Thanks for the Encouragement, I Think. ;-)

Two weeks ago I was frustrated and wrote a post threatening to quit Blogging. As a lightning rod I get attacked from both sides of the fence. Six hours later after sleeping on it I deleted that post. During the night several people commented and made me realize I needed to focus on the people who appreciate what I do. Some people suggested I take a break and do something different. Maybe I will, and maybe I won't, we'll see. But below are some of the positive comments I received from the people I'll focus on from now on, who motivate me. I just want to say thanks, I think. ;-)

I can handle the ignorant Christians who attack me. That's what ignorant Christians constantly do because they cannot effectively deal with my arguments. Intelligent Christians are a different story. Some of them are using my book in their college classes on apologetics and atheism and even openly expressing the hope that my work will be recognized over the other new atheists, since I am a worthy opponent and since I treat their faith respectfully. I am the only skeptic permitted to post something at Answering Infidels and the first atheist to be asked to present a paper at a regional meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. My work is also being recognized in other prestigious places as well.

But what bothers me the most are the ignorant skeptics who also attack me. I’ve said before that skeptics do not have a corner on rationality, and I still think that’s true. Some skeptics attack me because some Christians attack me! Think of the idiocy of this!? These skeptics conclude I must be as bad as these Christians say I am. But then these skeptics have not read my book or much that I write here on this blog either. And they have no clue what it’s like to be a lightning rod where Christians feel the right, no, the religious duty, to personally attack me (and these attacks are getting more and more desperate). I am personally attacked because I am honest about my personal ugly past. Of course I get upset when they do so and sometimes I fire back. Most self-respecting people would. I don't take lightly to personal attacks from ignorant Christian people who think they can dismiss my arguments by doing so. Other times I have more restraint by not responding at all. So to these ignorant skeptics I say: Get off you're high moral horse and become informed.

I’m personally attacked because I promote my book quite a bit. But if the astounding recommendations of it are even half on the mark it’s something to promote, especially when the only atheist writers that most of these ignorant skeptics know about are the so-called famous new atheist writers, like Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. I’ve explained why I promote it right here.

Some skeptics attack me because I don't allow anonymous comments and/or that I delete some ignorant comments and/or abusive ones. If I allowed anonymous comments then this place would degenerate to an ignorant name-calling free for all, at least, that's what happens every time I try it. We have a comment policy. Read it and abide by it. No respectful intelligent comment will be deleted. I want a reasonable, respectful discussion/debate, or none at all!!!

I’m attacked because some skeptics claim I’m arrogant. That seems to be a bit of sour grapes to me. And arrogance is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Even if so, and I deny this, who gives a shit? Nietzsche was certainly arrogant, and yet he helped change the western world. Deal with my arguments. If they’re good ones that’s all skeptics should be concerned about.

It’s also claimed that I either have a Messiah or a martyr complex. But there's no messiah or martyr complex here with me at all. Just passion; lots of it.

So to these ignorant skeptics I say that if you don't have the same passion nor the same goals, then please don't discourage those of us who do.

-------------

Here then are the positive responses to my post threatening to quit Blogging.

For what its worth, there really isn't anyone else out there that uses your approach. I think you're good for both sides, and hope you keep it up. Cheers.

david

Hey, did the U.S. quit when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor?

Hell no!

Don't you, either.

There are a lot of us that like what you're doing--we appreciate your style.
Regards,
Jim

This has quickly become one of my favorite sites. We atheists need to be armed with the best information possible when battling the nonsense of christianity. You offer a unique insider viewpoint not available anywhere else. I fully appreciate that you do this voluntarily and I'm very thankful that you do.

I personally don't tend to read the comment sections of most blogs because they are so often trolled by the wretches of society.

MikeB

I'm sure you get a thousand E-mails like this a day, but I thought I'd drop you a line anyway. I'm an avid reader of your blog and I've read your book at least twice over. I can't imagine myself in your shoes where everyone is a critic and every Joe Internet has his own unwarranted opinion on how you could do things better and I can't even begin to empathize with that. So I thought I'd add a short list of things I think you do well:

- Clear lucid writing that a layman like I can understand.

- Outsider Test of Faith

- Guest Posts from Christian Scholars

- Your sense of fairness.

I hope your spirits get lifted soon John! Take care.

Pat.

If you weren't receiving that kind of (frustrating) feedback you would only know that nobody is listening.

I really enjoy reading every post on this blog, but until now I have sat silent behind the veneer of Google Reader.

Remember, for every dicey comment you receive from some halfwit troll you have a handful (or more) of grateful readers who sincerely appreciate not only what you say, but how you say it.

I hope that my words offer some small consolation.

aNDo

What ever you decide is the best for you to do John is what you should do.

Let me just say though this Kiwi far away on the other side of the world is honestly thankful for all you do!, and specially having made this blog available with the knowledge that`s contained within.

However lifes very busy and provides plenty enough stress so most of us would totally understand if you felt this extra stress of this blog was something you didnt need.

That being said im sure i can say that many would miss it. Thats what happens when good things stop.

I agree very much with david !,"For what its worth, there really isn't anyone else out there that uses your approach. I think you're good for both sides, and hope you keep it up. Cheers.."

Gandolf

If you do stop, let this be my chance to thank you. I've only commented a few times, not feeling quite up to the intellectual bar that's usually presented here, but I've enjoyed reading your blog, especially how you include some of the refutations and comments on popular Christian apologetics.

Whatever you decide, thanks. I'm not about to write a personal story, but let it be known that you have helped me.

Best wishes.

Acheron

As a frequenter of this blog I think you do nothing short of a public service, John. I wish all atheists had such commitment.

openlyatheist

If defending and promoting atheism is not what you want to do, that's fine. If you're "losing it" because of critical blog comments, maybe this isn't what you should be doing.

Or maybe it is.

You're a smart man, educated in Christian apologetics, converted by the evidence (and personal experience, of course), honest enough to tell your story, and hard-working enough to devote a lot of energy to your case even though there's no money in it. You're a rare gem, John, and I think you have a lot to offer.

I take criticism from both sides, but I've only been at this for a few months. I can imagine after a while it would get overwhelming. I tend to abstract it all and see arguments doing battle - to which I am only a spectator. Maybe that helps. But it's hard to do that when someone makes specific attacks on you.

John, I hope you keep up the good work!

Luke

You're a bastion of reason in a world dominated by fairy tales. don't give up, your message needs to continue to reach and influence others in a way only you can manage.

i'm not sure you realize how valuable, relevant, and appreciated your work has become to many.

for what it's worth, keep it up.

Brenden

I've got to say that I really enjoy this blog and I like the approach you take in the matter. This is an informative blog because of the approach you take, there's no need for you to be another Dan Barker or Richard Dawkins - it's odd that anyone should want you to be that. The more voices the better, especially when there's more opinion and more choice.

Kel

Skeptics are attacking you? I don't know why, but they should be more supportive. I enjoy this blog.

Oliver

Hey John, hang in there, you are doing good work. Remember: no good deed goes unpunished.

:)

aprice2704

Just wanted to take a minute to say :

Do. Not. Quit.

Please?

Thanks,

a former fundamentalist evangelical (due in no small part to your book).

Daniel

I just want to say thank you for your website, your books, and your interviews. Rather by design or accident, you’re on the front lines of a difficult and near impossible battle. In my profession, I know what it’s like to have my words in print or presentations made to the public, where every word is analyzed to levels you never thought possible. And I know the feeling of wanting to tell others to stand up, make their own comments and put their position on the public line to face the scrutiny, if not the projectiles. But for every one who throws a stone, there are many, many more who are humbled and deeply appreciative for your work and respectful of your journey.

As my journey takes me to a place I never imagined I would find myself, your work is making my trip possible, more intellectually honest, and with the sense that I can take the small steps because of your giant ones. I sincerely thank you.

Lance

Please don't give in just because some morons can't understand what you're trying to do here. Your well written and insightful articles are well repected by all my friends and we would be devastated if you were to stop blogging. Keep up the good work man, your contributions to the debate are priceless.

Mike

For people who think what I do is helpful I'd really appreciate some financial help in these very hard economical times. To do so click here to learn more, and thanks in advance for anything you can do.

Did God Cause This To Happen?

I am an atheist and I had no intentions of celebrating Easter Sunday. However, since I had some work around the home place to do such as trenching in a water line, I rented a trenching machine from the local equipment rental on Saturday and decide to use Easter morning to plow the water pipe in.

As it happened, I started the water line run next to my chain link gate when the digger caught a tree root throwing the digger into the fence tearing down the gate.

While I was removing the digger from the fence, a neighbor stopped by on his way home form church and told me that God does not approve of working on the Lord’s Day (especially Easter) and God jammed the digger into the fence to stop me.

I let him express his view, but told him I didn’t agree with him or Christianity and after a few short exchanges, he left. I would have told him a lot more, but, hey, he’s my neighbor. (I was only stopped long enough to remove the fence from the digger and then finished the running the water line.)

So what do you think?

It is my honest conviction that Christianity functions by correctly defining random events to re-enforce a positive supernatural functioning view of God. (I’m convinced my neighbor saw an opportunity to re-enforce his view of God when he came upon me this Easter Sunday.)

