Contra Paul Manata on the OTF (Part 2)

This is the second part of my response to Paul Manata's criticisms of the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). Part 1 can be read here. Again, I'll not repeat myself. In this part I'll examine where Paul also claims it's not a sound argument. Really? Let's look at this.

Contra Paul Manata on the OTF (Part 1)

On February 11, 2006 I first proposed the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) in response to something Paul Manata wrote. I think this is instructive. There is nothing quite like discussing/debating the issues that divide us. We learn from doing so. Most of the time it helps me understand how to make a better case against Christianity as it did on that day. So Manata and I have a history, he cursing the day he provoked me to propose the test, and me further refining it from additional criticisms. Along the way Manata has repeatedly tried unsuccessfully to disabuse me of this argument. So here he comes again with more failed arguments. Let's see about them.

Contra Steve Hays and Jason Engwer on the OTF

I'm in the process of assessing Triablogue's online book against The Christian Delusion. Since I don't want to repeat myself if you haven't already done so read my first response.

On Assessing Triablogue's Review of "The Christian Delusion"

I've had enough contact with Triablogue authors to know that I will never get in the last word. And I do not consider them honest in dealing with me. They will quote things out of context and misrepresent me because as Calvinists they do not think I deserve any respect at all. After all, if their God has foreordained me to hell then they have the right to heap additional abuse on me, and they have done so (this is such a nice version of Christianity developed by angry men for angry men, isn't it?). In any case they have written an online book of 257 pages against The Christian Delusion (TCD) so I think some response is needed, especially since I'm seeing links pop up all over the net linking to what they wrote.

Is God Necessary for Morality? Hell NO!

Just see what happened to William Lane Craig when he debated Louise Antony and then Shelly Kagan on this topic. He lost both times.

Then don't miss Edwin Curley's talk, My Ways Are Not Your Ways: The Character of the God of the Hebrew Bible. Watch it and tell me with a straight face that the God of the Bible is the objective standard of morality. Yeah, right.

I've written some posts on this topic myself to be found here under the rubric "Atheism, Christianity and Morality."

Who Says One Book Can't Change Your Beliefs?

Previously I had asked whether reading one book could change a person's beliefs (#10 in that link). Apparently it can (well two anyway):

Hey John, just wanted you to know that I threw 20 years of Fundamentalist Baptist Bible teachings away because of your books. Thank you! Your books introduced me to the truth that there were no answers and that Christianity was absurd to the core! I was just more embarrassed that I didn't see what you saw, but that's what happens when you go to Christian Schools, Churches, and Camps....you only get one side of the picture! --Tim Zajac on Facebook.

The Dilemma for Christian Apologists

Christians will object to the following dilemma, no doubt. On the one hand, if they cannot explain how a miraculous event took place, outsiders will deny it happened at all. On the other hand, if they can explain how it might have occurred, then outsiders can say it’s no longer a miracle. All I can say here is that this is the unavoidable nature of the case when it comes to reported miracles in the pre-scientific superstitious historical past. Outsiders need sufficient evidence of miracles in today’s world to accept the Christian faith. Without this evidence the Christian apologist will always have a near impossible time defending his faith, and as such, I think he should simply abandon this attempt. Without present-day evidence or present day miracles, Christianity probably cannot be adequately defended at all. [First posted 8/12/07]

Dr. Avalos on Accreditation and Jim West.

This is his response to Jim West's ranting against accreditation seeking colleges. Enjoy

Positive Thinking For An Atheist?

I was asked on Facebook about positive thinking for an atheist. Here's my advice:

When it comes to positive thoughts you must learn to believe in yourself. Repeat after me: "I am an important person." "I can achieve my dreams." "I can make a difference." Say it every day a few times per day. You will come to believe what you say. So say it. Then dream big dreams. Don't be afraid to fail. You will fail from time to time. But you will learn for the next time. So dare to fail. And do not listen to the naysayers if you know they're wrong. They are a dime a dozen. You will never achieve anything unless you try. Find like-minded people to learn from who believe in you and hang out with them.

There Was No Worldwide Flood, By Robert R. Cargill, Ph.D.

Christian Bible thumpers need to listen to their own scholars.

There was no worldwide flood. Simply put: there is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. In other words, it’s impossible. It is time for Christians to admit that some of the stories in Israel’s primordial history are not historical. It is ok to concede that these stories were crafted in a pre-scientific period and were designed to offer ethical answers to questions of why and not questions of how. Link.

We Are Approaching the Golden Age of Atheism

Atheist author David Mills argues in this 47 minute video that there are ten reasons why we are approaching a "Golden Age of Atheism."

