It's Time Once Again Boys and Girls for The Outsider Test for Faith

[Written by John W. Loftus]
Let's try this one more time shall we? This time in short numbered points for the reading impaired:

How to Debunk Christianity

[Written by John W. Loftus] As you can see from this chart of denominations the Church of Christ is represented as the true church. I have not tried to verify the facts, but it’s roughly accurate I suppose in representing when they started and such. Notice that every denomination is part of "Babylon the Great Whore" depicted in the book of Revelation except those in the “Restoration Movement” “non-denominational” conservative middle branch of the Christian Church/Churches of Christ, of which I was once a part. In the lower right hand corner there is a strict warning that people in these other denominations will probably be doomed. A lot of other Christians in various denominations think the same way about the Church of Christ and condemn them as heretical.

God cannot know that he is omniscient

Theists, the world over, claim that God is omniscient. However, this is not an easy claim to make for a whole host of reasons, one of which is worth looking into here. I want to look at the idea that in many instances, you cannot know that you don’t know something. If there is a situation where you cannot know something, then if it is claimed that you are omniscient, this would invalidate that claim.

For example, there could conceivably be something that God does not know. Conceivably, perhaps another dimension run by another God exists that does not coincide at all with this dimension. If one eternal God can exist, why not another in an entirely different dimension and unbeknownst to the first God? Now, it is unimportant as to whether this is possible or not. What is important is that God could not know that he did not know this by the very nature of not knowing it!

Quote of the Day, by the Cynical Cipher

I agree with the evangelicals about almost nothing, but I do agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with humanity - but not for the reason they think.

When Atheists Should Side with Jehovah's Witnesses

As an atheist I often quote from the Jehovah's Witness New Testament. Why? Because their translators are not effected by certain doctrines like Trinity. They rely on the most likely version of the Greek text under consideration. Most believers look at John 1:1-4 to argue for Jesus as God.

I Do Not Believe in Atheism

This is a response to a previous thread but I think it important enough to post as a main article.

The Three Most Visited Articles on "Bible and Interpretation"

This is a good site I recommend.

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, by Mark S. Smith.

Did David and Solomon Exist?, by Eric H. Cline.

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood, by Robert R. Cargill.

The Cross and Blood Magick: Food for Thought

Jesus is portrayed as a sacrificial lamb and a propitiation for sin in the New Testament and Christianity in general. He is seen as a sacrifice that is once and for all. We notice that Christians therefore ceased to practice animal sacrifice. Judaism ceased its sacrifice of animals with the destruction of the Temple since by the time of Jesus it had become the only place allowed for sacrifice. I have not researched these factors but my questions below may point to some of my conjectures.

Quote of the Day, by Steven Bentley

John, your former friend Bill has his been convinced that he has in his possession a book of truths backed and endorsed by the creator god of the universe, to Bill, it's contents cannot be defeated, if you counter his truths, this proves to him that he is right and you are wrong, it has a built-in reverse psychology protection, if you disagree with his beliefs and his book of truths, then you're an adversary to his truths, therefore to him, you are an evil person and of a reprobate mind looking out only to destroy his faith and deceiving him to join you and Satan in the lake of fire at the judgment seat of Christ. Therefore to Bill, you're only out to deceive him and destroy his truth that he has been especially elected to receive through gods calling via the holy spirit. Link.

A Quick View to the Evolution of the Trinity

The idea of trinity was not found in the original manuscripts of the New Testament. The pronouns that refer to the holy spirit were neuter meaning "it" not "He." By the fourth century copies of the Greek started showing some of the pronouns changes from 'it" to the masculine, He. (such as Ephesians 1:14). Even in the Gospel of John the Paraclete (Advocate) is referred to by neuter pronouns and is itself a neuter noun.

A Ph.D. in Theology at Harvard Leaves the Fold, Writes a Book

Yep, just take a look at Breaking Up with God: A Love Story. Here is an interview with the author. Hat tip: Ed Babinski.

There are ministers who are atheists in the pulpit right now as we speak. My friend Bruce Gerencser and I are part of the Clergy Project and he tells what these ministers can do to get help. See this.

