What Religion Has Contributed to the World This Month

Chris Hallquist's Book is Now Available for Free

Chris's book UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God: Debunking the Resurrection of Jesus, which I wrote a blurb recommending it, is now being made available for free. It takes on Christian apologists like William Lane Craig on the resurrection of Jesus. Get it right here. As he says though, if you like it and wish to donate to him for it, please do. But he says, "I’ll also be happy if all you do is read it, enjoy it, and tell your friends about it."

Civility, Like Tolerance, Like Free Speech, Like Human Rights, Like Freethought, Like Peace, Like Justice, Are All Contingent On the Truth

I have suffered attacks from both Christians and atheists mostly because I Stand in the Gap, but also because I do not suffer fools gladly. Never have, probably never will. Sometimes my temperament gets in the way and I'm sorry that's the way it is, but that's the way it is sometimes. My temperament is what makes me who I am though. Without it I would not be as passionate or effective as I am in debunking Christianity. You'll have to take the good with the bad I suppose. It's all I can offer. I hope it's enough. I sincerely apologize if it isn't good enough to some of my readers. It's who I am. I can no more change who I am than you can change who you are. But I like who I am and I don't give a damn if anyone of you think otherwise. ;-) Really!

Now enters Dan Fincke, a former Freethought Blogger, who just issued a pledge to civility that I'm supposed to sign, something Jeff Lowder has endorsed with his full support. Ed Clint calls it a Lemon Pledge though, while Chris Hallquist says he's not signing it, just as Notung said he won't be signing it. Others have chimed in as well, like Damion Reinhardt, and especially Russell Blackford. More responses are certainly coming. I wonder why Hemant Mehta hasn't endorsed it or commented on it, since he seems to link to things that concern most atheists. Well, now. What am I supposed to make of this? I pride myself on being sort of a mediator, someone who thinks outside the box, so let's see if I can. If not, at least I tried. I'm in a unique situation since I sometimes get attacked by both sides.

I Get Encouraging Emails

Dear Mr. Loftus,

I just wanted to take some time to drop you a note of encouragement. I happened upon your blog some months ago in the midst of my own deconversion from Christianity and have been visiting it regularly ever since. I’ve come to enjoy not only your blog, but also many of those in your network. I recently purchased a copy of The Christian Delusion and have found the insights in the first section in particular to be quite helpful while reflecting upon my own mindset in the 20+ years I was actively involved in Christianity and in evaluating the thinking of those I have left behind and continue to try to reach even as they fight to bring me back.

Jerry Coyne Calls 'Em As I Sees 'Em, Bullshit!

Dr. Coyne comments about a Spectator piece written by atheist Douglas Murray, who argues "it’s time we admitted that religion has some points in its favour." Jerry responds:

This is, pardon my French, complete bullshit. If Adam and Eve did not exist, and there was no Original Sin caused by human action, and the Primal Couple was just a metaphor, it means that if Jesus really was crucified and resurrected, he died for a metaphor.

A New Counter-Apologetics Blog

I know all too well how hard it is to get one's work out there. I was contacted by someone who just started a new blog and it looks good upon skimming it. Give it a look and report back with what you think. You can read about this person's goals right here.

Notes For Today's Class On the OTF

Today at 1 PM EST I'm going to Skype with the students in Professor Peter Boghossian's "New Atheism" class at Portland State University. I'm grateful for this opportunity. It's going to be about my soon to be released book, The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF).

I'll probably be referring to the following links so they're numbered below for reference:

Five Definitive Answers When Christians Say We Never Were Christians

When I first went online I was repeatedly told by Christians that I was never a Christian. At first I got upset because it was personal with me. In my mind it was as if they were calling me a liar. I answered pretty much as former pastor's wife Theresa did right here, by trying to express my devotion to Christ and his church. Over the years I have developed better answers. Here are the five definitive answers to such drivel:

1) So what? What does this have to do with my arguments? If I was never a Christian how does that affect your judgment of them? If some atheists were never Christians does it mean you don't have to take their arguments seriously? If you must do so with them, why is this an issue when it comes to me?

2) If you think this then that's just one of the delusions you have. There are many others. ;-) You have to believe one interpretation of some ancient superstitious texts over the overwhelming number of testimonies from all ex-Christians, which highlights your delusion.

3) So let me get this straight, your God promised to save me if I believed, and I did, and he didn't keep his promise? What does that say about your God?