Have You Been De-Baptized? Edwin Kagan of American Atheists on Nightline

What do you think of Kagan's claim: "Atheists have no chance whatsoever of prevailing in a direct confrontation with believers. There are far too many [believers]." Does it resemble what David Eller said: "Christians are not easily argued out of their religion because...they are not ordinarily argued into it in the first place." Richard Carrier also chimed in on the use of ridicule.

A Slave to Incompetence: The Truth Behind David Marshall’s Research on Slavery by Dr. Hector Avalos

Since the rise of the “New Atheism” there have been many Christian apologists who think that they have defeated the arguments of the New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. A few of these apologists are seasoned theologians and scholars. Others are what I call “hack” writers, who basically cut-and-paste material found in secondary sources, but who do not: 1) check the accuracy of the secondary sources; 2) have the competence to check those sources independently and directly, even if they wish to do so. The goal of hack writing is to publish something quickly and with little effort and so these books are often very thin bibliographically.

Such a hack writer is David Marshall, author of The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity (Eugene Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2007). To illustrate our point, we shall examine almost every sentence in a section titled, “Jesus Frees Slaves,” and found on pages 144 to 148 of that book.

More Proof People Defend What They Prefer to Be True. Case in Point: Jim West Rants Against College Accreditation

Jim (aka "Where's Waldo") West usually has the number one ranked Blog among SBL's Bibliobloggers every month. This is supposed to mean something I guess. In a post he submitted for The Bible and Interpretation West rants against the "exploitative" nature of college accreditation companies. But guess what? He has a degree from an unaccredited college and teaches for one too, oh my! Here we see a person who should know better arguing against that which he doesn't have simply because he doesn't have it. Why am I not surprised? I've never heard an educated person ranting against an education. Only the uneducated do so. And only an unaccredited person/teacher would do the same thing with regard to accreditation. I commented further there. Sheesh.

Could One Book Change What You Think?

Cobourg Atheist runs a nice website from Canada which has the equivalent number of readers as mine does. He featured an essay of mine on dealing with atheist books. While you're there take a look around.

The Omniscience Escape Clause

We've heard this escape clause so many times before. "My ways are not your ways," an ancient superstitious canonized Biblical text says of God. "How do we know what an omniscient God might do?" an apologist chimes in. It could be how God purportedly communicated to us in ways that are indistinguishable from anything else we see in the ancient world, or the tragedy of the Haitian earthquake, or a child suffering and soon to die from Leukemia. How can we judge an omniscient God's ways we're asked over and over, with an implied "We can't." The answer is obvious. We must be able to understand enough of God's ways to know that his ways are good and that he knows what he's doing. It's that simple. If God does not act as a loving person would do then all we can reasonably conclude is that God is not acting like a loving person would do. And if God does not respond in discernible loving ways when tragic events take place then it looks entirely as if tragic events happen randomly without his ever-watchful eye.

Ed Babinski Responds to Randal Rauser on "Biblical Cosmology"

Randal Rauser highlighted my name and chapter in The Christian Delusion in several posts on his blog at TheChristianPost.com. I will respond here.

Fantastic story of deconversion

Here's a link to a wonderfully articulate, clear, and fascinating story of deconversion put together by a gentleman with the user name evid3nc3 on YouTube.

PZ Myers on Kenneth J. Howell and Hate Speech

Kenneth Howell runs the Catholic Newman Center at the University of Illinois and up until recently was an adjunct instructor at UI until a student complained about him. Readers of this blog know that Howell and I are friends and have even allowed him to post some things at DC seen here. He wrote a blurb for Richard Carrier's chapter on science in The Christian Delusion seen here at the bottom, and moderated my debate with Dinesh D'Souza. (although didn't do a good job of it).

Reason/Rationality In Religious Belief vs. Everywhere Else

Background
I've been an faithful, fully-believing, daily-praying, personal-relationship-having Catholic for about 7 years. This past Christmas, out of the blue, I wondered if anyone wrote about Jesus other than the gospels. Doing what I always do, I googled it. I was not happy. I don't want to get into this, but suffice it to say that even if there are some who mention Jesus by name and refer to followers who thought reported to have seen him after death, I was still left with an immense chasm. The gospels told me about a verbally prolific man who traveled the country side for 1-3 years, healed sickness/blindness/demonic possessions, that news spread of him throughout the land, and that in the end he caused a heck of a commotion and died on a cross. On the other hand, I have reports of a man named Jesus and verification that he had posthumous followers. No reference to any miracles, confirmation of his brilliantly wisdom-filled parables and teachings or other facts about his life? It was enough to plant significant seeds of doubt.