I Do Believe, I Do Believe ( Wizard of Oz)

It's sad and dangerous that people continue to fall for myths of Christianity. What is worse is the intentional affirmation and legitimating of these myths as absolute truths that are an imposition upon the activities of humankind. In seminary when I was a theological neophyte there was a worse myth. The neo-orthodoxy of World War I evolved into a theology that would make truth claims that the bible IS a collection of myth and fable as a positive thing.

Craig/Parsons Debate on Why I Am / Am Not a Christian

This debate between William Lane Craig and Keith Parsons isn't getting the hits it should. On YouTube it only has 67 hits. The best audio can be found here, with part two found here. Parsons owned Craig. [First Posted 4/9/08]

The Spirit is Like Baseball

Consciousness is one of the few remaining gaps in science where theists go looking for evidence of a god. What better place than to look for the soul? With the arrival of Darwin and his theory of evolution, the idea of life as designed by a god became extinct scientifically. Physics has demonstrated that there is not necessarily a need for a prime mover. So it is with the study of consciousness.

My Old Friend and I Are No Longer Friends

I ended our friendship. I wrote about Bill before, and even sent him that link. Here is the rest of the story. I decided that if Bill wants to evangelize me I would send him some links to DC and to some additional books, so I did. Then this:

Jesus Was Baptized for His Sins

I would like to present an atheistic bible study, an observation or interpretation, I believe explains the re-working of the original story of Jesus and John the Baptist by the authors of Matthew and Luke. This is with the understanding that Matthew and Luke use Mark in their compositions. In Mark Jesus is baptized into ( eis) the remission of sins. The preposition “eis” means from out of a state to into a different state or place. This preposition in Mark is redacted (re-worked or edited) by Matthew.

Richard Carrier On "The Think Atheist Show"

Check it out. Skip the intro and go to 2:50 where it starts.

More From My Old Deluded Friend

A former member of a church I ministered at is back, and still trying to save me. Here is our latest exchange which is a bit blunt:

Laura Story's Christian Song, Blessings, and the Stockholm Syndrome

"In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a real paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors; sometimes to the point of defending them." Wikipedia. Here's the song below. Note the reoccurring phrase "mercies in disguise." Someone should put images of tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, diseases, wars, starvation and death to this song so we know exactly what she means!

Sophisticated Theology: A Deception to the Church

Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher who was seen to perform miracles. He was elevated in one circle of followers to being virgin born. Paul cast him in an ahistorical Hellenistic Savior myth. Another segment of the movement continued as Jewish followers who expected his return but did not believe in the virgin birth or that Jesus was god or divine. The Jewish Christian traditions about Jesus become elevated with the Johannine Hellenistic Logos Christology.

Christology Rests Upon a Mistake

Christology rests upon a mistake. This is a simple statement that could be easily understood by much of the various Christian denominations. As so it means the invalidity of the Christian Faith since it rests upon its own Christology.

Dr. Avalos comments on whether religion, atheism, and science are all based on faith

I presume that Thye and I would agree that we don’t believe in Zeus because there is no evidence for the existence of Zeus. But would Thye also argue that lack of belief in Zeus constitutes a “faith” or a “religion”? Is there such a thing as the religion of “A-Zeusianism”? In fact, A-Zeusianism probably would be one of the largest religions on the planet because maybe 99.9 percent of human beings are A-Zeusians. Link

A Recommendation of My Work From a Gnu Who Changed His Mind About it

I don't believe that many (and in fact probably very few) in the scientific/historical skeptical community understand the importance of what you do. I was a prime example of this. When I first came across DC, I thought, "Yeah, the fact that he is an ex-apologist is novel, but why does he keeping philosophizing about things that he himself has already empirically falsified. C'mon John, move on and get with the really fascinating stuff going on."

Then I started reading more than just your posts: I started reading the comments. It was then I realized why you were philosophizing. There was no way myself, nor any hard-core empiricist, could convince a believer that their world-view lacked coherence based on external evidence until someone first showed them that it was internally incoherent. And, showing convincing internal incoherence, is something only a formerly committed insider can do.

Just For Fun

Sometimes, we try too hard to get to the greener grass. In the process, we end up in trouble...