Thus, if an event is interpreted correctly, it builds up or re-enforces a believers view that God is in control and does indeed functions in the world. However, if a wrong interpretation is applied to an event, it hurts the faith of the believer. To many of these bad or poor interpretations can be detrimental to one’s Christian faith(Thus the main function of the Sunday morning sermon).

I find most Christian believers have a spiritual tool box full of just the right interpretations to keep God on his throne and in a positive spotlight. Some of which are:

A. God knows the total picture.
B. God lets things happen to teach people a lesson.
C. God is in control, but wants us to use our Free Will.
D. Or, if all else fails: Satan causes things to hurt people in his war against God.

Death and Life on Easter

It’s Easter; I have memories of getting up early year after year as a child to go to Easter Sunrise Service. We gathered somewhere outdoors, simulating the women and disciples who went to Jesus’ tomb in the early morning on the day of his resurrection. We sang certain hymns that were only for Easter – “Christ the Lord is ris’n today, Ha-a-a-a-He -lelujah,” “He lives! He lives! Christ Jesus lives today. He walks with me and talks with me, along life’s narrow way!” I liked it – the brisk early morning, the feeling of life and hope, the joy of the music. Unlike a lot of other church experiences, it was a day of celebration. And what a profound message – death has been conquered! Just put your faith in Christ.

And now? It’s been many years and I’m no longer a Christian. I do not believe I will continue after I die. In my work as a psychologist, I work with people coming out of religion. There are many issues to deal with, and top or the list for many is this question of death and hellfire. The indoctrination is deep and insidious, a form of child abuse in my opinion. Even without hell, the idea of nonexistence (if that is the direction of change in belief), is sometimes a bitter pill to swallow. Fundamentalist Christianity downgrades a human lifetime compared to eternity and denigrates the whole world as fallen. How many times were we told to focus on where we will be in the hereafter? The result is fear, because no one is certain, and also neglect of the life that we have now.

For those of you who are anxious today and struggle with the idea of death, I can tell you that it is possible to stop fearing damnation. I certainly have and many other former believers have too. It is a phobia indoctrination that serves the religion. If you think you should believe “just in case,” think about what you would be missing. Essentially, your life. The greatest challenge for a human is to know about death, and live fully in the face of it. Other animals can more easily “be here now,” and we can learn from them. However, we have more awareness and it is our existential dilemma to make peace with death.

In a way, we do continue on. Our molecules get rearranged and become other things; nothing is lost, not one atom. All matter and energy in the universe is conserved, according to physics. I find it beautiful to walk in a forest and see a fallen tree where it is decomposing, nourishing the earth, and causing new life to spring up. And if you worry about your soul, ask yourself, “Where were “you” before you were born?” Is that so frightening?

No, we are better off paying attention to the present. This life is limited but so are a lot of things. The Christian attitude of denigrating life because it is short makes no sense. Is a wonderful meal any less wonderful because it ends? When you are listening to incredible music, are you upset because you know the piece will finish? Hopefully not, and we can extend that lesson to life itself. People who have a brush with death often learn to appreciate life in a special way. Our time on this earth is precious. Perhaps when we cherish our days, honor what is possible, love our fellow humans as best we can, and look at the world with awe and wonder, we can achieve a spirituality of a different kind. Of our own free will, we can commit acts of random kindness and dance for no reason at all. Death be damned.

For the recovering fundamentalist, reclaiming intuition and learning to trust one’s inner wisdom is an exciting process. We are not empty, weak, incapable, or bad. We are all interconnected and a part of our amazing universe. Even Einstein said thinking we are individuals is an illusion.
One day, when I was a little discouraged, I wrote to myself from the wise part of me (yes, we are all multiples), and then wondered about that voice. This is what emerged, and it applies to all of us, so I hope you find a bit of inspiration too. I asked where the encouragement was coming from:

“This is from the force that makes the new shoot grow between concrete slabs. This is from the symmetry of fractals. This is from the incomprehensible distance of space, this is from the sound waves that blend and beat and tell you to dance, this is from the little child that looks at you clearly with no fear and says hi, this is from the unadulterated force of the sea under you and all around you when you swim in the ocean, the sea that takes no prisoners when the tide comes in, the sea that spawned life, and the same sea that sends a wave spreading up the sand to your bare feet, with rhythmic purring caress, bringing you the gems that make you smile - the perfect tiny shell, the fragment of blue glass that you tuck in your pocket.

“This is from the cosmic red afterglow of the big bang. This is from all eleven dimensions, from all the things you don't understand and like that you don't understand. This is from the parallel universes that come with the eleven dimensions, penetrating the membrane. This is from the aquifer beneath all of you, the source feeding flashes of human greatness. This is from the massive network of fungus, hidden from view under seemingly separate plants. This is from the power behind the form, the elusive explanation, the delectable mystery. I only have one thing to say to you right now - and that is REMEMBER ME. You are not alone. You always have a reason to go on. and there is no choice; you will go on anyway. Ineffable and inexorable, both. The tide is coming in again today; the ocean has not been deciding.”

Happy Spring.

Marlene Winell

marlenewinell.net
mwinell@gmail.com
Recovery retreats May 1-3, June 5-7

Easter Sunrise Blasphemy

It's Easter today and that means countless Christians will be at their respective houses of worship praising and thanking the god that made them for sending Jesus Christ to die on the cross for their sins and for his being raised from the grave. You may or may not be planning to attend one of these pagan put-ons known as Easter sunrise services, or like me, you may actually despise them. Either way, I want you to hear why I feel the way I do.

I hate Easter. About the only thing I love around this time of year are those discounted chocolates in pretty-colored packages that are on sale in the stores. But that's it. I hate everything else about it. The cool weather leaves and the warmer weather comes. What's to like?

I hate that it's a holi-(read “holy”)-day. To me as an atheist, this is a red flag reminder that society is still not above having holy days—days with vile histories that have been exalted by blood god worshippers through the centuries who possess the arrogance to think that the world would end without their putrid, bloody offerings. It’s sick, I tell you!

Add to that, Easter time means that the religious nuts can't help but wear their nuttiness on their sleeves with their nauseating talk of alters and blood and redemption and how worthless and worthy of burning we humans are. It's creepy stuff!

Actually, I agree with Christians that the human race is worthy of burning, but for different reasons. The human race may be a pitiable race that should be reduced – along with our planet – to a burned-out cinder, but that’s because we are brutal and cruel and egotistical enough animals to not know when to shut up about how awesome we are as a race and how great our planet is, not because our original parents offended one of the blood gods.

Easter means I have to see those big, “in your face” banners that spread across intersections and streets that advertise these sacred bunny events, and that means more people are out and about shopping. But the restaurants I love will be closed! That frustrates the hell out of me (or hell into me, depending on how you look at it.) Sometimes, I swear up and down that this is how Jeebus is getting back at me for defecting!

And am I the only one who finds it odd that Jesus Christ's religion condemns most sex and all pornography and yet embraces symbolism with a holiday that identifies with worship of an ancient fertility goddess? Worshippers of Diana used to get together at the temple and get naked and fornicate in the name of God like...rabbits!

That settles it. God is a hypocrite, probably with his own stash of porn. Or maybe he just watched humans have sex in olden times, but has since been trying to beat his addiction with the help of Christ. Could be.

Then there are the radio broadcasts and telecasts of emotional preachers who have to remind everyone with emphatic, high-pitched voices that a dead guy came to life on a certain day and how that event long ago will someday help us. But it hasn't helped us yet. None of our friends and loved ones and family who died in war or of cancer or Legionary’s Disease have come out of the ground yet. They're still there, but that shouldn't surprise us. Religions are big on making big claims, including impossibly big claims like the dead being raised to life.

The Bible has made this claim before. Just look. Matthew 27:52, “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose.” Did this really happen? If it did, wouldn't we have evidence for it? I rest my case. Religion is bogus. Christianity is bogus.

But what's the real import of this holiday? Like Christmas, it's not really spiritual. It never was. Spiritual is a man or a woman who tells the truth even though doing otherwise would not result in being caught. No religion can claim a monopoly on virtues. Holidays are about feeling satisfied, about gluttony, about materialism. They are also about piety—Saturnalia style. It gets back to man being happy. It's hedonism, but with a mask on. What a shame!

All this oohing and ahhing to a ghost, all these churches filled with believers, all these prayers and colored baskets of eggs and pretty banners and billboards that say “He is risen” won't move God to rid the world of a single evil. It won't stop lunatics from shooting up malls or post offices. It won't stop one child from dying of starvation or dear sweet Aunt Olga from dying of breast cancer. And all the church-sponsored Easter egg hunts in the world won't cause God to bless one infertile churchgoing couple who can't have children of their own, and it won’t stop unfit parents from doing the naughty and having more kids they can’t take care of.

I'm going to be sleeping in this Easter like I have for the last seven. Together with my cozy bed and the internet, I'll make it. These big bags of chocolates will help!

(JH)

As You Celebrate The Horror of Easter

-=A Human Sacrifice=-

and flaunt your little dead men on a stick, check your facts, most things that Easter depends on don't cross-check. [edited 4/15/2009. added links]

- Biblical scripture is no more accurate than other writings that cover the same period of time. Not what you'd expect from the revealed word of God.

