When Christians Criticize Each Other I Think They're All Right

One way to tell whether a theory is in crisis to to observe how many versions of that theory have been proposed. When it comes to how the death of Jesus supposedly atones for sins there have been a lot of versions proposed by Christians who, for good reasons, have disputed the others. So let's recap. The earliest proposals were The Ransom Theory and the The Recapitulation Theory. Then came a host of them afterward, like Anslem's Satisfaction Theory, The Penal Substitutionary Theory, The Governmental Theory, The Moral Influence Theory, and recently The Relationship Theory. There are others: The Acceptance Theory. The Declaratory Theory. The Mystical Theory. The Guaranty Theory. The Vicarious Repentance Theory. The Christus Victor Theory. The Healing Theory. The Penal Non-Substitution Theory. The Kaleidoscope Theory. The Participatory Model. The Scapegoating Theory. Check some of them out! See also this book of four views, and watch as Christians trash the other views! You see, there is nothing left for me to do. Christians do it to themselves. All I need to do is point it out.

Given nearly two millennia I’d venture to say with good reason that there will never be a cogent, well-argued version that can ever pass muster in the future either. I think the whole idea of Jesus dying for my sins to restore me to God is built upon the beliefs of a superstitious ancient world, where gods and goddesses were pleased with sacrifices, whether they were human or animal ones. This ancient world is long gone now, so it’s time to give up believing in an incarnate God who offered a sacrifice for us on the cross to atone for our sins.

"Think Atheist" On the Top Books Debunking Christianity

Link. Besides the books he mentioned which ones would you recommend and why? And to think, William Lane Craig doesn't believe I'm qualified to debate him. Who does he think taught me a lot of what I know anyway? ;-)

Just Give Me The Stats, Ma'am

The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is "Equally Brilliant and...Self-Apparent"

It's discussed at 49:20 in episode #93 of Reasonable Doubts Podcast. It was said that the Religious Dependency Thesis (RDPT) can be discarded in favor of focusing in on the nature of justification. But without it believers wouldn't be jolted into considering the OTF at all. Another reason for including it is because the RDPT is a fact, since it follows (not of logical necessity but of overwhelming probability) from the Religious Diversity Thesis (RDVT). However, the best reason for including it is that if the OTF was made to be about the nature of justification then the debate would still focus in on the RDPT anyway. So why not argue for it and preempt the objections?

Avalos's book, "Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship"

This long awaited scholarly book is now available. Dr. Avalos' book definitively refutes the claims of Rodney Stark and others who credit biblical ethics and Christianity as a main factor in the abolition of slavery. See it here.

Hey I just Levitated! No Really, I Did!

It was amazing! I did, I tell you. I did! For about five minutes I was suspended in mid-air! It was wonderful! Do you believe me on my word, or not, and if not, why not? As you think about this ignore the Christopher Hitchens quote, as well as the need for a religious context.

For The Record I'm Not Famous Now, Nor Do I Think I'll Ever Be

In the sidebar it may look as if I think highly of myself. There seems to be a lot of self-promotion going on over there. The reason that you see it is precisely because I know I'm not that important. There are new visitors here every hour who have never heard of my work. So it's to introduce them to it. Until I make it on the cover of Time Magazine, or until I am the president of an atheist organization that has billboards all over California, or until I am interviewed on Nightline, not very many people in the over-all scheme of things know of my work, especially the people in Europe. And I don't think that will happen. My books have never been on the "New Books" table at any national chain bookstore. They sit on an atheism shelf in the back of the store, if there is an atheism shelf at all. I'm not complaining. That's just the way it really is. And since I have no new arguments defending metaphysical naturalism and have decided to kick a dead horse, evangelicalism, I'm only dealing with a small slice of the pie. I know that. But I want to get the attention of the people feasting on that slice of pie.