Oh My God

Oh My God asks people from all walks of life, from celebrities, to the religious, to atheists and the common Man – the question – “What is God?” Peter Rodger did an excellent job on this movie. It was enlightening to see how all the different believers of various religions interpreted just what is the “Almighty God.” From start to finish Rodger explores the world’s religions and gives each believer a chance to explain what is God to them. Link

"My Testimony" by Former Pastor Bruce Gerencser

Former Pastor Bruce Gerencser shares his deconversion story:

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

28) That God's punishments are good, right, and just, even though it means sinners are thrust into a surprisingly dangerous world and in death will be blindsided by an eternal punishment in hell, which is "Christianity's most damnable doctrine." In this world how do you think human beings first learned that venomous creatures like certain kinds of spiders, snakes, ants or scorpions could kill us? People/children had to die, lots of them. How do you think human beings first learned that polluted water or lead poisoning could kill us? Again, people/children had to die, lots of them. It was inevitable since God never told us what to avoid in order to stay alive. We had to learn these kinds of things firsthand. The same thing can be said for hell. People do not know their choices will send them to an eternal punishment in hell. For if we knew this, and if it was possible not to sin at all, we wouldn't sin. Do you doubt this? Then consider that if you knew with certainty that by crossing a line drawn in the sand you would get beaten to a pulp by a biker gang, you would not do it!

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

27) Christianity is a faith that must dismiss the tragedy of death. It does not matter who dies, or how many, or what the circumstances are when people die. It could be the death of a mother whose baby depends upon her for milk. It could be a pandemic like cholera that decimated parts of the world in 1918, or the more than 23,000 children who die every single day from starvation. These deaths could be by suffocation, drowning, a drive-by shooting, or being burned to death. It doesn't matter. God is good. Death doesn't matter. People die all of the time. In order to justify God's goodness Christianity minimizes the value of human life. It is a pro-death faith, plain and simple. Link

Christianity Was Not Responsible for American Democracy

On this 4th of July here's wishing everyone in America the very best. I love this 200+ year old experiment in modern democracy which was not the result of Christianity, contrary to many Christian defenders.

Christianity Debate

This video is quite funny!

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

26) That although it's claimed God got the attention of Abraham, Moses, the Pharaoh, Gideon, Mary, Joseph, and Saul (who became Paul) and that he knows how to get the attention of anyone and everyone, there is no objective evidence he's trying to get the attention of the billions of people who don't believe. In fact, Christians are much more concerned than God is that non-believers are converted. Just compare the lengths to which Christians will go in order to convert non-believers, with a God who has the means to convert everyone and yet does nothing to help them do this. If you say God is helping to convert non-believers then tell us how to objectively know God is actually doing this.

Jim Linville on Ronald Hendel Quitting the SBL

Ronald Hendel of the University of California Berkeley has stirred up a major storm over his recent article in Biblical Archaeology Review explaining his quitting the Society of Biblical Literature over its compromised critical academic focus...here are some of my comments on a few aspects of the uproar.

Link

If Atheists Acted Religious

This video is an eye-opener:

The Outsider Test For Faith

[Written by John W. Loftus] Below you'll find a fairly extensive list of links to the Outsider Test for Faith for anyone who wishes to learn about it. You'll see how my defenses of the OTF have been improved with time as I received various criticisms of it. There is a lot to read here.

No wonder I've decided to write a whole book about it!

The book supersedes and supplants everything I've written about it in the links below.

John, "You Need to Deal With the Heavy Weights"

Here's an email I received and my response:

Macroevolution & Microcreationism: Another Flaw in Intelligent Design Creationism by David Eller

A STANDARD TACTIC USED by creationists to attack evolution is to contrast microevolution (i.e., within species evolution, which they accept) with macroevolution (i.e., between species evolution, which they adamantly reject). Microevolution, they grant, may or does occur. But they assert that macroevolution either has never been observed or is theoretically impossible. They argue that while microevolution may be true, it is trivial, and the major claim of evolution — the evolution and emergence of species — is either unsubstantiated or false.

I argue in this article that creationism faces its own micro/macro distinction and challenge, and that ID has so far only focused on and made claims about microprocesses. Finally, I posit that whatever achievements microcreation may have made or may have imagined it made, these achievements neither strengthen the case for macrocreation nor weaken the case for macroevolution. Link

Dr. Craig: All Other Religious Claims to the Witness of the Spirit are False

I wonder if the question Bill attempts to answer was prompted by what I wrote in the introduction to The Christian Delusion, which can be read here. A perceptive Christian asks him:

Skepticism of Religion: An Informal Bibliography

Nelson Brooke of Think Atheist put together a nice list of skeptical books that "will enable the reader to mount a full-fledged intellectual defense of skepticism." It's good. Check it out.