Q and the SYNOPTICS or Why I Left Christianity

Q is a hypothetical that regardless of its actual state of existence explains the nature of the Synoptic Gospels better than a inspirational or infallibility position and harmonization. Higher Criticism has never listened to opinionated claims of those who would twist the normal concepts of history into a pretzel to create a pure absurdity of apologetics, The priority of Mark and Q explain the contradictions and variations in supporting redaction criticism (editing history) as their explanation in contrast to the implausible absurdities of harmonization in order to maintain a belief that is simply an outworn tradition about the canon that is not supported by its nature or fact.
I came to my atheistic position from a belief in scripture not from my present paganism. A fair treatment of the scripture will at least save one from the heresy of orthodoxy. It is the hard core studying of them with an objective and unbiasly fair analysis rather than an a priori apologetic stance and its conclusion that the scripture is inerrant, infallible and/or inspired that allowed me to see the probable and plausible nature of the texts. The ideas of inspiration and infallibility present an improbable and implausible dogmatic position that requires the gymnastics of fantasy and fanciful harmonizations that cause the character Jesus to pop up like a windup jack in the box in repeated scenarios or a redundancy speech and absurdity bordering on Dadaism and surrealism. It is this position that is not a normative understanding of history, reality and science that has been a fragmentation from the real world view to some fantastic world view where the characters in the narrative are no longer function within context but are transported from the meaning of the scriptures to the doctrine of medieval superstition, dogma and absurdity (did I say pure 24 karat unmitigated asininity?).

If This Isn't a Deluded Person Then No One Is

An old friend of mine, who has sent me spam emails about God and country, just recently told me he has read my books. But he continues sending me spam emails anyway. He has hopes for me. I'm speechless, absolutely speechless. If this isn't a deluded person then no one is. I can recognize a bat blind brainwashed believer when I see one. Why can't he recognize a hardened atheist when he sees one?

I'm Considering Blasting Some Atheists, Their Books, and Their Organizations

Look at how Richard Carrier just blasted R. Joseph Hoffmann, who in turn had previously unjustifiably called for Ronald Lindsay's resignation from being the president of CFI. I've tried to resist, wanting to present a unified atheist front. But one doesn't exist. Why should I be the only one who resists? Some atheists have no trouble blasting me and/or ignoring me. Well maybe it's time to show 'em who I am. I'm bored arguing against Christians anyway. Maybe it's time to get their attention. What d'ya think?

Making Jesus a Christ

The basis of information for the proposition that Jesus is the Christ is suspect. Unlike the mythicist's view of a mythological origins we find a movement from human to legendary. The intentional re-workings of the Gospels by their authors are responses to historical events. The mythological elements are the later work of Paul and those that influenced him attached to the legendary aspects that are reflected in the Gospels. While the Gospels are later in writing than the authentic Pauline Epistles, they have a closer geographic and ethnic origin to Jesus and his followers than Paul and the Hellenistic mythological language.

DC is Alive and Kicking, Speaking to Both Sides!

Thanks to all my regular readers and commenters for making DC what it is. It's rare to achieve what I have attempted. This blog is not one that preaches to the choir. I am not a cheerleader for anything atheist. There are too many sites that do that in an endless cycle of seeing who can best stick it to Christians. And, as you would guess, I'm no cheerleader for Christianity either, to say the least. ;-) But both sides visit here to discuss the ideas that separate us, including SBL's Bibliobloggers, where DC ranks above 5th place every month (out of 500+ sites). Yes, I get attacked at times from both sides in my attempt to reach out to Christians. But I am passionate to change the religious landscape in ways I think are best given my talents. Cheers.

PZ Myers and the Courtier's Reply Again

PZ Myers, like other scientists, will only accept empirical evidence for a religion. If it's not found, that's the end of it. Recently he recommended a parable about sausages in which a philosopher and a scientist discuss a sausage machine. It starts as it ends, like this:

A philosopher designs a marvellous sausage machine. A scientist comes to marvel at this wonderful creation, and raises an eyebrow. The philosopher says, "Ah, behold the wonderful cogs and sprockets and temperature-controlled mixing chambers in my wonderful machine -
surely you can see how it must produce the most fantastic sausages!" The scientist says "Yes, that is all very interesting. Show me the sausages."

None are ever produced.