- The story of passover, Jesus, and a dying and rising god all are of a type of theme of folklore that pervaded the Near East during that period of time.

- Moses, existence hasn't been verified yet. He may never have existed, and may be a version of Sargon of Akkad. If he didn't exist, then all the things that depend on him in the Bible need to have their accuracy and reliability re-assessed.

- The exodus hasn't been verified yet, but it is clear that if it did happen, it didn't happen as it is described in the Bible.

- The author of Genesis or authors of Genesis cannot be identified, therefore neither can their credentials or if they were in a position to know. Therefore the information is of low quality.

- Adam obviously never existed, and if he did the scripture is so inaccurate so as to make the story more dubious than not. There was never a time when he and Eve would have been alone, and his first son went out and founded a town or a city. Towns and Cities started popping up after 10,000 BC.

- Jesus never clearly stated he was God. The phrase used to support the claim of Jesus as God are of the type that are used by Jews to express their belief that God lives in all of us and we influence the world through him by our actions that he approves of.

- The Jews never said he was the Messiah, he never qualified. The Messiah was supposed to be a politician and engineer. Jesus wasn't even close to being an engineer, if he was he could have showed them how to make the world a better place by speeding up the invention of quite a few things, likewise if he were God.

- The principle that all of us have done things so egregious to warrant the death penalty is itself egregious. Name one thing that you have done that you should be put to death for.

- The principle that someone else can suffer the death penalty for us to resolve the problem is similarly egregious. Should anyone be punished not to mention given the death penalty for things that you do? Is the death penalty Just?

- The principle that a Sacrifice can appease a God has been shown to be flawed because all the other Gods that required a sacrifice have been shown to be folklore. What makes Yahweh any different?

- The principle that a Human Sacrifice can appease a God has been shown to be flawed because all the other Gods that required a Human Sacrifice have been shown to be folklore. Are you okay with the Human Sacrifice to absolve you of Sin?

- The principle that a perfect God WANTS a sacrifice is highly doubtful. You can't say he's perfect if he's not in a perfect state, and if wants something then he's missing something.

- If we are flawed, God is responsible because he made us this way.

- It is possible to be compelled to unacceptable behavior by biological factors, and unacceptable behavior, is in the eye of the beholder, even if we all agree that killing children is bad. God ordered children to be ripped from their mothers wombs and William Lane Craig defended it in one of his forums if you can believe that.

- The authors of the Gospels cannot be identified, therefore neither can their credentials or if they were in a position to know. Therefore the information is of low quality.

- The Gospels themselves don't agree, making them unreliable by definition of criteria that determines if information is unreliable.

- The Gospels depend on one of the most unreliable forms of evidence, Eye Witness Testimony.

- Theology behind Easter depends on Paul. He set it up. But he wasn't in a position to know, because he wasn't there at the beginning. The story of his conversion is unreliable because there are two slightly different versions of it and if you go to bible gateway.com and look up both of them, using multiple Bible versions and analyze them, you can have even more versions depending on which translation they used. I know because I've done it to prepare for a forthcoming article.

- Paul, like Jesus referenced a non-existent Adam, therefore the source of the information in both cases was not divine, but from scripture, which is of demonstrably low quality because the authors, the authors credentials and the authors position to know are all unverifiable.

- Its simple, since there was no Adam, and Jesus didn't qualify to be the Messiah, and Jesus was not God because he referenced Adam which demonstrates that he had no supernatural knowledge, then he was just one of the people that got caught for rabble rousing around the passover and put on the cross for six hours. The Koran says he didn't die, and the fact that there is no body, and the fact that many people survived crucifixion, especially for such a short period of time supports that theory

Now please get rid of all those disgusting dead men on a stick that are displayed everywhere and hanging around your necks.

FURTHER READING
A LIST OF PREMISES AS ARTICLES REFUTING GENESIS 1-11 AND ROMANS 5 SO FAR
P1. The Interconnectedness of The Ancients - Demonstrates the robust ancient civilizations at the time and that Canaan, Israel and Judah were central to them. Discusses trade routes, seafaring, the link between whales and the Leviathans of Mythology and how long it would take to get from one civilization to another by sea.

P2. Genesis 1:1-25 Is An Amalgam of Near Eastern Creation Myths. Demonstrates the prior existence of key elements of the story of the creation of the Universe that appears in Genesis.

P3.Genesis 1:26-1:27, Creation of Humans in Near Eastern Myths And The Paleolithic Era. Demonstrates that the physical evidence contradicts the story of the making of the first humans in Genesis.

P4.GENESIS 1:28-2:4a, Be Fruitful And Multiply, Founder Effect and Genetic Diversity. This Article shows that even if the physical evidence didn't refute the special creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve, in Genesis 1:27, the problem of Genetic Diversity known as the "Founder Effect" would eventually lead to crippling genetic mutations or extinction.

P5.Genesis 2:4b-20 Man Made From Earth Is Folklore, Conflated River Elements and the Myth of Adapa. This Article shows that the concept of man made from earth spans cultures and geographical boundaries, the rivers are confused between geographical areas and has many elements from pre-existing Near Eastern Myths such as "The Myth of Adapa.

P6. Genesis 2:21-25: Woman From Rib and Mother Goddesses of Near Eastern Myths. This Article shows that in the second creation story in genesis the concept of woman made from bone, earth and antler pre-existed the writing of Genesis, spanned cultures and geographical boundaries and that Eve shares aspects of Goddesses in Ancient Near Eastern Mythology.

Valerie Tarico on Ancient Sumerian Origins of the Easter Story

What do you think?

Faith in the Illogical: The Evolution of a Relative God and Its Theology

The major problem with Christian theology is that it is so confusing and contradictory from what we learn and experience in everyday reality of life, that one is forced to either simply give up or rely on faith in order to follow it.


Just an objective casual reading of the English Bible reveals an evolving god based in a limited cultic setting of Canaan who is bound in a contract called a “covenant” to a small group of people know as the Hebrews. This a covenantal contract that binds all these local Hebrew is a standard ancient Near Eastern type of covenant that binds all gods of the neighboring areas to their chosen Semitic people also.

But one thing is clear; as Yahweh grows, so must the theology that defines him. This is easily seen in the J and E accounts of Genesis as later edited by P in order to keep God relevant and up to date.

Plus, this ancient god has a number of different names in Hebrew, but the ancient use of Yahweh (J) and God (E) are his major titles especially in the limited god of Genesis 3 who walks, talks and has limited knowledge (God has to ask Adam and Eve what happened (Gen. 3) and latter, Cain where Able is? (Gen. 4).

What we have is the old classic question: Which came first: The Chicken or the Egg? Or, as applied here: Which came first: God or Theology? For the objective mind, logic shows that as theology advances or changed, the concept of God also advances and changes. What theology shows is that humans learn by their past religious mistakes and put out new editions of God.

Even if one does not follow the editing of the Hebrew text into J,E,P,D and their subtexts, one is soon faced with the fact that the god of the Patriarchs is not the same God found in Second Isaiah (40 - 66), nor the God to the nations as preached by the Later Prophets. When theology moves on; so must Yahweh.

It is when we get to the New Testament with its Greek language pregnant with Greek philosophical terms and concepts that the old god Yahweh has now completely faded into an ancient past and a new revised theology emerges from the Hebrew Bible as translated into the Septuagint (LXX) which is itself quoted in the so called New Covenant / Testament. Now the limited Yahweh ceases to exists and what is left metamorphose into the Classical Greek term Theos or what know as “God” universal.

To shorten this post and stimulate discussion, I would like to engage the human mind in some basic fundamentals of logic with the underlying question focused on how Christians live their daily lives on one level of logic, which could cost them their lives if not followed closely, only to accept the illogics of evolved theology which one must force one’s brain accept illogically by faith grown denial just to worship this concept call “God“.

So here are some questions about this God at Passover (Easter) drawn from my everyday logic: (Take a shot at one or more)

A. If Jesus knowingly went up to Jerusalem at Passover to die, did Jesus commit suicide? If not, why not? Can a human suicide be an acceptable sacrifice?

B. If Jesus and God are ONE (Incarnation), did God commit suicide with Jesus or did the doctrine of the Incarnation cease at the time of the crucifixion as believed by some ancient Christian heresies? (In other words, did God “jump ship” and, if so, when?)

C. If it grieved God to have to give up his only begotten son, Jesus; how did God get himself into this “Catch 22” situation? If he can’t get out of his own theological sin trap, is the old local Hebrew god Yahweh (who is now become the universal God in the New Testament (and especially in Paul)) subordinate to another even higher GOD to whom this God must take his marching orders from?

D. Can Christian theology finally become so contradictory and illogical that it will be rejected (as atheists do now) or will it require more and more faith just to counter the increasing illogics of its theology as our own tangible world becomes more logical? Will the only answer to the illogics of Christian Theology be the rapidly increasing growth of Christian sects and cults (over 20,000 now) where all are trying to make logical sense out of the all this illogical theology (where most are claiming to have been given the real truth as a way to proselytizes converts)?

E. In short, will the evolution of God and theology ever stop?

I Challenge YOU!