4) I actually don't think any Christian has real faith, so at least I honestly admit I'm a non-believer. As I said before in a letter to Christians who claim I still really believe deep down :

Ingersoll's Preface to "Faith or Fact"

This is once again sent to me by Julian Haydon.

Christ-Mythicist Neil Godfrey Agrees With Me

John Loftus of Debunking Christianity made it clear that one of the worst things he could take up in his efforts to debunk Christianity was to argue Jesus did not exist. In one of his more recent statements to this effect he wrote: "Christians will be more likely to listen to me than someone who claims Jesus probably didn’t exist at all." He follows with this: "I am a focused, passionate man, who is single mindedly intent on debunking Christianity. This issue [mythicism] will not do the job for the simple fact of what evangelicals like David Marshall think of such a claim. It’s too far removed from what they will consider a possibility. I’d like to hear of the vast numbers of Christians who abandoned their faith because they were convinced Jesus didn’t exist. I just don’t see that happening at all. Christians will not see their faith is a delusion until they first see that the Bible is unreliable and untrustworthy, and that the doctrines they believe are indefensible, which is my focus. Now it might be that Christians could come to the conclusion the Bible is unreliable upon reading arguments that Jesus never existed, but they will be much less likely to read those very arguments because that thesis is too far removed from what they can consider a possibility."

Exactly. I agree 100% with what John Loftus writes here about the value of the Christ Myth idea for debunking Christianity. LINK.

Does the Internet Spell Doom For Organized Religion?

Hell yes! Or, do you live in a cave? Valerie Tarico tells us of six kinds of web content that are like, well, electrolysis on religion’s hairy toes, or more like Kryptonite to the Superman of religion.

On Solving the Dreaded Problem of Induction

On pages 70-71 in my new book, The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True,I basically solve the problem of induction. Well, I point the way anyway. What is this problem?

In inductive reasoning, scientists make a series of observations and then infer something based on these observations, or they predict that the next observation under the same exact test conditions will produce the same results. It’s argued there are two problems with this process. The first problem is that regardless of the number of observations it is never certain the next observation of the same exact phenomena under the same exact test conditions will produce the same exact results. For scientists to inductively infer something from previous results or predict what future observations will be like, it’s claimed they must have faith that nature operates by a uniform set of laws. Why? Because they cannot know nature is lawful from their observations alone. The second problem is that the observations of scientists in and of themselves cannot establish with certainty the validity of inductive reasoning.

There is a great deal of literature on the problem of induction, and I cannot solve it here...But if all we ever do is think exclusively in terms of the probabilities, as I’ll argue later (in chapters 7 and 10), then this problem is pretty much solved.

I write more on it, but can you catch my drift?

Circumcising the Bible

I recently read the horrifying news story of a 20-year-old mother who was tortured with a branding iron, doused with fuel, and then burned alive in Papua New Guinea on the accusation that she was a sorceress. Police and firefighters were unable to intervene because of the angry crowd. Ironically, the news story also contained this:

Local Christian bishop David Piso told the National that sorcery-related killings were a growing problem, and urged the government "to come up with a law to stop such practice".

I found myself wondering if bishop Piso is aware his Bible contains this verse:

You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
Exodus 22:18 (ESV)

CNN: What Happened to God in America?

Christianity and the Virtue of Unreason

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's not use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." -Alice in Wonderland

Pete Edwards of Durham University On The Scale of the Universe

Edwards says we cannot get our heads around how big the universe is. Matthew Cobb at Why Evolution is True corrects his numbers, which are out of date:

Here’s how astronomers breakout the visible universe within 14 billion light years:
Superclusters in the visible universe = 10 million
Galaxy groups in the visible universe = 25 billion
Large galaxies in the visible universe = 350 billion
Dwarf galaxies in the visible universe = 7 trillion
Stars in the visible universe = 30 billion trillion (3×10²²)

A new study suggests that 90% of the most distant (and therefore oldest) galaxies in the universe could be unseen, hidden by clouds of dust. That would mean that – assuming the same number of stars in each galaxy, and that older galaxies don’t deviate from this rule – that the number of stars in the visible universe would be 270 billion trillion or 2.7 x 10 to the power of 24).