Scientists regularly denigrate what philosophers and theologians do. But you know what? Believing philosophers and theologians regularly denigrate what scientists do.

What to do?

There are different types of critiques of Christianity. Each one of them stresses something different coming from different areas of expertise. Some of the major areas of criticism come from 1) The sciences, especially evolution and brain science; 2) Biblical and historical criticism; 3) Philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion; 4) Archaeology; 5) Cultural anthropology; 6) Psychology; and, 7) Social and moral criticism of the Bible and the church. There are others. What atheists think is a more effective criticism is not always the same as what Christians think is more effective.

I suspect we won't all agree. Without the sciences (#1) we probably don't have much of a critique at all, at least no reasonable alternative to a creator God, so that has got to be the highest on the list. But here's the problem. Christians denigrate the sciences in favor of their holy book. In every era Christian believers have repeatedly said that reason must bow down before faith, you see. That's the problem when using the sciences in getting Christian believers to change their minds. We must first help believers see that their holy book has holes in it. To do that we must speak to them in their language by critiquing their beliefs in terms they will understand and appreciate. Otherwise we're preaching to the choir.

While I see the value of ridicule, the most effective critique of the Christian faith will be one that can best be described as a counter-apologetic. An apologetic offers reasons from several different areas of expertise on behalf of the Christian faith. A counter-apologetic does the opposite. A counter-apologetic must take believers where they are and move them (or push them) in the right direction, the direction that the sciences have shown us. But since believers usually denigrate the sciences (# 1) I start with the other areas of criticism (#'s 2-7), especially biblical and historical criticism (# 2), and philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion (# 3).

From having studied these issues as a former Christian insider for a number of years this is what I think. Take it for what it's worth. But I think I know what I'm talking about. Don't get me wrong. Every area of expertise is important if we want to change the mind of the believer. But this is the type of critique of the Christian faith I offer.

I've written about this before.

Watch The Bible Unearthed, Good Stuff it is!

See below:

My Poll at the Right

People have objected to my poll on what arguments led you to reject faith. Some people say there are other options. There are always other options unless I construct a poll ten feet long. If the suggested answers do not apply to you then the poll does not apply to you. I'll tell you what though, if dismissing one's religion causes people to reject their faith then they are more prone to peer pressure than a reasonable person should be. So I put it to you. If you rejected your faith because people dismissed it then are you a rational person? Hell, I do not care how many people dismiss what I think if the arguments are not there. Get it? ;-)

[Edit] The results of the poll after four days are as follows:

What arguments led you to reject faith?

Arguments from people who dismissed it 67 (15%)

Arguments from people who understood it 111 (25%)

Both 250 (58%)

Quote of the Day, by Thomas Paine

I'm told this quote is from Thomas Paine:

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

I experienced this talking to such a person yesterday in my home town. She proceeded to preach to me as if I never preached the same things. So I asked her how often she gets to talk to a skeptic and she admitted hardly ever. I asked if she might be interested in listening to what one of us has to say. She said she wasn't interested. Then I asked, "If what you believe is wrong would you want to know?" She claimed to know she is right and proceeded to preach what I once preached not caring to learn what I knew.

Where Are the Women Atheist Scholars?

I am against sexism, most emphatically, without any doubt at all. In fact, one of the main reasons I do what I do is because of what religion has done and continues to do to women. I argue against religion for that reason alone. There are a lot of women bloggers for which I am truly thankful. But it seems as if there are few women scholars to link to in the blog world. Several of the ones PZ Myers links to have not yet earned a college degree, or they have just entered into a master's program. Oh, I know, the women atheist scholars of tomorrow are with us today in training, so yes, let's encourage them by all means. But where are the women atheist scholars of today? We need your voices more than ever. Help us, please. We are mere men.

The Ten Marks of a Deluded Person

[Written by John Loftus] Below in no particular order are what I consider the ten marks (or characteristics) of a deluded person. I think even educated Christians will agree with most of them. You might want to consider from this checklist how many of them apply to you. To the degree that more of them apply then the more likely you are deluded by your faith. Now it's quite possible that Christians can be deluded and yet their faith is true, in the same sense that a person might be brainwashed or indoctrinated into believing the truth. But the point is that if you're deluded then you have no reason to believe.