didn't have any academic credentials, or write anything, he was rejected by the scholars of his day. More than this, if Socrates came to life he wouldn't be able to write a philosophical paper that would pass peer review. If you look at his reasoning--brilliant and original that it was for his day and the reason we hail him as a philosopher--his arguments in Plato's Dialogues are at an introductory college/university level, not the highly technical philosophical level demanded by today's philosophers. In fact, Socrates probably wouldn't even be able to understand most philosophy today. He wouldn't know anything about Oriental philosophy, that's for sure. Nor would he understand a great deal about either the Continental or Analytic traditions in philosophy. He wouldn't be able to understand much of the Philosophy of Religion, since a great deal of it is based on the new religion (to him anyway) of Christianity. And modern discussions of ethics and justice have by-passed his brilliant and original contributions significantly, as they have to his arguments on behalf of immortality and the afterlife. Socrates would have to catch up on the history of philosophy before he could even make a contribution. For surely one cannot understand Immanuel Kant without first understanding David Hume who awoke him from his dogmatic slumbers, as but just one of many examples. And Socrates didn't know anything about modern science either.
My point is that the era of Socrates is long past. This is a new era with better levels of argumentation by those recognized to be scholars. It's been said that Aristotle was the last person who knew everything that could be known. That day is gone too. We now live in an era of specialization and in this era there are recognized standards requiring credentials along with a certain quality of work. My claim is that Lowder doesn't meet these rigorous standards, and even if he did he should keep silent about it. Otherwise, doing so makes him look bad.
The reason why this matters and that our disagreements are important to be forthcoming.
Some Recommendations of My Work
I find it very interesting that when disagreeing with each other we fail to mention any good in that other person. That's not what we would do in person and it does not fairly represent the total contributions we each make. It's also why I get upset when being nitpicked to death by people who have not done what I have accomplished so far. Sometimes it's just a pissing contest though. For people who think the Secular Outpost and I aren't on the same team as atheists, you would be wrong. Here, see for yourselves:
Let's Have a Head to Head Face Off!
Encouraging News About The Outsider Test For Faith
The word is getting out! Here's a message I just received on Facebook:
"Your Outsider Test For Faith was the final straw that showed me the error in my thinking. Thank you! I had to submit my Christianity card and join the irreligious." LINK.
"Your Outsider Test For Faith was the final straw that showed me the error in my thinking. Thank you! I had to submit my Christianity card and join the irreligious." LINK.
Dr. Victor Reppert's Concise Explanation For Why He Believes
I have allowed Christian scholars to post here at DC without my initial comments. [See tag below]. The following is one single comment left by Dr. Reppert in my combox. I thought it was worthy of further consideration. Dig in. I expect he'll defend what he wrote. I've taken the liberty to number his paragraphs for ease, should you wish to discuss them. Please, no ridicule.
Ridicule Forces Believers to Re-Examine Their Faith
Here is an example, a spoof not a real ad:
The "ad" got the producer convicted in an English court for harassment. See below. I'm sure the publicity from this ad forced some believers to re-examine why they believe. The question for them would be "How can anyone be so cocksure they aren't going to hell that they would do such a thing?" Am I right or am I right?
The "ad" got the producer convicted in an English court for harassment. See below. I'm sure the publicity from this ad forced some believers to re-examine why they believe. The question for them would be "How can anyone be so cocksure they aren't going to hell that they would do such a thing?" Am I right or am I right?
Another "Stupid Atheist Meme"
- Ed Brayton: This is fucking inane. Cat's don't pray! Some atheists (not me) are just stupid.
- Jeff Lowder: I agree. I consistently criticize atheists when I think they are being rude or straw manning theists or theistic arguments.
- Victor Reppert: Who's to say God answers all prayers anyway? He has his omniscient reasons.
On Ridiculing the Ridiculous Ridicule Deniers
The saying at left is an example of ridicule, in case it isn't obvious. The same goes for this post of mine. The saying was submitted by a person named Chris to a committee of three seeking permission to use it on his Facebook page. The members of the committee include Victor Reppert, Jeff Lowder and John Loftus. Reppert demanded this committee should exist and wanted to be on it. He argued that a person who uses ridicule must be able to defend the basis of the ridicule before using it. Lowder cannot recognize some kinds of ridicule and argued it isn't as effective at changing minds as a reasoned debate. Loftus didn't want on this committee but in order to break any deadlock, he begrudgingly agreed under protest.
Let's listen in as they discuss this submitted piece of ridicule.
Let's listen in as they discuss this submitted piece of ridicule.
Sir_Russ Dismantles Victor Reppert On Ridicule
Vic complains about the commenters here at DC, saying they attack him. They most certainly attack his ideas. By contrast his commenters personally attack atheists and have little substance beyond that. So compare them to what sir_russ wrote below. There is some snark going on in it, but his reasoning and writing are very good.