My argument is based on what Nicholas Everitt first wrote, but goes beyond it. The question Everitt broaches is whether, prior to the rise of modern science, we would expect to find this vast universe given a description of the Christian God of theism. We are to imagine asking what we would expect of such a God before the rise of modern science. What would we expect? Nicholas Everitt argues as follows:

Theism tells us that God is a being who is omnipotent and omniscient, wholly self-sufficient, with no needs, or lacks, or deficiencies of any kind. For reasons that are not entirely clear, God decides to create a universe in which human beings will be the jewel. Although he will have a care for the whole of his creation, God will have an especial care for human beings. He will give these creatures the power of free choice. Exactly what this power is, no one can agree...Because humans are the jewel of creation, the rest of the universe will be at least not unremittingly hostile or even indifferent to human flourishing. Even if the universe will not make such flourishing immediately and easily and painlessly accessible, it will make it at least accessible in principle for humanity at large. The question then to ask is: given this much information about God and his nature and his purposes, what sort of a universe would you expect to find? Which of all the possible worlds that God could create would you expect him to create, given this much knowledge of his nature and of his overall plan?

The description of God is so sketchy, and in particular the theistic hypothesis gives us so little information about his aims, that a large number of possible worlds are left equally likely. But among the more likely scenarios is a universe somewhat like the one presented to us in the story of Genesis. In particular, traditional theism would lead you to expect human beings to appear fairly soon after the start of the universe. For, given the central role of humanity, what would be the point of a universe which came into existence and then existed for unimaginable aeons without the presence of the very species that supplied its rationale? You would expect humans to appear after a great many animals, since the animals are subordinate species available for human utilisation, and there would be no point in having humans arrive on the scene needing animals (e.g. as a source of food, or clothing, or companionship) only for them to discover that animals had not yet been created. But equally, you would not expect humans to arrive very long after the animals, for what would be the point of a universe existing for aeons full of animals created for humanity’s delectation, in the absence of any humans? Further, you would expect the earth to be fairly near the centre of the universe if it had one, or at some similarly significant location if it did not have an actual centre. You would expect the total universe to be not many orders of magnitude greater than the size of the earth. The universe would be on a human scale. You would expect that even if there are regions of the created world which are hostile to human life, and which perhaps are incompatible with it, the greater part of the universe would be accessible to human exploration. If this were not so, what would the point be of God creating it?

These expectations are largely what we find in the Genesis story (or strictly, stories) of creation. There is, then, a logic to the picture of the universe with which the Genesis story presents us: given the initial assumptions about God, his nature, and his intentions, the Genesis universe is pretty much how it would be reasonable for God to proceed. Given the hypothesis of theism and no scientific knowledge [Emphasis is mine, John], and then asked to construct a picture of the universe and its creation, it is not surprising that the author(s) of Genesis came up with the account which they did. It is not that God would have had to proceed in the Genesis way, and it is not that every non-Genesis way would be extremely puzzling. There is in fact a wide range of possible universes which God could have created and about which there would not be a puzzle of the form ‘But how could a universe like that be an expression of a set of intentions like those?’ Nevertheless, we can still draw a distinction between universes which would be apt, given the initial hypothesis, and universes which would be inapt. The Genesis universe is clearly an apt one, given the theistic hypothesis; but a universe in which (say) most humans could survive only by leading lives of great and endless pain would be a surprising one for God to choose, given the other assumptions we make about him.

The question now to raise is ‘Is the universe as it is revealed to us by modern science roughly the sort of universe which we would antecedently expect a God of traditional theism to create? Is it an apt universe, given the admittedly sketchy conception we have of his nature and his intentions?’ The short answer to this is ‘No’. In almost every respect, the universe as it is revealed to us by modern science is hugely unlike the sort of universe which the traditional thesis would lead us to expect.

Nicholas Everitt, The Non-existence of God, pp. 215-16, seen in chapter 11 Arguments From Scale (pdf).

I think Everitt's argument works. More importantly I have strengthened it quite a bit in chapter 24 of my book, Why I became an Atheist: Personal Reflections and Additional Arguments. That's where someone can find my particular argument, which represents 2/3rds of that chapter. 

The best way to know what people would expect to find prior to the rise of modern science is to investigate what people thought of the universe before its rise. 

Western believers used to claim God (or Zeus) lived on Mt. Olympus. But then someone climbed up there and he wasn't to be found. Then they claimed God lived just beyond the sky dome that supported the water, called the firmament. But we flew planes and space ships up into the air and found he wasn't there either. Believers now claim God exists in a spiritual sense everywhere. What best explains this continual retreat? Doesn't it sound more like the attempt to defend one's faith as science progresses, rather than progressively understanding what God is like? Dante's Divine Comedy shows this, most emphatically. Just look at how he described the heavens. Do some research on how popular his work was. Hint: it was so popular he is even called the "Father of the Italian language," more influential than Shakespeare was on the English language, and we know his influence was immense.