Hitchens Quote

I Stand in the Gap

I am set for the express purpose of destroying the influence of evangelical Christianity in America and in the world at large. I hope atheists can appreciate this. I'm doing what I think it takes as a former evangelical insider. Whether I can do this is not the question, since I just want to be a part of what many others are doing. I embrace a multifaceted approach to accomplishing this shared goal of ours.

Randal Rauser: "Why Won’t Paul Copan Respond to Thom Stark?"

Link. We're still waiting.

I'm Giving Away Some More Books

Well it feels like that anyway, for a donation. I'm moving so I need the money.

It's Possible That Evangelical Christianity is the True Faith

Okay, I've said it. It's possible Christians are right after all. But then it's possible the Loch Ness Monster exists and is evading our attempts to detect her too! Christians must be convinced that their faith is nearly impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard. There are at least two reasons why they demand such a high standard of disproof. The first is what I call the Omniscience Escape Clause (read all the links in this post!). The other reason is Pascal's Wager, in that unless the Christian faith is shown to be nearly impossible the threat of hell still holds sway over the minds of believers. I would think however, that if their faith is shown to be improbable that should be good enough. Here then are several ways where believers, especially evangelicals (my target audience), try escaping out from underneath the weight of probabilities:

Quote of the Day, From My Wife

As we drove past a church having their service yesterday she made me laugh when she said:

Looks like they can't remember how to be good and need to be reminded every week. Some of us are smarter than that.

[First posted 9/6/10]

Did Jesus Do Miracles?

There are some doubts that Jesus was known as a miracle worker in his day. David Friedrich Strauss (1808- 1874 CE) was the first to systematically argue this case. Against the rationalist approach of explaining them all away naturally, and against the supernaturalist approach which took these claims literally, Strauss argued in what can be considered a book of its own (a chapter containing 121 pages), that these miracle stories were myths.1

A Helpful Review of My Book WIBA

The author writes:

This was one of the first books I read when I began to doubt. It was extremely comprehensive and I found many of the chapters very helpful. John appeared extremely well-cited and read and I cannot even imagine amassing such a collection on my list of read books as the quantity that fills his footnotes. Link.

I'm Co-Writing a Book With Dr. Randal Rauser

Nine months ago at Randal's initiation we finished a book proposal tentatively titled: God or Godless: One Atheist, One Christian, and Twenty Irreverent, Interesting, and Somewhat Informative Debates. In it we each propose ten topics for debate. This has been a slow process but we finally got a contract from Baker Book House, a major Christian publisher.

"The End of Christianity" is Now Available in Kindle

Link. Finally!

FFRF's "Fool Me Once" Campaign Looks Excellent!

Link.

A New and Better Pascal's Wager: If God Asked You to Wager Before Being Born What Would You Choose?

Why didn't we get a choice in whether or not we would be born on earth? Wouldn't the reasonably good thing to do is to create us and then ask us if we would want to be born knowing the risks involved?

Richard Dawkins Explains Why He Refuses to Debate William Lane Craig

Link. He writes:

Does a Religious Context Increase the Odds of a Miracle?

[Written by John W. Loftus] Christian apologists point out that the probability of a miracle is increased when it occurs in a “religious context” as opposed to one that is a merely an “anomaly.” William Lane Craig states that: “A miracle without a context is inherently ambiguous. But if a purported miracle occurs in a significant religio-historical context, then the chances of its being a genuine miracle are increased. For example, if the miracles occur at a momentous time and do not recur regularly in history, and if the miracles are numerous and various, then the chances of their being the result of some unknown natural cause are reduced.” Then he proceeds to argue that in the case of Jesus his resurrection took place in such a religious context.1

More On The Outsider Test for Faith

All a person has to do is make an interesting argument that provokes debate. If you have done that then you have done well. It furthers the discussion. The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is such an argument. Here is a recent email and my answers to the objections.