Since I personally like to be challenged, I in turn issue challenges to people who visit DC. Here are several links to the biggest challenges I've issued so far:

My main book reading challenge is called the Debunking Christianity Challenge.

But I have also issued a different kind of book reading challenge to all conservative Christians.

If you want to debate me then I challenge you to do this!

Not to be left out, here is a strategy type of challenge to all skeptics.

Some people are stepping up to some of these challenges. Depending on who you are and what you believe, I challenge YOU! Are you up to it?

The Golden Rule: a Parallel Analogy to The Outsider Test for Faith

Dr. James McGrath wrote something that I think expresses my Outsider Test for Faith. It's the Golden Rule, and he claims this is a Christian way to do historical studies, See for yourself...

One doesn't have to be committed in advance to history's inability to deal with miracles in order to begin to realize that one cannot claim that Christianity is grounded purely in history while other traditions are at best shrouded in myth. One simply has to apply the most basic Christian principle to one's investigation of the competing claims. That's what happened in my case. I didn't know that much about historical methodology yet as an undergraduate interested in defending and spreading his faith.

But I did know about fairness, about treating others as you would want them to treat you. The Golden Rule.

And so what does it mean to do history from a Christian perspective? It doesn't mean to allow for miracles in the Biblical stories while assuming that, when the cookies are missing and your child says he or she doesn't know what happened to them, that you're dealing with a lie and theft rather than a miracle. It doesn't mean defending Christian claims to miracles and debunking those of others, nor accepting Biblical claims uncritically in a way you never would if similar claims were made in our time.

It means doing to the claims of others what you would want done to your claims. And perhaps also the reverse: doing to your own claims, views and presuppositions that which you have been willing to do to the claims, views and presuppositions of others.

Once one begins to attempt to examine the evidence not in an unbiased way, but simply fairly, one cannot but acknowledge that there are elements of the Christian tradition which, if they were in your opponent's tradition, you would reject, debunk, discount, and otherwise find unpersuasive or at least not decisive or compelling.

Here's the link.

To read more from McGrath about the historian's methods see this link.

What Do the London Times, The Society of Biblical Literature, and Prometheus Books Have in Common? Lil Ole Me.

Here are some exciting developments for this no-name first time author...

The London Times Religion editor is going to review my book soon. He wrote:

"The role of science in bringing – or not bringing – us to the threshold of religious belief is discussed in The Future of Atheism (SPCK) and other new books such as John Loftus’s Why I Became an Atheist (Prometheus Books) and David Ramsay Steele’s Atheism Explained (Open Court). Watch out, too, for a different kind of work – I Don’t Believe in Atheists (Continuum) by Chris Hedges, a journalist on the New York Times. Though himself an unbeliever, Hedges has harsh things to say about some of religion’s contemporary despisers. He warns that the science-religion debate is far from resolved, and that fundamentalism does not infect one side of the argument alone. The TLS will carry reviews of all these books in the near future."

Here's the Link.

-----------------

Along with Dr. Hector Avalos I've been invited to the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans to be on a panel discussing Bill Maher's Religulous movie.

----------------

Prometheus Books just gave me the initial approval for a book of chapters I proposed to edit by people such as Drs. Hector Avalos, David Eller, John Beversluis, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Robert M. Price, along with Harry McCall, Dan Barker, Edward T. Babinski, Matthew Green, yours truly, and some others. More on this later but not now.

Newsweek Front Page Story: The Decline and Fall of a Christian Nation

Below are some quotes from the lead article:

...the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent.

While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world."

Still, in the new NEWSWEEK Poll, fewer people now think of the United States as a "Christian nation" than did so when George W. Bush was president (62 percent in 2009 versus 69 percent in 2008). Two thirds of the public (68 percent) now say religion is "losing influence" in American society, while just 19 percent say religion's influence is on the rise. The proportion of Americans who think religion "can answer all or most of today's problems" is now at a historic low of 48 percent. During the Bush 43 and Clinton years, that figure never dropped below 58 percent.

Here's the Link

Prof. James McGrath on Historical Studies and Methodological Naturalism

He said:

On methodological naturalism, I don't see how historical study can adopt any other approach, any more than criminology can. It will always be theoretically possible that a crime victim died simply because God wanted him dead, but the appropriate response of detectives is to leave the case open. In the same way, it will always be possible that a virgin conceived, but it will never be more likely than that the stories claiming this developed, like comparable stories about other ancient figures, as a way of highlighting the individual's significance. And since historical study deals with probabilities and evidence, to claim that a miracle is "historically likely" misunderstands the method in question.

Link.

Good, now let's turn to the Bible...

A New Phrase for Your Funk and Wagnalls: "pulling a Loftus."

For future reference, Victor Reppert can first be credited with using this line. ;-)

A Critique of Mark Linville's, "The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism"

Mark's chapter on this is to appear in the upcoming Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, eds, William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Common Sense Atheism charges that Linville commits the Genetic Fallacy. It's an interesting argument, one that cuts both ways and one that needs to be addressed, something Keith Parsons has weighed in on here, and also here. What do you think?

Chris Hallquists New Book: UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God: Debunking the Resurrection of Jesus.

This book is unique in that it compares the claim that Jesus arose from the dead with other paranormal claims. Since modern claims to the paranormal have better attested evidence to them than Jesus rising from the dead, if we reject the former we should also reject the latter. This is a very informative book. He has done his research. I heartily recommend it. You can get it here.

Dr. William Lane Craig: "I Will Not Debate John W. Loftus"

That's right. That's what he said...in so many words.

I learned from DC member Darrin at the Carrier/Craig debate that Craig said he would not debate his former students. That's what he said.

I am now classed with a group of people, i.e., the people comprised of his former students. And Dr. Craig says he will not debate anyone in that class of people. Okay, I guess. But given the fact that I'm probably the only member of this class of people who wants to debate him he might as well have said: "I will not debate John W. Loftus."

I've heard him say this before about former students, so it’s not really like he’s singling me out, or is it?

While I was a student of his he said something I thought was odd at the time. This was back in 1985 at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine." Keep in mind that Dr. Craig was on a High School debate team and has been debating these topics for probably just as long as I've been thinking about them. And he had only been teaching a few years before this to actually know of any student who might want to debate him. But that’s what he said. Again, he said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine."

He cannot deny saying this, and I don't think he will.

Does he really fear me? I don’t know. But just maybe he does after all. He could change his mind though. I think a lot of people would be interested in this match-up.

In any case, the stated reason why he won't debate former students is that he "fears" doing so. Yep. That's what he told me when the cameras were off before the thought crossed his mind that I would want to debate him and would use his words against him. Again, he fears debating former students. That's his only word as to why he won't do it. One more time. He fears debating me.

If that word gets out he may have to man up, as it were, and show his followers that he isn't afraid.

Q.E.D

Christopher Hitchens in the "Den of Lambs"

I love Christopher Hitchen's tenacity and passion along with his literary examples. See him mix it up with Christians at the recent Christian book expo...




At about 33 minutes it gets interesting. Go get'em Hitch! I found the standard answers by the Christian panelists to be pathetic, really pathetic.

To read more about the Elisabeth Fritzl case that Hitchens mentioned, follow the link.

Another Review of My Book: "Comprehensiveness" Sets it Apart From Other Atheist Works

Link

John W. Loftus’ Why I Became an Atheist: a Former Preacher Rejects Christianity doesn't really blaze new ground, but it does cover a lot of it.

In fact, this comprehensiveness is a key distinctive that separates it from the work of the "New Atheist" trio, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris.

Uniquely, Loftus provides a taste of all these critiques in his over 400-page, densely-packed tome. In other words, if one were look for a recent survey text for atheistic argumentation, this book would more than suffice.

To read other reviews click here.

William Lane Craig "Won by a Landslide" Against Hitchens

That's what Roger Sharp said on Facebook after watching the debate in person. [Full disclosure, Sharp is a Christian]. This is exactly what I had predicted. Christian professor Doug Geivett weighed in on the debate where he said: Craig "was thoroughly prepared for every aspect of the debate and never faltered in his response to objections by Hitchens," and that Hitchens's arguments "were largely unfocused, sometimes disconnected, and often irrelevant." Over at Common Sense Atheism (which is a great source for Craig debates) is an atheist review of the debate where we read: "Frankly Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child." For more info visit here.

I would really like to try my hand at debating the master debater. Anyone else like to see that? If the debate was on Christianity vs. Atheism, what would you think my chances are? See the new poll on the sidebar. You can choose more than one answer.

Darrin Rasberry Interview: A "Searching Agnostic"

[Written by John W. Loftus] DC Blogger Darrin wrote the foreword to Ray Comfort’s latest book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can’t Make Him Think. It's an interesting interview. Enjoy.

Another Pastor Leaves the Fold

Former Evangelical Pastor, Bruce Gerencser, announced he no longer affirms Christianity, seen here. It appears that Christianity not only fails the outsider test for faith, it also fails the insider test for faith. Even Christians on the inside cannot continue to believe it!

Is the Bible Ever Wrong? Peter Enns vs. Stephen Chapman

Link. For more on the topic by Evangelicals see Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, and Kenton L. Sparks, God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship.