When saying the scale of the universe is not incompatible with an omnipotent omniscient personal omnipresent deity. The present scale of the universe is exactly what we would expect to find if such a God does not exist, whether I can convince someone of this or not. 

Most arguments are convincing ones if the people hearing them have the necessary background knowledge. That is to say, most arguments only convince the already convinced. That does not make them bad arguments just because they cannot convince those who are not already convinced. Or else, there are probably no such arguments at all when it comes to the issues that divide us. Almost all of the arguments that convince people on these kinds of issues do so cumulatively. That is, people do not see the force of any of them until they see the force of them all. There is probably not a single argument that can bear the weight of being a convincing argument to Christian theists. So to judge Everitt's argument as if it must bear this weight is asking it to do the impossible.

Can we attempt to judge the strength of arguments like this anyway? Can we evaluate arguments like these based on how much force they have individually? And if so, where would Everitt's argument be placed on a scale of 1-10, with 10 having the most force and 1 having the least amount of force? I'm not sure we can even do this. Personal reasons are, after all, personal reasons. Just refresh yourselves with my AFI in the above link. For me this argument had a great deal of force as I was thinking about my former Christian faith, probably ranked 1.5 on that scale. Now if you imagine 1.5 as a really small amount of force, think again. Since there isn't an argument that would score a 10 let's say the most forceful argument would rank 3.0 on that scale. Come on, do you really think anyone atheist argument could be ranked higher? As I said, the case is cumulative whereby we add up the arguments before we come to reject faith.

Robert Ingersoll On Life, Death, Hope, Afterlife

The Great Infidel, as he was known everywhere in the last half of the 19th century, was often called upon to speak at funerals – no better occasion to reflect on the greatest mysteries of life. And no one could do it better. He said no one knew or could know whether there was a life after death; but he was absolutely certain that if there were, the notion of eternal punishment for anyone was an ghastly priest-made libel upon a “loving and merciful” God. In some of these tributes he shows signs of hope for an afterlife -- the source being a longing to one day be reunited with those we have loved and who have loved us. -- Compiled by Julian W. Haydon.

William Lane Craig’s Views on Animal Suffering Debunked Further

The first video response to him can be found here.

"I Can't Believe You're an Atheist"

In October a good Hispanic friend of mine named Juana learned I was an atheist. She is the captain of our pool league team in Ft. Wayne. I told her I couldn't play the following week because I was going on a speaking tour of four Colorado Universities. She asked why, so I told her I was speaking about my books. She asked about them and learned for the first time I was an atheist. Then she said, "I can't believe you're an atheist." She went on and on about it as if this was an extremely bad thing. She went to a few other people and asked them if they believed in God, almost as if to determine by majority vote whether God existed or not. I don't think she ever met someone she liked so much who was an atheist. You see, we have known each other for over six years and the subject never came up. I do not force my views on people I personally know and I do not get in anyone's face about what I think. I'm not afraid in the least to tell people I'm an atheist if the subject arises. But when it doesn't then there is nothing to say.

"Hey Girls, We're Talking About Religion"

Today I'm going to hang out with my brother-in-law Kim (his name), who is a right-wing Obama-hater and Rush Limbaugh fan. Our wives are getting together for a girl's day out. Usually when Kim and I are together the girls forbid us from talking religion or politics. But whenever we're out by ourselves we do, and we have a great time of it. Over a beer or two we'll shout out, "Hey girls, we're talking about religion and loving it." It's sort of a passive aggressive rebellion I suppose. But he's a great guy even though we disagree quite vehemently. And he likes getting together with me just as much as I like being with him. Almost all of my personal friends are Christians, just in case anyone wants to know. Online people paint me with broad strokes as if I don't care about Christians. If I didn't care about them then I wouldn't have any personal friends at all.

Ahhhh, the Mind of the Believer

I'm tired of getting hit with, "Hey, that doesn't describe me." Okay, I get it. Nonetheless, I have a good Seventh Day Adventist friend whose vehicle wouldn't start. So yesterday we tried to get it running. I'm not much of a mechanic but we did figure out it was his fuel pump located in the gas tank. He's a painter so he decided to finish a job over the weekend in order to get the needed money to fix it. I deviously suggested his vehicle broke down because God was punishing him in advance for working on Saturday (which is forbidden by his sect). The funny thing is that he seriously considered this. I had a good laugh with him about it. Maybe so, I said, who knows? ;-)

Seek And Ye Shall Find

I started to write something and realized I had already done so. There are over 4000 posts in the archives with a really good search engine in the sidebar. Try it. Do a search for "The Accommodation Theory of the Bible." See, that was easy. Now do another one for "The New Evangelical Orthodoxy." Do other searches. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat again.

