Some of us from SIN Network will be dong a workshop on "Skeptical Blogging" Thursday morning at 8 AM. Here's the program link. Now for the video:
This is gonna be good!
This is gonna be good!
When, during a conversation in a swank hotel lobby in Manhattan, I mentioned to Richard Dawkins that I was working on a story about William Lane Craig, the muscles in his face clenched.
"Why are you publicizing him?" Dawkins demanded, twice. The best-selling "New Atheist" professor went on to assure me that I shouldn't bother, that he'd met Craig in Mexico—they opposed each other in a prime-time, three-on-three debate staged in a boxing ring—and found him "very unimpressive." "I mean, whose side are you on?" Dawkins said. "Are you religious?" LINK.
![]() |
| Typical Tube Tester |
I’d recommend starting any debate online, for example, by having both sides read the corresponding mini-debate in this book, and then continuing from there. And if you just want some ideas for how to debate these topics in general, or even to help you think about them in building your own philosophy of life, this book is well suited as a primer for the task. Even if you don’t think either side is making the very best possible defense of their position, it’s even a useful task to think through how you’d do it better, since both are representative of some of the best approaches. So even then it’s a good place to start. LINK.He joins other atheist reviewers like Robert Price in recommending this book. And, did I say you can get it free today, July 1st? That's right!.
![]() |
| (Click on to enlarge.) |
Samson said, “This time I cannot be blamed for everything I am going to do to you Philistines.” Then he went out and caught 300 foxes. He tied their tails together in pairs, and he fastened a torch to each pair of tails. Then he lit the torches and let the foxes run through the grain fields of the Philistines. He burned all their grain to the ground, including the sheaves and the uncut grain. He also destroyed their vineyards and olive groves.Arson and animal cruelty. That’s two out of three of the psychopath indicators. Definitely not PETA-approved,and we have the deliberate destruction of private property.
Judges 15:3-5 (NLT)
I have been trying to disprove the Bible for quite some time now.He (?) is a first time commenter, the kind we get who thinks he can straighten us out, saying,
All religions, except for Christianity, conflict with scientific fact, and history. If you can show me one plausible conflict contained within the Bible, and explain to me how its writers predicted the future far before it happened in specific detail...Then I will move it to the list of my false gods, but I promise you won't be able too.I threw out a few examples. Undeterred, he's the "answer man" and mindlessly spit out some answers. If he's truly interested in trying to disprove the Bible *cough* then I suggest he reads just two books, Why I Became an Atheist, and The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion is True. In fact, if any Christian claims to be doing this then I've suggested twelve books to read, one per month. You can start reading them any given month. I very much doubt he'll read any of them. So much then for disingenuously claiming what he did. It's empty rhetoric, an apologist's trick, claiming he's doing something he isn't doing in order to sound more believable. Typical Christian. It reminds me of so many Christians who are now claiming to have been atheists before becoming Christians, when in reality they weren't intellectual atheists but rather practical atheists. There is a big difference. For all I know, they are still practical atheists. ;-)
We know we are not in the Matrix because there's no Morpheus around asking us to take red pills, and traveling with us to a different realm of experience from where he can show us that our past life is an machine created illusion. After taking the red pill, your belief in the Matrix will become justified. Until there, it is not. Pretty simple. I don't know why people get so confused about it.
I'd say that anything that leads you to believe that you know which immeasurable beings are real and which ones are myth/false/superstition is irrational. It's a poor epistemology-- you can see this when it comes to people who believe in fairies or that they are the reincarnated spirit of Buddha or that demons are possessing you-- Heck, they may believe YOU are the anti-christ... but that doesn't mean that they are using the same process that you use to believe that you are NOT the anti-christ. The reason the Scientologist believes Scientology is not the same reasoning you use to believe that Scientology's teaching are bullshit. You are confusing belief in supernatural/far fetched thingies with the dismissal of these ideas-- all believers in magic like to classify skepticism of their claims as beliefs and pretend (as you do) that this means there's a 50-50 probability that their magical beliefs are the truth. (they confuse 2 options with the idea that both options are equally likely.)
In the beginning, people like you had a rock. The idea of "one" was invented to describe the number of things you had. Then later, you found another rock, and the idea of "two" was invented to describe the situation for when you had one rock and added another rock to your pile. It was realized that the same applies not just to rocks, and numbers were given abstract meaning of their own. Arbitrary symbols, though not arbitrary like "A+A=B" (really, you embarrass yourself) for these numbers were eventually assigned.
The rise and rise of Debunking Christianity as a forum for measured discussion continues. And just as a heading-lock gyro in a helicopter keeps it tracking true, no matter the direction the wind is blowing, so too does DC track straight and true. It is the place I start the morning, first thing, with a coffee, orientating my day. Increasingly DC is becoming a point of first referral at many sites across the blogosphere, its status and standing as a platform for reasoned discussion continues to consolidate, forensically clipping the remaining bedraggled and time-worn strands to a by-gone worldview, challenging head-on the recalcitrant nature of supernatural superstition.
I assume, from reading your book the OTF, that you believe that E=mc2. (Perhaps you would say that you do not "believe" that E=mc2; rather, you "know" that E=mc2. Either way; I won't quibble. At least not for now.) The initial question that I have for you is: How do you believe (or, if you insist, know) that E=mc2? Not why, but how? What is the process by which you John Loftus have arrived at the belief (knowledge) that E=mc2?*Sheesh* Right now I have other things to do than waste it on this drivel. Maybe others can help me out here. [FYI: I did a master's degree research paper on the theory of general relativity.] Here we see another science denier for Jesus.