Who is Open Minded, the Believer or the Scientifically Minded Skeptic?

The video might take a bit to load...

Science, Biblical Criticism, and Double Standards (Sigh, Par for the Course)

In my book, Why I Became an Atheist, the reader will find several chapter length arguments, some paragraph length arguments, and then there are a bunch of "gems" scattered around that could be made into larger arguments. I think what I’ve written fits together as a whole quite well, but if the reader really wants to get the full scope of it then try reading through the book a second time. Several arguments in the early parts of the book depend for their force on the arguments in the later parts of the book.

One such scattered “gem,” if you will, is mentioned on page 61 where I argued that since methodological naturalism “has produced so many significant results, I think it should equally be used to investigate the Bible, its claims of the miraculous, and the origins of the universe itself, and it provides a great deal of evidence against the Christian faith.” [I mention this on pages 50, 119-120, and again on page 185].

What is methodological naturalism? It’s a method in scientific inquiry whereby “all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.” Dr. Barbara Forrest tells us that “a massive amount of knowledge" has been gained by using this method.

This same method has been adopted by historians. Bart D. Ehrman, as a historian, adopts this method when it comes to studying the Bible, especially the New Testament, his area of specialty.

The rise of Biblical Criticism can probably be seen in light of the rise of modern science which adopted the method of naturalism. Again, we’ve gained a “massive amount of knowledge” from using it.

Applied to Biblical studies scholars have assumed a natural rather than a supernatural explanation for the stories inside the pages of the Bible. Based on the assumption that the past is just like the present in which miracles don’t occur, by taking their cue from the scientific enterprise that assumes a natural explanation for everything, Biblical scholars began studying the Bible afresh. As historians that’s what they must do. Robert M. Price tells us that if historians didn’t assume a natural explanation for events in the past they would be “at the mercy of every medieval tale, every report that a statue wept, or that someone changed lead into gold or turned into a werewolf.” [Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, p. 20].

Many believers reject what these Biblical scholars as historians do, but why? Why is it that methodological naturalism has worked extremely well in every area where it's been used--every single one--but that when it comes to looking the collection of canonized books in the Bible such a method should not be used? My claim is that since methodological naturalism has worked so extremely well in every area where it's been used--every single one--that we should apply that same method when it comes to studying the Bible.

If believers don’t want to apply methodological naturalism across the board into Biblical studies, then please tell me where it should be applied and where it shouldn't. If this method should not be applied to the Bible then why do believers hold to a double standard, allowing it to be used when seeking a cure for cancer (why not call for a miracle worker instead?), or to discover our evolutionary biology (why not just quote Genesis 1 and shun science altogether?), or to explain the weather (why not just do a rain dance?), or a crime scene (why not just cast lots as they supposedly did in Joshua's day?), or a freak tragic accident (why not just say God was punishing someone?), or a noise in the night (demons? angels?), but not when it comes to the stories in the Bible?

This is probably the crux of the issue with me. Without assuming a natural explanation in science and in historical studies we would still think God alone opens the womb, that sicknesses are the result of sin, that the reason we win wars is because God was pleased, and the reason why there are natural disasters is because God is displeased. Given these type of supernatural explanations we would already have the needed explanations in God so there would be no room for science, which is undeniably important to the human race for a wide variety of reasons.

Certainty is Unattainable Through Science and Reason? So What?

Eric commented

...take any proposition you believe to be supported by 'science and reason,' and proceed to provide the premises that support it. Take any one of these premises and support it. Continue. It won't take long at all before you reach a premise that you can't justify scientifically, and a short time after that you'll find a premise you can't justify with 'reason.' What then?

I agree with Eric on this. But there are two things I'd like to say about it:

1) This gets him no where as I've explained in my original post. Based on this admission he simply cannot all-of-a-sudden bring into the equation the whole host of assumptions he needs to do in order to believe in the Christian faith. I maintain that a believer cannot drive a truckload of assumptions through a mere possibility once it's admitted that certainty is unattainable in science and in reasoning. Simple assumptions, i.e. Ockham's razor, are better. For if Eric can do that based on his Christian assumptions when science and reason don't work at the level of certainties, then a voodoo witchdoctor or a Hindu, or a Muslim can do the same exact thing and bring into the equation all of their assumptions too. It seems as though the admission that science and reason don't work to produce certainties is used by believers like Eric with a type of carte blanch authority to write any amount in a blank check when it comes to one's own beliefs. But this blank check approach fails the outsider test for it allows too much that other faiths would reject. If it's the case that simply because we can't be apodictically certain of much of anything means we can write our own belief checks for as much as we want to, then anything, and I mean anything goes. Let's just believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Celestial Teapot at that point. They would have the same epistemological grounding.

2) When we reach a point where reason and science don't help us when trying to find the bottom of the rabbit hole, what we do at that point is we use our background beliefs to solve the question. Even though science and reason do not help us down there, we can still place that question next to the other things we believe and then have a good reason for deciding what to believe about the question in hand. Since we cannot investigate every sub-discipline of a sub-discipline what we believe can at least cohere with what else we believe.

But of course, this is what gets us all into trouble, because as human beings we believe contradictory things which we think cohere with the rest of what we believe, but we don't realize that what we believe is contradictory with other things we believe! This too favors being skeptical of our beliefs, all of them, to varying degrees (Quine's web of beliefs).

An important point I made in my initial post is that, science, and I’ll add reason, are the best we’ve got. They are the best antidote to wishful thinking, the best chance we have for getting it right. If we don’t lean on science and reason then anything goes at all, anything. And since certainty is an impossible goal then defending every proposition is unnecessary even if it’s practically impossible.

I’ve subjected a few of the most often proffered examples of beliefs for which it's claimed we have no scientific evidence for them right here, and even when it comes to these strange possibilities I have good reason to reject these examples. So what if we cannot prove otherwise? So what if there is always a possibility that we're wrong? We’re looking at what is probable, not possible. That’s all we can do!

Cheers.

If You Think You Know What Christianity Is: Think Again!

If God has a website; could this be it?


Have you ever wondered what it really sounds like as human souls burn for eternity in the fires of Hell?

Does the Pope and the Catholic Church Worship Satan?

Does Satan write Bibles and can Bibles be demon possessed?

Don't Be Fooled on April Fool's Day: Take the Outsider Test for Faith

The Outsider Test for Faith argument can be found in my book, or online in an edited version right here. I've recently defended it from some of Dr. Victor Reppert's criticisms. One Christian minister encourages believers to take the test! I also provided an example of what it means to take the test. So let me just say on this April Fool's Day that taking this test is the best and probably the only way to know the truth about what you believe. And here's why...

It's because of who we are. When it comes to the religious faiths we were raised to accept, it's not just that they may be false, which seems obvious, given their proliferation around the globe into geographically distinct locations. It's much worse than that. It's that, well, if Christian philosopher Victor Reppert was raised in a different home, and had different experiences, and read different books, and studied under different professors, and got a teaching appointment in a different place, then he could be an atheist philosopher right now, just as atheist philosopher Keith Parsons could be a Christian philosopher right now if he had led the life that Reppert did and his experiences were likewise reversed.

Deny this if you think you can.

That's how bad it is when it comes to anyone who claims to know the truth about these issues, and that's how bad it is when it comes to the claim that we as human beings can think outside the box and reason correctly, objectively, and dispassionately, without prejudices or preconceived notions. We can't, or at least, if we can, the only thing we can and should trust is the empirical sciences. That's our only hope. Science is the best we've got, and even science has it's problems.

We believe what we were raised to believe, and we defend what we want to believe for the most part. It's really bad. It's terrible. We humans are illogical creatures, especially when it comes to these issues. All of us.

Let me put it to you this way, if you read everything that I have read and experienced everything that I have experienced, then you would think on these issues exactly the same way I do.

Deny this if you can.

So there is only one way to deal with a particular whole way of looking at these things...by looking at it as a whole. And the best way to do so is from the outside, from the perspective of skepticism. If the opposite is being gullible then skepticism is favored by far, given who we are as human beings and what we learned to believe on our Mama's knees.

Therein lies the dilemna and I think I have a handle on this better than most anyone I've seen argue on the web about these types of issues. We are not the rational creatures we want to appear to be. As human beings we are in terrible shape on these kinds of issues. And since we know this to be true we should be skeptical about that which we were raised to believe. And we should be skeptical about that which we want to believe. It's that simple.

------------

Christian, no, don't say I should be skeptical about that which I believe too. In some sense when it comes to that which I affirm, I already am! I affirm an agnostic atheism. Join me. Will you say the same thing? Will you affirm that you are an agnostic believer (but isn't that an oxymoron)? In any case, if this is my problem I embrace it. Although, someone will need to explain to me how a skeptic can be skeptical about beliefs he doesn't have! A skeptic affirms no religious beliefs but merely says to the believer, "show me." Why should we consider non-beliefs as equivalent to beliefs? [Examples of non-beliefs: do you believe in the Eastern ONE, do you have a belief about ilks who might live in the stratosphere?].