Robert Ingersoll On the Outsider Test for Faith

Before I argued for it Ingersoll did.

5 Obviously False References in the Bible

As the ages march on, it is a delight to find fewer attending churches and more making time to sit around doing other, more enjoyable things come Sunday. But even while classes full of growing students are satiated in going to their professors for answers instead of their priests, the age-old debate on the existence of God / validity of [insert religion here] somehow still rages on. The question should by now be settled, but those states where the collective IQ hasn’t exceeded 57 still have people who are clinging tightly to mom and dad’s hard-shell faith to define us.

However, it is a breath of fresh air to know that the seeds of doubt are first planted, not by scholarship or by secular parenting, but by common sense questions and healthy brains at work. Below are 5 biblical mentions that are in that camp known as “It don’t take no gosh-darn edjamucations to see this ain’t right.” Some things in God’s holy book are wrong simply because they defy any real level of sense. We begin the countdown with...

There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith, Part 4

Previously I argued there isn't a bad personal reason to reject the Christian faith. Christian apologist Dr. Vincent Torley understood my argument fairly well so I'll use what he wrote to describe it (edited for brevity without the digressions). Then I'll comment on it.

For With God All Things Are Possible (Mark 10: 27)

MEA MAXIMA CULPA: SILENCE IN THE HOUSE OF GOD
Oscar winning filmmaker Alex Gibney examines the abuse of power in the Catholic Church through the story of four courageous deaf men, who in the first known case of public protest, set out to expose the priest who abused them. Through their case the film follows a cover-up that winds its way from the row houses of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, through the bare ruined choirs of Ireland's churches, all the way to the highest office of the Vatican.

Dr. Rauser Asks: Should Christians Help Atheists Make Better Arguments?

He asks us to consider two scholars, Chris the Christian philosopher and Alan the atheist philosopher.

Alan writes a new paper in which he argues that God does not exist based on the problem of evil. He sends a draft to his friend Chris and asks Chris for feedback. Chris reads through the paper and identifies a serious problem. Chris writes a critique in which he identifies the problem and identifies a way to make the argument much stronger. As a result Chris has a reasonable ground to believe that many people may read the revised paper and come to the conviction that God doesn’t exist based in part on the alterations suggested by Chris. However, Chris still believes God does exist and that anybody who concludes that God doesn’t exist will have adopted a false belief about a very important issue. And so Chris must accept that based on arguments he has fine-tuned many people will adopt false beliefs about a very important issue. Has Chris done anything wrong by offering that critique to Alan?

He concludes by saying:

Upstate South Carolina School District Fights to Keep Prayers in Meetings

As Al Roker on NBC’s Today Show says: Here’s what's happening in my neck of the woods. (Pickens is 14 miles from my house.) Wait for video to load.

Hundreds showed up at the Pickens County school board meeting Monday night begging the board to keep its routine invocation despite a Wisconsin-based organization asking them to refrain from prayer.

There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith, Part 3

To see what I've been arguing recently read Part 1, and if so desired read Part 2. Now for Part 3 where I'll attempt to deal with another objection, this time coming from Matt DeStefano, an atheist who is a philosophy student in a master's level program. I remember those days myself a long long time ago in a far away galaxy. I hope you're enjoying this period in your life Matt, because you will probably look back on it as the best time in your life, as I do. DeStefano presents a scenario that is supposed to be the exception to my blanket claim that there isn't a bad personal reason to reject Christianity. If an exception can be found then my blanket claim is false. So let me say first of all that if DeStefano's counter-example works then it doesn't undercut anything else I said, only that there is an exception or two or three. I can live with this if so. Nonetheless, I don't think his scenario works.

I’m Not a Christian or Theist, But You’re Wrong about the Bible!

As I continue to gather more facts for my forth coming post on the Canonization of the Bible, I became aware that this post on the Bible (like many of my others) will draw negative critics from supposed friendly fire.

