My Top Ten List of Christian Delusions

There are so many delusions to mention that it's hard to choose just ten, and it's hard to rank them since they're all equally delusions. But in keeping with David Letterman's series of top ten lists here they are for your enjoyment:

So...You Really Want Equal Time eh?

Do you really? Then do this:

Don't Be a Dick, Phil Plait

The title of this post is supposed to get attention. I do this regularly. It creates hits. Try it sometime. But I also want to make this point. There appears to be a storm of controversy by skeptics weighing in on one side or the other about Phil Plait's talk, "Don't Be a Dick," at TAM 8 posted below. I only know that there is controversy. I have not read what people have said. I don't need to. Watch his 30 minute talk below. Then read what I have to say about it afterward.

Lee Strobel, You Are Just Plain Stupid!

I like Bishop John Shelby Spong. I've read a couple of his books more than a decade ago and they were eye-opening to me. He presents a superior case against Christian fundamentalism. Watch Spong in action below but take special note of how utterly stupid Lee Strobel is at the end. He merely repeats platitudes that Biblical scholars have long ago debunked. Sorry Lee but you are one ignorant man.

David Silverman vs. a Catholic Guy ;-) On ABC's Nightline

David so dominated that he had no opponent at all, catch my drift? ;-)

The Plight of Women Under Religion and Their Courage

Just watch what man made religion does to women and their courage in the face of this adversity! My hat's off to them. Such courage! I wish we were all that courageous. Just watch this CBS report, and then this closing segment.

Evangelicals Offer Self-Congratulatory Bluster

On a pretty impressive site that aims at having a balanced view of religions called Patheos, there is a page for Evangelicalism that offers little more than self-congratulatory bluster for its philosophical and apologetical achievements in the last few decades.

Every Feminist Should be an Atheist (and Every Atheist a Feminist)

Daylight Atheism makes this case for me right here. A major reason why I debunk Christianity is because I'm a feminist.

The Planned Islamic Center Near Ground Zero and a History Lesson

Politicians, pundits and conservative Christians are aghast that Muslims would want to build an Islamic Center near where nine Muslims in the name of Allah flew planes into buildings on 9/11. No one seems to question their legal right to build this center. They have that right. What is questioned is whether it should be built. The argument is that building this center would be offensive to the people who lost loved ones on that day and should not be built.

The Bible Says Women Are Foolish and Flighty

Such tomfoolery should be ignored. Why on earth would enlightened people in our age take seriously the Bible if it is wrong about women? It's wrong about almost everything important.

There's One Life and It's This Life. And It’s Beautiful.

Video and lyrics below:

My Love Affair is Over

I found this beautifully written story on exchristian.net:

"Biblical Christianity Is Bankrupt"

That's right, so argues Michael Dowd, a liberal author of the book Thank God for Evolution. I agree with his criticisms most emphatically. Check him out. When Christians are done tearing into each other all I have to say is that I agree with them all. And I agree with the non-Christian religions too. What's left after these religions tear into one another? Atheism. Get the point.

Christian, Do You Really Believe in Divine Protection?

Really, do you? Then why is it that God's divine protection is indistinguishable from chance? And why do you act as if there is none?

How To Be a Biblical Scholar

Well, it requires years of studying and learning several languages, that's for sure, but you can begin with something very simple and fairly easy to do. All you need to do at minimum is to recognize something very basic but very very important about the canonized Biblical texts, and then proceed to read some ancient contextual literature you probably have not read before.

For Discussion: What is a “New Atheist”?

At the annual meeting of the SBL Hector Avalos argued the distinguishing characteristic of the New Atheist was a secular apocalyptic, that is, a focus on the dangers of religion in an age of weapons of mass destruction. Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry and The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief recently argued there is nothing new with the New Atheism. Then (believe this or not) some people think my Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is "Not quite new, but not old either…Just atheist." But I'm here to tell everyone that what may really distinguish a so-called New Atheist from an Old Atheist is the moral perspective found in Sam Harris's book The Moral Landscape, which Richard Carrier shares in the last chapter for the forthcoming anthology, The End of Christianity. In any case, what do you think?

Thom Stark on Paul Copan's Apologetics

So that Christians are better prepared to defend the Bible, I would like to offer a lesson on biblical apologetics. Over the summer, I have been reading biblical apologists incessantly, feeding off their every word. Along the way, I’ve learned a trick or two on how to defend the Bible. Today’s lesson is brought to you courtesy of Paul Copan, professor of philosophy and ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University and author of When God Goes To Starbucks: A Guide To Everyday Apologetics.

Copan shows us how to defeat accusations that Yahweh is a moral monster with a few simple moves. The Copan motto is: selectivity spells success. All you have to do to defend the Bible and defeat your opponents is to use the evidence selectively. Selective readings of the evidence are the quickest and simplest way to defend the truth of God’s Word and beat down any of God’s hostile accusers. Enjoy reading more.

Thom Stark: "I think every Christian should be paying attention to Loftus..."