Besides, it'll do you absolutely no good at all to pass the buck back to me. Whether I am skeptical of my agnostic atheism or not should mean nothing with regard to what you need to do, believer. Even if I am inconsistent you still need to subject your own beliefs to the outsider test. You still need to be skeptical about them. You still need to embrace the scientific method. It's the only antidote to the fallibility of the human mind.

We're Growing!

Not bad, eh?

Arizona Atheist: Arguments Against God's Existence

He'd like some feedback on this blog post and I don't have the time right now. He writes:

The truth is, though, that I see nothing special about these arguments. Each of these arguments are fatally flawed when you think about them for just a few minutes (or when you look at the contradictory evidence).

Do you think he makes his case? Link

Douglas Groothuis on "Who Designed the Designer?"

Tell me what you think of his answer, Link.

While I'm at it, and not exactly unrelated, let me also throw in a link to the recent SEED Magazine's article on the Multiverse Problem.

Guest Post by Dr. Douglas Groothuis: "The Straw God: Understanding the New Atheism"

Douglas Groothuis is a Christian Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary and co-editor with James F. Sennett of the book, In Defense of Natural Theology. [Sennett has recently explained that while he has doubts he still believes, seen here]. Groothuis is presently writing an apologetics book which I think will be the best of the lot and perhaps the standard text for years to come. Here is his submitted essay unedited and without comment:

Read more »

Brian the Family Guy Dog is an Atheist

Do you think this is good exposure for atheists in general?

Rev. Philip Brown's Criticisms of the Outsider Test for Faith

Anybody want to help me out with this one? I can't always respond. Does anyone, and I mean anyone, think his criticisms are on target and applicable?

He writes:

Mr. Loftus does not even tackle the Bibles very prediction of this phenomenon in Romans 10:14-17. The apostle Paul states that faith comes from hearing, and hearing from preaching. Consequently one would suspect little Christian faith in a country where it is illegal to preach Christianity. Such is what we find at the moment giving rise to geographically placed Christianity specifically.

Mr. Loftus argues from the general to the particular. However there is no discussion about comparative religion and cultural heritage....For Mr Loftus’ argument to carry the weight he will need to define what one considers as part of the culture and what ones considers as a legitimate religion. Of course this will only weaken Mr Loftus’ case as it will become evidently clear that many of the examples given under the guise or religion are actually just cultural throw backs to antiquity,

if Mr Loftus wants the Christian to take ‘The Outside Test of Faith’ then surely he must ask the Christian to take the 'Insider Test of Atheism', or ITA. Meaning, showing why atheism makes sense and why people should not adopt skepticism towards atheism as appose to Christianity. Such a test would include proving miracles do not exists, beyond a shadow of a doubt; a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, and the undeniable reasons why all religions (not just Christianity) should be disregarded. Indeed ITA would prove rather interesting placed alongside OTF, something Mr. Loftus fails to do in his book and on his blog.

An edited version of the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) can be found here, and my additional defense of it can be found here.

Still a Believer: James F. Sennett Responds to Questions About His Faith

I've written about my friend Dr. Sennett's struggles of faith in my book and also here, where in the comments section he replied. The rumor has it that "he's really struggling with his faith." Sennett is the author of a book on Alvin Plantinga, and along with Douglas Groothuis edited the book, In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-humean Assessment. You can find his books on Amazon.com.

Here is his unedited response to this rumor:

Read more »

The Outsider Test in Action: "Studying Islam Has Made Me An Atheist" by Douglas Murray

Link

Gradually, scepticism of the claims made by one religion was joined by scepticism of all such claims. Incredulity that anybody thought an archangel dictated a book to Mohammed produced a strange contradiction. I found myself still clinging to belief in Christianity. I was trying to believe — though rarely arguing — ‘Well, your guy didn’t hear voices: but I know a man who did.’ This last, shortest and sharpest, phase pulled down the whole thing. In the end Mohammed made me an atheist.

...the idea that there is any book ‘wherein is no doubt’ is insulting as well demonstrably untrue.

HT Agnosis.

More on The Outsider Test for Faith

Daniel Florin said: "If more people were willing to honestly submit themselves to the outsider test, I think our debates and conversations would be far more intelligent and productive." Jeffery Amos said something stronger, that the Christian faith fails The Insider Test for Faith. He wrote: "One criticism that many have of Christianity is that it fails the outsider test: when viewed from the outside, it doesn't make sense. I was an evangelical Christian until April 2008, when I discovered that Christianity fails the insider test as well."

"I encourage every Christian to take the Outsider Test for Faith"

That's what Joe Staub, a Christian minister says on his Blog. He wrote: "I am an OTF graduate." Well, bully for him. Any others? Does anyone think he has really done so? An edited version of the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) can be found here, and my additional defense of it can be found here.

Staub also wrote:

Mr. Loftus’ book is a thorough and comprehensive critical look at Christianity. It’s better than the books by the Atheist Four Horsemen, because he deals with what Christians actually believe, having been one himself. It’s hard core and will force you to justify your belief system.

I'll add that to the other recommendations of my book, so thanks.

Was Jesus a Witch?

Earliest reference describes Christ as 'magician'
Bowl dated between late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D.

A bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., is engraved with what may be the world's first known reference to Christ. The engraving reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by Christ."

A team of scientists led by renowned French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio recently announced that they have found a bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., that is engraved with what they believe could be the world's first known reference to Christ.

If the word "Christ" refers to the Biblical Jesus Christ, as is speculated, then the discovery may provide evidence that Christianity and paganism at times intertwined in the ancient world.

The full engraving on the bowl reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted by the excavation team to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by Christ."

"It could very well be a reference to Jesus Christ, in that he was once the primary exponent of white magic," Goddio, co-founder of the Oxford Center of Maritime Archaeology, said.

He and his colleagues found the object during an excavation of the underwater ruins of Alexandria's ancient great harbor. The Egyptian site also includes the now submerged island of Antirhodos, where Cleopatra's palace may have been located.

Both Goddio and Egyptologist David Fabre, a member of the European Institute of Submarine Archaeology, think a "magus" could have practiced fortune telling rituals using the bowl. The Book of Matthew refers to "wisemen," or Magi, believed to have been prevalent in the ancient world.

According to Fabre, the bowl is also very similar to one depicted in two early Egyptian earthenware statuettes that are thought to show a soothsaying ritual.

"It has been known in Mesopotamia probably since the 3rd millennium B.C.," Fabre said. "The soothsayer interprets the forms taken by the oil poured into a cup of water in an interpretation guided by manuals."

He added that the individual, or "medium," then goes into a hallucinatory trance when studying the oil in the cup.

"They therefore see the divinities, or supernatural beings appear that they call to answer their questions with regard to the future," he said.

The magus might then have used the engraving on the bowl to legitimize his supernatural powers by invoking the name of Christ, the scientists theorize.

Goddio said, "It is very probable that in Alexandria they were aware of the existence of Jesus" and of his associated legendary miracles, such as transforming water into wine, multiplying loaves of bread, conducting miraculous health cures, and the story of the resurrection itself.

While not discounting the Jesus Christ interpretation, other researchers have offered different possible interpretations for the engraving, which was made on the thin-walled ceramic bowl after it was fired, since slip was removed during the process.

Bert Smith, a professor of classical archaeology and art at Oxford University, suggests the engraving might be a dedication, or present, made by a certain "Chrestos" belonging to a possible religious association called Ogoistais.

Klaus Hallof, director of the Institute of Greek inscriptions at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, added that if Smith's interpretation proves valid, the word "Ogoistais" could then be connected to known religious groups that worshipped early Greek and Egyptian gods and goddesses, such as Hermes, Athena and Isis.

Hallof additionally pointed out that historians working at around, or just after, the time of the bowl, such as Strabon and Pausanias, refer to the god "Osogo" or "Ogoa," so a variation of this might be what's on the bowl. It is even possible that the bowl refers to both Jesus Christ and Osogo.

Fabre concluded, "It should be remembered that in Alexandria, paganism, Judaism and Christianity never evolved in isolation. All of these forms of religion (evolved) magical practices that seduced both the humble members of the population and the most well-off classes."

"It was in Alexandria where new religious constructions were made to propose solutions to the problem of man, of God's world," he added. "Cults of Isis, mysteries of Mithra, and early Christianity bear witness to this."

The bowl is currently on public display in the exhibit "Egypt's Sunken Treasures" at the Matadero Cultural Center in Madrid, Spain, until November 15.
© 2009 Discovery Channel

My Prediction: William Lane Craig Will Trounce Christopher Hitchens in their Upcoming Debate

Kevin Harris and Zachary Moore did a podcast from the Christian Book Expo after a panel discussion which included both Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig. Both men stopped in to be interviewed by Harris and Moore about their upcoming debate: Special - Live at the Christian Book Expo (Click the link and scroll down a bit). These two men will debate “Does God Exist?” April 4th, at Biola University. In this interview you'll hear Dr. Craig claiming Hitchens is "incapable" of responding to his arguments. I wouldn't go that far but given Craig's experience as a debater and the fact that he's a professional philosopher, my prediction is that Craig will trounce Hitchens. I wish this wasn't the case, but this is my prediction. [In the poll at the right you can vote a Craig/Loftus match-up, if you want].

Atheist Billboards Coming To North Texas

Believers in God have their billboards and now those who don't believe in God have their own message.