There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith, Part 2

Previously I argued there isn't a bad personal reason to reject the Christian faith. This argument is aimed at Christians who believe in the following Doctrinal Statement (DS): An omniscient, omnibenelovent, omnipotent God exists who sent Jesus to atone for the sins of all who believe in him and desires that everyone should be saved with no one lost (See 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). Other believers need not apply. Other beliefs that people have are not specifically relevant to my argument except as they illustrate how bad human beings generally reason about things. In the next few posts I'm going to answer some criticisms of what I had written. Be sure to read my original post to understand what follows.

With regard to objective reasons to reject Christianity there are a multitude of them. There isn't much objective evidence for the Christian faith at all, if there is any. On that subject I have been clear. Again for the record, there are many many good personal reasons AND good arguments that should lead reasonable people to reject Christianity.

The question for us however, is not whether there are good objective reasons to reject Christianity. The question is whether private, subjective, ignorant, irrational, rebellious and self-deceptive reasons to reject Christianity are good ones given DS above. My argument is that even these "bad" reasons for rejecting Christianity are still good reasons.

Bad reasons are good ones. Or, to state it better, 

bad reasons are not bad reasons after all, while good reasons are still good ones.

In my previous post I asked several questions about how human beings reason. I said that if any of a number of factors were to obtain then the distinction between having good personal reasons and bad personal reasons for what we believe basically flies out the window. I did not comment with finality on whether or not this is the case. Although it's clear I think the distinction is hard to pinpoint apart from the results of science, which is the exception, since it deals in hard cold objective evidence that eventually changes minds. I asked questions that need asked and answered. 

I think that what makes any given belief rational is a complex subject. Yes, yes, it involves sufficient evidence, but it's really interesting to me how rational people can basically evaluate the same evidence and come away with opposite conclusions. 

What I did say was this: "If nothing else, there are certainly many cases where we cannot even say what it means for some people to have good personal reasons for what they believe." So by providing a counter-example that it's not rational to believe the moon is made of green cheese, doesn't say anything about most all of the things reasonable people disagree about that are as clear as mud. And it says nothing about my particular argument either. When it comes to rational peer disagreements where it's not clear to everyone who is right or wrong, they are Legion (cue the biblical reference). Who's to say who's rational and who's not, apart from science anyway?

What we can say with virtual certainty is that all people who accept something as true also think they have good reasons for it, to a person, on a conscious level. That's why our abilities to reason are extremely bad. It's because of the haphazard evolution of the human brain. The only antidote to our poor reasoning abilities is science.

We're not talking about "any other false belief." Of that I am crystal clear. We're talking about Christians who accept DS. My argument is that all personal reasons are good ones when it comes to rejecting the particular doctrinal beliefs represented in DS. 

Christianity Today's Condescending Review of Ingersoll

Anyone who has written a book critical of Christianity sees exactly what Timothy Larsen is doing in reviewing Susan Jacoby's new book, The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Freethought. It's what most Christians do when reviewing such a book. They claim the infidel is ignorant or a second class intellectual. As many of you know, Julian Haydon has been sending me essays by Ingersoll over the last few months in order to keep his memory alive. Julian responds to Larsen as follows:

My Interview For An Article On "The Christian Post"

I was asked a few questions for an article by Diana Bridgett on the rise of atheist churches. You can read the result here. Below are the questions and my full answers. I just don't want to waste 'em.

There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith, Part 1

I have been thinking about Christianity for over forty years. I believed it. I preached it. I earned several master's degrees in it. I taught it. I learned to reject it. Then for over seven years on a daily basis I have sought to argue against it. I have written, co-written and/or edited five published books in five years containing the results of everything I have learned, which should lead thinking people to reject it. But I have to confess here and now, up front and center, that there isn't a bad reason to reject the Christian faith. I don't expect people to agree. It's a conclusion I have come to from everything I have learned. Again, there isn't a bad reason to reject the Christian faith. Since there might be one I'll leave it up to someone to suggest it. Otherwise, my claim stands.

So let me merely introduce what appears to be an overly simplistic claim and see what happens from here. As I said, I'm only introducing this line of thought. Christian people have said of me that, "Of the many atheist and theist blogs that I follow I would have to say that you are the best at consistently coming up with interesting topics and arguments even though I disagree with almost everything you say." Okay then, here goes. I want to defend the claim of the title to this post. Let's see if I can by taking an absurdly ignorant argument against Christianity and show why it's still a good reason for rejecting the Christian faith.

Lawrence Krauss on Science vs Religion

In a recent debate with a Muslim apologist, Lawrence Krauss lays out the differences between the scientific and religious mindset.

The full debate is excellent and can be found here.