What Have I Been Doing Lately? Discussing the OTF.

I've been discussing the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) over at Christian philosopher Victor Reppert's Blog with Steve Lovell, a person I'm told is a C.S. Lewis scholar. It's not looking too good for Steve though.

What Does it Mean to Take and Pass The OTF?

Believers are scrambling to find a way of escape from the Outsider Test for Faith(OTF), which calls upon them to test what they were led to believe from an outsider's perspective with the same level of skepticism used to reject all other religions. All that believers need to do is consider how they evaluate the other religions they reject. Once they do they'll see quite plainly what is required of them. They merely assume these other religions are false. That's all it takes. Just assume they are false.

Stephen Law on "Playing the Mystery Card"

Critics point out that [you believers] have little in the way of argument for what you believe, there also seems to be powerful evidence against it. If you want, nevertheless, to convince both yourself and others that your beliefs are not nearly as ridiculous as your critics suggest, what can you do? Play the mystery card...” Read his lengthy response.

What Would Convince Victor Reppert to Give Up Christianity?

Vic responded to this question recently and I think it's a fair answer:

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

25) That although God's supposed revelation in the canonical Bible is indistinguishable from the musings of an ancient, barbaric, superstitious people, the Bible is the word of God.

My Next Book: The Outsider Test for Faith

Hey, why not? I'll start work on it before too long. I have plenty of material. I'll combine into one book everything I've written about it. I would tell how I first came up with it, why it is objective and fair, why it's needed, who should take it and what it requires of people. I'll also provide some examples of how Christian apologists critique the religions they reject. Then I'll decisively answer every objection to it in some detail, and end the book showing what it does to the Christian faith. While I'd like to have it titled: The Outsider Test for Faith, and I may do so, I was wondering if there is a more catchy title that would better tell the reader what the book is about. Any suggestions?

Do Near-Death Experiences Prove the Soul Exists?

Daylight Atheism examines the research of Sam Parnia, who "carried out a study in which he interviewed all survivors of cardiac arrest at his hospital over one year," and concludes:

Parnia's study...doesn't prove anything about the timing of NDEs or demonstrate that they occur while the brain is nonfunctional. The only conclusive way to prove that they result from the soul leaving the body would be for people in such a state to gain information they couldn't have accessed through ordinary methods - but as I said earlier, aside from unverifiable hearsay and anecdotes, this never happens. Every careful, controlled experiment set up to prove this has turned up empty.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

24) That although the only method we have for determining the truth in factual matters is methodological naturalism, which assumes a natural explanation for any phenomena, and although this method is the hallmark of the sciences, the phenomena of the Bible can be exempted from this method as applied through Biblical Criticism, and believed anyway.

Should Atheists Take the Outsider Test for Faith?

[Written by John Loftus]
I've written a lot about this question already, but let me add a few things.

Ronald Hendel Protests Recognizing Fundamentalist Groups in the SBL

He writes:

“The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know.” This famous line from Pascal’s Pensées draws a wise distinction between religious faith and intellectual inquiry. The two have different motivations and pertain to different domains of experience. They are like oil and water, things that do not mix and should not be confused...

Christianity is At Best Only Possibly True

Yep, that's what I think and I can demonstrate this.

Yahweh is Dead!

Christians do not believe in God, you see. The God they're supposed to believe in, Yahweh, is dead. He was a mean tribal cultural god who died a long time ago.

Professor David Eller Responds to Randal Rauser

Below is Eller's response to what Professor Rauser said in this post about chapter one in The Christian Delusion

Answering Dr. Randal Rauser's Objections to the OTF (Part 2)

Randal Rauser adequately sums up his objections to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) in a recent comment at DC. Since this is my baby I'm gonna respond:

God vs Jesus 2010

Last night the Touchdown Jesus figure on I-75 in Ohio was destroyed by fire from heaven (i.e. a lightning bolt). Here's my friend and funny man Matt Hensley's take on it. Enjoy.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

23) That although there can be no moral justification for the sufferings of animals in this created world, a perfectly good God created this world anyway. We don't even see God's care for the lower animals in his supposed revealed word, which is described in Psalm 119 as his "perfect will." Think otherwise? Then read what I wrote here.