"We're not trying to attract people who believe in God. We're not trying to change their minds," said Terry McDonald with Metroplex Atheists.


At the weekly gathering of the Metroplex Atheists, the talk was about Monday's unveiling of two billboards with the message, "Don't believe in God? You are not alone."

"It's to let those people who don't believe know that they're not alone and that there are a lot of groups that they can become involved in," said McDonald.

The billboards will stand along I-35 near Loop 12 in Northwest Dallas and I-35 at Braswell in North Fort Worth.

The message encourages atheists and other non-believers to log onto www.dfwcor.org. The C.O.R stands for "Coalition of Reason." The website will be up and running Monday to coincide with the unveiling of both billboards.

Dr. Darrell Bock of the Dallas Theological Seminary welcomes the debate.

"They (non-believers) represent a significant minority in our culture. They're becoming more verbal and the thing to do is to have a conversation with them about that," he said.

Dr. Bock says the billboards may enrage some Christians at first, but he doesn't expect that anger to last.

"People pretty much have their minds made up on these kinds of matters. They're either going to be for or against," he said. "A lot of people will drive by and it will be the topic of conversation for a few days perhaps, but I don't think it's going to change very much."

Identical billboards are already up in Philadelphia and Denver. Non-believers have been gathering momentum as of late. HBO comic Bill Maher questioned God's existence in his 2008 documentary, "Religulous."

A recent study found that more than 15 percent of Americans no longer affiliate with a religion.

Video

Does Satan Exist?: A Nightline Face-Off

Link. Ohhhh, the ignorance, the ignorance, the ignorance. Just look at the confident disposition of Pastor Driscoll and Annie, the former hooker. I don't see any doubt on their faces at all. I can imagine such confident people running the Inquisition or owning slaves, or believing in the ancient Delphic Oracles. Sheesh. As I've said, skepticism is a virtue.

Answering Dr. Reppert's Criticisms of The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF)

Victor Reppert offers some criticisms of the OTF, which I plan on answering here.Victor said:

First, it would be good if the argument could be formulated with premises and a conclusion. Exactly what is he arguing for, and what is the basis for his argument.

Okay, here it 'tis:

1. Rational people in distinct geographical locations around the globe overwhelmingly adopt and defend a wide diversity of religious faiths due to their upbringing and cultural heritage. This is the religious diversity thesis.

2. Consequently, it seems highly likely that adopting one’s religious faith is not merely a matter of independent rational judgment but is causally dependent on cultural conditions to an overwhelming degree. This is the religious dependency thesis.

3. Hence the odds are highly likely that any given adopted religious faith is false.

4. So the best way to test one’s adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism used to evaluate other religious faiths. This ex-presses the OTF.

People in distinct geographical locations around the globe adopt and defend the religion of their upbringing and culture. This is an undeniable sociological fact. Anthropology shows us that human beings are locked inside their own cultures and cannot, without the greatest of difficulty, transcend their culturally adopted beliefs. Psychology shows us that human beings do not examine their beliefs dispassionately but rather seek to confirm that which they already believe. And unlike scientific, political and moral beliefs there are no mutually agreed upon tests to determine which religious faith is true. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that the religion a person adopts and defends is overwhelmingly dependent upon the “accidents of birth” rather than on a rational assessment of the case based upon the available evidence. Since this is so we should be just as skeptical of our own religious upbringing as we are with the other religious faiths we reject. The odds are that we’re wrong. We should be skeptical of our religiously inherited faih with the same amount of skepticism as we use to judge the other religious faiths that we reject. Here we have the notion of being “outsiders” to the religious faith in question, and as such it’s called “The Outsider Test for Faith.”

Victor said:

Second, it would be cheating to have a test and just mark our religious beliefs as the beliefs to be tested. Keith Parsons once asked, "Tell me, do you really think that, had you been born Vijay instead of Victor, and if you were from Bangalore rather than Phoenix, AZ, that you would not now be as devoted to Brahma as you are to God?" And the answer is I don't know. If Keith had grown up in the United Methodist church that I did, and had he discovered Plantinga or Lewis before leaving the fold, as opposed to converting briefly to West Rome Baptist Church and hearing weekly hellfire threats as an undergraduate, would he now be a Christian philosopher instead of an atheist? The "what if" game is far harder than it looks to play.

I don’t mean to single out religious beliefs here, although that is indeed my focus. They are just more assuredly determined by one’s cultural upbringing than anything else we can predict. Some things would surely be hard to predict if events had turned out differently. I admit that we are all strongly influenced by the people and circumstances around us. This is what psychological studies show us. With different influences Keith Parsons could've ended up as a Christian philosopher, yes. That’s indeed how malleable the human mind is, his, mine, and Reppert's too. With different influences Reppert could've been an atheist philosopher! This is who we are as human beings. What we think and believe is molded and shaped by all of our experiences and influences, including everyone we talk to or study with, and everything we have ever read or witnessed. We know this even if we may not be able to predict what would’ve happened had something different taken place in someone’s life. I do know that had something different taken place then a particular person would be different in some ways, depending on the event and the impact that event had on him or her. But there are some things that are easier to predict, and one thing seems clearly to be the case that if we were born in different culture and with a different upbringing we would adopt the faith of our upbringing.

Victor said:

But I happen to know something about Vijay. Keith and I agree that there is an independently existing physical world. Vijay does not. If either of us had been born Vijay, we would think of the world of experience as maya, or illusion, and we would not see it as ultimately real. So it looks as if external world realism fails the outsider test. Yet I see no reason to be accept external world skepticism because if I had been born in India, I might have been brought up to reject external world realism.

In this case Vijay would have to subject his own religious upbringing to the same kind of skepticism he uses to evaluate Christianity, the most materialistic of religions, as C.S. Lewis claimed. I think if Vijay did this he would end up being a skeptic about his prior held belief that the world is an illusion, or maya, which is a belief of his that goes against all the available evidence. Again, Vijay needs to subject that culturally adopted religious belief to skepticism. And in this regard Reppert is missing the point. Vijay’s views would not represent skepticism at all. His Eastern views are based in his religious faith, and as such I’m asking him to be skeptical of them. With regard to Reppert I'm not asking him to subject his knowledge that there is a real world with the religious faith of a Vijay that the world is an illusion. If Reppert wants to instead talk about some kind of extreme type of Cartesian skepticism which might lead someone to solipsism then he’s attributing to me a kind of skepticism of which I do not embrace at all, which no one can be that skeptical anyway. The OTF does not ask for complete and utter skepticism. It merely asks us to be as skeptical of our own culturally adopted religious faith as we are of the others we reject.

Victor said:

What about moral beliefs? I think that rape is wrong. If I had been brought up in a certain culture, I'm told, I would believe that rape is OK if you do it in the evening, because a woman's place is at home under her husband's protection, and if she is gone she's asking for it. So my belief that rape is wrong flunks the outsider test. This gives me no basis whatsoever for doubting that rape is wrong.

There is a difference between moral and religious beliefs, although they are indeed intertwined in many religions. The OTF is a test to examine religious faiths, not moral or political beliefs. When I refer to religious faith, I’m referring to beliefs that are essential for a member to be accepted in a particular religious community of faith who worship together and/or accept the same divinely inspired prophetic/revelations and/or those beliefs whereby one’s position in the afterlife depends. The reason for this definition is clear, since the outsider test is primarily a challenge about the religious faith of communities of people. It also applies secondarily in lesser degrees to individual philosophers espousing metaphysical, political, and/or ethical viewpoints who are not guided primarily by communal religious experiences but who are still influenced by the cultural milieu in which they live. Hence the OTF will have a much greater degree of force against religious faiths of religious communities than on individual philosophers not involved in a religious community.

So can we apply this same skepticism to moral beliefs? Should I be as skeptical that rape is wrong as I am that rape is morally acceptable? No. Absolutely not. Again, look at the specific criteria I provided. I said:

The amount of skepticism warranted depends on the number of rational people who disagree, whether the people who disagree are separated into distinct geographical locations, the nature of those beliefs, how they originated, how they were personally adopted in the first place, and the kinds of evidence that can possibly be used to decide between them. My claim is that when it comes to religious beliefs a high degree of skepticism is warranted because of these factors.

That’s what I said, and so in this instance as with many other moral beliefs they do not suffer the same consequences from applying the OTF. Beliefs like the acceptability of rape are based on religious beliefs anyway, so they are subject to the outsider test precisely because of the nature and origin of those beliefs, as I said. I know of no non-believer who would ever want to defend the morality of rape, for instance, unlike believers in the past and present who do because of some so-called inspired text. We know rape is wrong, and we also know that this kind of behavior is sanctioned by religious beliefs, as is honor killing. The religious person who thinks rape is morally acceptable should subject that belief to skepticism as an outsider. And when he does this he will begin to doubt his previously held religious/moral beliefs, as I’ve argued. When it comes to Reppert, I think his moral belief that rape is wrong will survive his own skepticism, for there is evidence that as a father of a daughter he would want to help maintain a free society where she can go about her business free from being accosted. If Reppert wants to provide an argument where he can defend the morality of rape I’d like to see this. I would find it very strange if in order to escape the OTF Reppert must defend the morality of rape. That seems too high of a price to pay, but if that’s what he wants to do, then I’m all ears. [Speaking of morality, let me remind the reader that I’ve argued elsewhere that morality has evolved].