Another Very Nice Review of "Christianity is Not Great"
It begins like this:
This anthology of counter-Apologetic essays merits a place on the bookshelf of every atheist, lay-student of comparative religion or Christian coming to question his belief. (Or just seeking to understand the worldviews of non-Christians.) In cataloguing the harms done by this religion, and the scope for addressing them, it is close to encyclopaedic. Crucially, it is an anthology of specialist and often scholarly contributions from writers addressing a particular field, and thus avoids a trap into which much humanist literature falls: The cult of the individual ego. Finally, the book indicates how atheism and humanism provide a model better suited for ameliorating the harms done by Christian belief. Click here to read the rest.
Victor Reppert and Jeff Lowder Again On Ridicule
Reppert still doesn't get it and it stuns me. Maybe he refuses to consider anything I say because I'm, well, an atheist, and he knows atheists are wrong about everything! ;-) He thinks one must come up with a argument and be able to defend it--on the Harvard Yard or something?--before being entitled to ridicule a belief. For one must be careful not to end up ridiculing a true belief. Of course, Reppert surely wants to be on the committee that decides which beliefs are false and deserving of ridicule, I'll bet.
Is he serious? I think he is.
Is he serious? I think he is.
God Hates Counterfeit (False) Religion Even If It's Christianity!
 |
| God (just like His Church) Never Changes! |
Dear Christian . . . if you
thought that faith in Christ alone will get you to Heaven, you haven’t got the
whole truth. Based on what Father Tom told me over the phone (see link below) and from a brochure handed out by the tour guide at St.
George Greek Orthodox Cathedral at this past week’s Greek Festival; you’re
screwed, big time! You
see, when Jesus made this famous statement in Matthew 16: 18, Jesus assumed the
reader knew the context; that he (Jesus) was speaking in Greek on behalf of His Greek Orthodox Church; thus Jesus never meant for his teachings to be perverted by the many false Christianities.
Professor Keith Parsons's "Rules of the Use of Ridicule"
Previously Professor Keith Parsons advocated the use of ridicule, saying:
A single belly-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms” said H.L. Mencken. Fundamentalism and fundamentalists should be ridiculed in the media, by comedians, or wherever. You don’t have to worry about fairness, since, as Poe’s Law famously notes, no satire can possibly be more absurd than the real thing. Come on. You just can’t come up with anything more ridiculous than someone who honestly thinks that all human woes stem from an incident in which a talking snake accosted a naked woman in a primeval garden and talked her into eating a piece of fruit. Again, most ridicule would consist of pointedly drawing attention to what they really believe. Nothing could be fairer than that. As a sign admonished on The Simpsons, put the fun back in fundamentalism. Laugh it to death. LINK.Now I present for your consideration his rules for ridicule:
Quote of the Day, By Faisal Saeed Al Mutar On Ridicule
Now Victor Reppert has gone on record as stressing ridicule is unwarranted. So what does he advocate when it comes to Muslim militancy? A lot of us, me included, don't know that much about Islam. But we know killing and maiming others is wrong. Does Vic really think ridicule should not be used by us against these Muslims? Most of us don't really know any other way to express ourselves. I think ridicule can open the Muslim mind up to consider arguments to the contrary. It can be the grease that helps unscrew the mental bolts that shut off a reasoned discussion of their faith. And if Reppert can see this with regard to the faith of others, then he should have no principled objection to the use of ridicule itself.
Bertrand Russell Used Ridicule Effectively, as Does Julia Sweeny, George Carlin and Bill Maher
The list of people who advocate and/or use ridicule effectively should be more than enough to convince the deniers. British atheist and Freethinker George William Foote (1850-1915) wrote:
Goldsmith said there are two classes of people who dread ridicule–priests and fools. They cry out that it is no argument, but they know it is. It has been found the most potent form of argument. Euclid used it in his immortal Geometry; for what else is the reductio ad absurdum which he sometimes employs? Elijah used it against the priests of Baal. The Christian fathers found it effective against the Pagan superstitions, and in turn it was adopted as the best weapon of attack on them by Lucian and Celsus. Ridicule has been used by Bruno, Erasmus, Luther, Rabelais, Swift, and Voltaire, by nearly all the great emancipators of the human mind. ["On Ridicule" Seasons of Freethought, 2013, page 260. See the tag "Ridicule" below for others who embrace it.]To see what Socrates, Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, Erasmus, and modern thinkers like Keith Parsons, Richard Carrier and Stephen Law said about ridicule click here. There are more people who advocate it, or use it, than can be named, including Bertrand Russell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)