IQ2 Debate: Atheists Are Wrong

Link. Atheist Jane Caro (at 35:15) expresses one of the main reasons I am against religion, the oppression of women. I loved what she said and silently cheered as she spoke! Atheist Russell Blackford (at 54:15) was excellent as well.

The Debunking Christianity Challenges

Is anyone up to these three challenges? Think of it this way: If you're wrong about your Christian faith wouldn't you want to know? Here are three ways to find out. What are you afraid of? Really. What are you afraid of?

Quote of the Day, by Tony Campolo

I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night. Link. Hat Tip: James McGrath

I'm Giving Away Some More Books

Well it feels like that anyway, for a donation. I'm moving so I need the money.

Stephen Law's Opening Speech in Debate with William Lane Craig

Link. It's a very good one. I have argued the same things. You can see them here, and in chapter 9 of my book The Christian Delusion.

In Defense of Debates

I understand why some people don't like debates. I really do. Only in an honest dialogue can we get at the truth. In a debate format you'll probably never hear one side admitting the other side has a good point, or retract a statement that was shown to be wrong. No one concedes anything in such a contest because the goal is to win for their side. Just the same, let me offer six reasons in defense of debates.

Does God Exist? A debate between Eddie Tabash & Dr. Peter E. Payne

Eddie is a good debater and should do well. He tells me, "I am prepping day and night. I will spend Saturday with philosopher, Ted Drange." Perhaps that's what it takes. Link.

On Dealing With Apostates.

Some Christians think they have Biblical precedent to scoff, mock and malign those of us who are apostates from the faith because Jesus Paul and Elijah mocked their opponents. Let me try to reason with them.

I'm Giving Away Some Books on Jesus

Well it feels like that anyway, for a donation. I'm moving so I need the money. I also have no plans on writing something about the historical Jesus. For anyone interested in that issue these books should help for a donation.

This is How it Works: Getting Mileage Out of Craig's Refusal to Debate Me

An important context here is William Lane Craig's UK tour (starting this week). He is making huge attempts to publicize it through Dawkins' refusal to debate him. People aren't sufficiently aware of HIS refusal to debate John Loftus. When I pointed this out in a comment on one of Craig's video spots, the comment was removed and I was blocked. In so far as Craig has justified his position, his response seems uncannily similar to Dawkins, effectively 'it would look good on his CV not mine!' I agree with those saying 'Why I Became and Atheist' is a good book and contains more than enough to merit the author the kind of debating platform accorded to some other atheist authors. I do believe many of Craig's British supporters are not aware about the Loftus-refusal and they may get embarrassed when Craig gets called on this in debate questions in the UK. Link

None of Craig's stated reasons for refusing to debate me make any sense. I would hope someone during the Q & A would ask him why he refuses to debate one of his former students, me.

Who Speaks for Christianity?

Anyone care to step up and say "I do"? ;-)

Who Speaks For Atheism?

My publisher has dubbed me "a leading atheist spokesperson." I didn't say this. I don't care if I am. They do it to sell books. So let's explore this. Am I? Let's take the issue of whether or not there is a historical person behind the Jesus cult, okay? Do I speak for you?

Assessing The Minimal Facts Approach of Habermas, Licona, and Craig

[Written by John W. Loftus] Christian apologists Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have proposed a "minimal facts approach" to the resurrection of Jesus. Along with William Lane Craig in his debates, they want to stress that which most scholars agree on as facts and then seek the best hypothesis that explains all of these agreed upon facts. They do not want “to be saddled with the task of first showing that the Gospels are, in general, historically reliable,” writes Craig.[20] Instead, Craig wants to establish “that the Gospel accounts of the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb can be shown to be historically reliable without first showing that the Gospels are, in general, historically trustworthy.”[21] Habermas and Licona tell us about their own “minimal facts approach” in these words: “This approach considers only those data that are strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones…We present our case using the ‘lowest common denominator’ of agreed-upon facts. This keeps attention on the central issue, instead of sidetracking into matters that are irrelevant.”[22]