Victor said:

What about political beliefs? I think that representative democracy is a better form of government than monarchy. If I lived in 16th Century Europe, or in other parts of the globe, I probably would not believe that. So my belief in democratic government flunks the outsider test. However, this gives me no reason to have the least doubt that democracy is better than monarchy.

The same things can be said about political beliefs as I said about moral beliefs. Listen, there are a great many political and moral beliefs which we think are essential to a human society but which are not necessary at all. Democracy is one of them. People have done fine without democracy from the beginning when a dominant male lion or ape ruled the others and had free reign with a harem of females. That being said I think there is evidence that supports the fact that as rational animals we are happier when we have a say in how a country is run. And we have also found ways to include minority thinking too, with some proper checks and balances. And when people around the world vote with their feet they sail, fly and run to a democratic government. Further evidence for this is the crumbling of dictatorial socialist communist governments. But once again, I would find it very strange if in order to escape the OTF Reppert must deny that democracy is a better form of government than a monarchy or dictatorship. That seems too high of a price to pay, but if that’s what he wants to do, then I’m all ears.

Victor said:

What about scientific beliefs? If I had been born in the Islamic world, or in some Christian churches, I would have been taught to reject the theory of evolution in its entirety. So it looks like the theory of evolution fails the outsider test. Nevertheless, this in itself is insufficient grounds for the slightest doubt about evolution.

Here it becomes obvious that Reppert does not know what the OTF is about. Scientific thinking is in a different category altogether from religious faiths (see the specific criteria mentioned above). We do not learn about science merely from our parents, although hopefully we do. We can personally do the experiments ourselves. So scientific testing is independent of what someone tells us to believe and so it does not require the same level of skepticism about its conclusions. There are mathematical and experimental results that are independently verified time and again. But when it comes to religious faiths there are no mutually agreed upon reliable tests to decide between them, and this makes all of the difference in the world. With regard to Reppert’s example, the OTF requires religious believers to subject their creationist theories to the skepticism of the scientist, theories which were learned on their Mama’s knee and tenaciously defended because some ancient superstitious pre-scientific set of writings say so. Science and scientific thinking is the best and probably only antidote to these creationist religious myths, myths which other religions differ about.

Victor said:

Finally, a certain natural conservatism with respect to changing our minds about matters of world-view, or any other issue for that matter, is both natural and rational. I thought the lesson of things like Cartesian foundationalism is that if you throw out all sort of beliefs as unjustified and load the burden of proof onto those beliefs, it's hard to stop and have anything left. Most people thought that Descartes had to cheat to get his world back. If we have to be skeptics about all of our sociologically conditioned beliefs, I am afraid we are going to be skeptics about a lot more than just religion.

Well, it’s certainly the case that conservatism is natural with respect to people not wanting to change their beliefs. It’s so natural to us that we as human beings will go to some extreme lengths to defend what we want to believe. So I see nothing about this conservatism which is justified, otherwise, at some extreme level we’d still believe in Santa Claus, or that our fathers can do anything, or patriots would still defend America “whether right or wrong” in their later years. This also undercuts the whole notion that such conservatism is rational as well. The rational thing to do, which we humans are not too good at, is to grow and learn and think and investigate and follow the arguments and evidence wherever they lead. That's the rational thing to do despite wanting to hold on to beliefs which cannot be reasonably justified.

Besides, I see no reason at all for thinking the OTF should lead us to complete and utter skepticism. None. It’s merely a test to critically evaluate one’s culturally adopted religious faith with the same type of skepticism s/he uses to evaluate other religious faiths. As I have argued, the kind of skepticism involved here is a reasonable one and something we should all adopt about religious faith, especially one’s own. The more outlandish and extraordinary the claim is then the more evidence we should require to support such a claim. This is very reasonable and I see no reason to think otherwise at all.

When it comes to skepticism in general though, it should be thought of as resting on a continuum, anyway. Some claims we should be extremely skeptical about (“I saw a pink elephant;” “the CIA is dogging my steps”), while others on the opposite side will not require much skepticism at all (“there is a material world;” “if you drop a book it will fall to the ground;” “George Washington was the first President of America”). I do indeed think we should have a healthy amount of skepticism toward all of our beliefs on this continuum. Skepticism is virtue. What's wrong with that?

Might I Share Great News With You?

I will be left five-million dollars in a Will by a multi-billionaire friend who loves me and thinks the world of me. (Can your believe this. Totally free love backed up with five-million dollars! I never thought I was worth that to anybody. Especially by an old man worth hundreds of billions who is facing death soon (Sorry, I did not mean it the way it came out.)

I have not met this wonderful man, but I personally do know he has on file very reliable legal documents and that he has put the five-million dollar fund in twenty-five different banks to make sure the principle is FDIC insured. And, at the time of his death, all the principle and interest are all mine to use as I see fit.

This is a totally free gift of love by a person I’ve never met (Can you believe it!). The ONLY thing that he asks is that I show my love to him in return for this wonderful gift by doing simple 3 things which will cost me nothing:

A. He will want me to keep his reputation highly respected and defend it from anyone putting him down or being disrespectful of him. Trust is a major factor and part of his reputation, thus questioning this trust will reflect poorly on him and me. (I can do a lot of trusting for five-million dollars and who would not?! Buddy, I’m not stupid!)

B. Since he wants to remain highly respected; it only follows that he will want me to live a life that reflects his own morals and ethics. (Hey, after all it takes one to know one! Want proof: How about five–million dollars worth of proof! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!)

C. He will want me to tell other people that they too can have this free gift of love and money if they simply will likewise do A and B above and help share his reputation and this good news of personal love and wealth with anyone else who will accept it.

I do know the money is in the bank. I personally do know this man that is worth hundreds of billions of dollars loves me. (I don’t have to prove this to you or anyone else for that matter.)

You want to know something else: I’m sure I love him too. Listen, why would I not since he has proven this just by offering me the five-million dollars as proof that he loves me even more than my own family has or anyone I’ve ever met in my life.

What to know one more thing? I’ve thought about this wonderful offer and love. I’ve decide to accept it.

Fact is, just this consolation of love and money has already taken so much pressure and the burden of life off my back; even more than I can began to tell you about it! Talk about reality, man I’m now experiencing it!

I am now inviting you to have a real loving dad on this earth and five-million dollars too simply by doing something in life that will cost you nothing. (You ready know deep down in your heart you are unhappy with how life has treated you.) Please let me tell him you have found the truth in this life by just letting me tell him you will do A, B, and C above.

I hope you accept this great humanitarian’s gift of love backed up with money. Both he and I would love the see more millionaires with smiles on their faces, moral and ethics guiding their lives and love in their hearts.

Please, won’t you throw off this burdensome world and aimless life for a real dad that not only loves you, but proves it with millions of dollars?

I hope you and I hope everyone can be a happy multi-millionaire like me!

People, trust is free. Won’t you try it!

A man who now has a REAL DAD and your next multi-millionaire to be:

$Harry$

Struggling to leave your religion?

Join us for a powerful weekend with others who can understand and support you.

“RELEASE AND RECLAIM” Recovery Retreat
May 1-3, 2009; Oakham, Massachusetts (near Worcester)
Friday at 7pm until Sunday at 3pm,
at a beautiful lakeside home on six acres with hot tub, canoes, and more.

This program is for you if you want to let go of toxic, authoritarian beliefs and reclaim your ability to trust your own feelings and think for yourself.

Leaving your faith can be a very difficult process, but you don’t have to go it alone.
At a Release and Reclaim Recovery Retreat participants can:

• Share personal stories
• Examine key issues
• Learn coping strategies
• Meet others and build a support system
• Enjoy meals, relaxation,and fun

These retreats are led by Marlene Winell, Ph.D., psychologist and author of Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion. Dr. Winell has a private practice in Berkeley, CA and also consults by telephone.

COST: Sliding scale: $220 - $320 for workshop, $125 for room and board (all meals included). Other financial help available.

TO REGISTER: Write to recoveryfromreligion@gmail.com (subject line “retreat registration”) or call Dr. Winell directly at 510.292.0509. Retreat space is limited so contact us as soon as possible.

WANT TO TALK? If you are unsure if this is for you, please feel welcome to call and chat. Just call Marlene at 510-292-0509. You can also talk with someone who has been to a retreat (we have had six so far).

FOR MORE INFORMATION, testimonials, and videos, please visit www.marlenewinell.net

MORE RETREATS in Denver : June 5-7 & June 12-14

Have They Found Lot's Wife?

From the Biblical Archaeological Review...

This might be the cover of BAR's next issue if we all vote for it.Do you think they know something? I doubt very much that they do, but if they do then let's give it a simple DNA test to see if there are traces of female DNA in it! LOL Why do we have to put up with this shit? Why does this stuff persist? Christians claim to have heard the howls of hell down through oil digs, too. What a sham this all is, and waste of time, space, effort, and intelligence. I think Hector Avalos is right. Biblical studies as we know it should end.