Remembering My First Article on Debunking the Bible: Sept. 14, 1977

It has been over 35 years since I published my first article debunking the Bible. After leaving Bob Jones University in 1972 where we had to learn our King James Bible verses verbatim (Capitalizations and punctuations)for our Bible exam, plus giving up my license to preach by a small independent Baptist church (Stamp Creek Baptist Church in Salem, S.C. because I told the adult Sunday school class I taught that Jesus and the apostles did not use the 1611 King James Bible as the first century is not 1611 and Greek is not English . . . deacon’s meeting was called that night and I was asked to leave the church).

I Received My Book in the Mail Today

Here's proof below!

Preface for My Post on Extra Biblical Books Dating From 250 BCE to the 5th Century CE

My forth coming post (ready in several more weeks) will be the most extensive I’ve ever written at DC. I would venture to say that most Christians (who have their theology limited by the orthodox term canon along with a God / theology defined by the popular 66 Biblical books) have no idea of the intense "inspired" scribal activity of this period.

Does God Really Show That He Loves Us?

This is how God shows that he loves us. We're supposed to believe God expressed his love by sending his son to die for us based on 2nd, 3rd, 4th handed testimony found in manuscripts dated to the 4th century AD from a pre- scientific superstitious people in a remote part of the ancient world, who included forged texts in their holy book that reinforced their hindsight conclusions, who destroyed other texts that disagreed, and who subsequently killed off anyone who didn't accept those beliefs, despite the fact that this same God allows so much intensive ubiquitous gratuitous suffering in the world? Nope, not a chance. Not even close. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

What Best Debunks Christianity and Religion?

I have been arguing that Christianity is basically bunk for seven years of daily Blogging now. I've learned a great deal in doing so from both sides of this debate and all others in between. Since I know Christianity is a delusion what greatly interests me are the reasons why Christians eventually leave the fold. After all, my single-minded goal is to convince them of this. My claim is that Christians leave the fold for so many different reasons because there are so many different reasons to do so. In fact, I've gone so far as to argue there isn't even a bad personal reason to reject the Christian faith in four parts (seen in reverse chronological order). I've also asked former Christians to share what convinced them to leave the fold and received over 200 comments of reasons which can be seen right here. But there are two reasons former Christians hardly ever mention so I don't focus on them at all, even though I think they are both serious ones worth considering. I find them to be basically wasted effort on my part if I were to focus on them, given that they don't work that well. Here they are, correct me if you think I'm wrong:

Dan Barker Interviewed On "The Malcontent's Gambit"

Dan Barker, co-president of the of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) with Annie Laurie Gaylor, reveals a busy 2013 schedule. The FFRF is suing the IRS! He shares other news and views. It's a great half-hour interview! He comments on issues concerning nonbelievers and reveals the foundation’s growing pains. LINK.

Science Agrees: Religion Helps Criminals!

One of the oft-used justifications for religion is that it provides moral guidance and personal transformation. Now, a new study led by Volkan Topalli – professor of criminal justice at Georgia State University presents scientific proof that religion helps criminals… helps them justify their crimes, that is!

Almost all of the criminal offenders studied (involved in crimes such as car-jacking, drug-dealing, robbery, and burglary) self-identified as Christians, and professed belief in God.

My New Book On The Outsider Test for Faith is Shipping!

My publisher said it was in and they're shipping it out. It'll only be a week before Amazon gets it. Here is the flyer. Yes, I'm excited. Order it now and be the first on your block to look inside: The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True.

"Faith: Not Wanting to Know What is True"

Previously I had mentioned the new Counter Apologist Blog. It's a good one. I highly recommend another one by a former minister called Chasing Black Swans. His excellent definition of faith is the title to this post. What is the Black Swan Theory that it's based on? This:

Quote of the Day, By a Real Christian ;-)

I am a Christian but I am rejected by "the church" for believing the Bible. I don't blame you one bit. The "church" as it is known today is a sorry group of hypocritical, self-righteous, arrogant, hateful people with no power to prove the existence of God. It's sad but true, there are only a handful of people who are really doing the work Jesus left for them to do. Our job is to love people and bless them, not curse them and hate them because they don't believe what we do. I am disgusted at what the "church" has become. Almost every mainstream church in America is following a spirit of religion where they think they have to do something in order to have favor with God. That is simply a lie. Jesus paid the price for Salvation and healing 2000 years ago. It doesn't really matter. There are very few REAL Christians, and chances are you have never met one. I apologize for the fakes masquerading as God's people. I see why people say, "I don't have a problem with God, it's His followers I can't stand." LINK

Shit Christians Say to Atheists: Translated (Part 1)

You’ve heard them over and over - all those clichéd, annoying questions and silly statements that Christians throw in your face. Well, let’s have a little fun at the expense of fundamentalists and translate what they really mean. After all, as the Good Book says: “A merry heart doeth good like a medicine.”

"You’ll think differently when you stand before God at the final judgment!"

Translation:

"I really don't have any reasoned rebuttals to your arguments so I will comfort myself by imagining you burning in Hell for all eternity."

You See God In the Mirror!

There's a study proving this is true.

Twitter, No! But Facebook? Come Join Me.

I've decided to expand to Facebook. Not that I don't already have a presence there, 'cause I do. I'm just making my presence known. ;-) Come join me. You know my name. You know the drill.

Speaking of heaven...

... here follows an except from my book The Little Book Of Unholy Questions. Heaven is such a commonplace idea, even cornerstone, of Christian thinking. In the opening to this section, I talk about how the concept of heaven is stolen by late Jews just before the Christian period. This evolution of ideas undercuts the notion that it can be a cornerstone of Judeo-Christian ideology. If heaven and hell did not exist in the ideology of early Jews, and it is that crucial a set of principles, if it does not exist in the early tracts of the Bible, then something needs explaining! Anyway, here goes :

The Old Testament God Now has a Diagnosis: Narcissistic Personality Disorder

I just received my copy of Current Diagnosis & Treatment: Psychiatry, 2nd ed. to add to my library for general reading.

What Will Christians Do In Heaven For All Eternity?

Christians concoct many different scenarios about what they'll do in heaven for all eternity. None of them make good sense. Will they eternally play golf? Baseball? How about hockey, football, or even rugby? Boxing anyone? What about bear hunting? Hey, guys, how about having everlasting sex with a harem of 70 virgins? Oh, sorry, wrong religion. Regardless, what if YOU were part of a harem of 70 guys for some nymphomaniac in heaven who is just as ugly as YOU are? More seriously, what about being in a prostate position eternally worshiping God? This just seems boring to most Christians, that's all. I can hear some of the saints in heaven now:

Hey, God, can I get up and do something productive? Do you sincerely not want me to do anything now that I'm here? Doing productive activities is self-fulfilling and makes me happy. Let me do something, please, anything. Can I at least get up and stretch, or go catch up with the "few" family and friends of mine that made it here? If nothing else, your wonderfulness, can I go to the bathroom? ;-)

Robert Ingersoll On Miracles

Robert Ingersoll was interviewed in the Pittsburgh Dispatch, December 11, 1880, where he was asked about miracles in one part of it. This is must reading, the end of it is funny, really funny.

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.