That's pretty cool for him to say that, I think. He goes on to say: "...even, if not especially, when we don’t like the way he talks and what he has to say." You see, a problem originated when I highly recommended Stark's forthcoming book, The Human Faces of God. I had written:

The only reason evangelicals still exist is because most of them simply do not read. Those who do read don't read works like his. The few who do read works like his don't do so to learn anything. They already have their blinders on from a few years of indoctrination in an evangelical college of their choice. In my opinion when it comes to understanding biblical scholarship the phrase "educated evangelical" is an oxymoron.

Is this rhetoric? Nope. I meant it. It's now the quote of the day!

The Jesus in the Gospels Never Existed!

[Written by John W. Loftus] Yep, that's right. It comes from something that mythicist Steven Carr recently wrote:

There's a New Kid On the Block, Thom Stark, So Watch Out Now

Look at the advanced praise for Thom Stark's book, The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (forthcoming with Wipf & Stock Publishers). This is some very good stuff, reminiscient of James Barr's book Beyond Fundamentalism. The only reason evangelicals still exist is because most of them simply do not read. Those who do read don't read works like his. The few who do read works like his don't do so to learn anything. They already have their blinders on from a few years of indoctrination in an evangelical college of their choice. In my opinion when it comes to understanding biblical scholarship the phrase "educated evangelical" is an oxymoron.

Atheism is at the Heart of Science

Hendy, who comments at DC, is struggling with what to believe. Anyone care to help him out? He's welcoming your advice. For me agnosticism is the default position and that's where he seems to be right now. I could wish we would all be as intellectually honest with the evidence. But once we admit no supernatural beings exist and that no supernatural explanations are reasonable, such an agnostic (non-knower) is actually an atheist (non-theist), and that's all anyone needs to be, for at that point he trusts the sciences rather than faith to tell him what to think. David Eller makes the case that atheism is at the heart of science. Good luck Hendy.

Why Are There Natural Explanations For Everything?

Perhaps you Christians can suggest reasons why a God like yours created the universe and man in such a way that there are natural explanations for why we exist, how we think, who we are, and why we behave as we do. As far as I know there are natural explanations for everything you claim a supernatural deity did. You don't think these explanations are good ones, okay, but they exist and they persuade many if not most scientists working in those fields.

Why then is it that your God created this world as he did and revealed himself as he has done that are indistinguishable from him not creating the universe or revealing himself at all? This is what I want to know. In fact, why does reasonable nonbelief exist at all?

Extreme Tourists Encounter Extreme Superstition

Bart Willruth, a former team member at DC (look him up), sent me an essay to publish below. Looks like he's read my book. Enjoy

Quote of the Day by Chuck O'Connor

This goes into the humor department, lol.

With Thinking Skills Like These No Wonder You Believe

In a recent post I had written this sentence: "Joe, my goal is to change the minds of one person at a time, alone as they read my book." Then a Christian named Neal responded: "Man, your opinion of yourself is quite deluded. The idea that after Hume, Nietzsche, Comte, Marx, Engels, Popper, Russell, Sartre, Schopenhauer, Ayer, Chomski, and the list could be multiplied on and on now suddenly a second-rate atheologian like John Loftus has the arguments that will demolish Christianity once and for all is more than just hubris, it is outright self-deluded narcissism. Your estimation of your own abilities is quite exaggerated."

Does anyone know what a non-sequitur is? Neal's response is one.

Peter Phua, Writing for CFI About My Magnum Opus

You've got to admit that had someone written such a glowing review of your book you'd be popping your buttons too--to hell with humility, that's a Christian virtue ;-). See below:

Truth? What do You Think?

A skeptical Blogger insists he's on to something important so I decided to link to what he wrote. It's long. I have my doubts. It seems he wants to develop a rational step by step approach to reasoning with a believer. In my experience this has not worked. Believers switch topics once we corner them. In some ways that's legitimate to do because they have Bayesian background beliefs that are not presently on the table but form the background for why they think the present one on the table is more probable than not. In my experience it takes a slam dunk cumulative case dealing with all of the background beliefs that one can write about in a single readable book that refers to other tomes defending each claim.

Quote of the Day by Robert M. Price

"What evangelical apologists are still trying to show...is that their version of the resurrection was the most compatible with accepting all the details of the gospel Easter narratives as true and non-negotiable...[D]efenders of the resurrection assume that their opponents agree with them that all the details are true, that only the punch line is in question. What they somehow do not see is that to argue thus is like arguing that the Emerald City of Oz must actually exist since, otherwise, where would the Yellow Brick Road lead?....We simply have no reason to assume that anything an ancient narrative tells us is true." The Case Against the Case for Christ, (pp. 209-210).

Quote of the Day by Sam Harris

Consider: every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you have for being a Christian. And yet you do not find their reasons compelling....Why don't you lose any sleep over whether to convert to Islam? Can you prove that Allah is not the one, true God? Can you prove that the archangel Gabriel did not visit Muhammad in his cave? Of course not. But you need not prove any of these things to reject the beliefs of Muslims as absurd. The burden is upon them to prove that their beliefs about God and Muhammad are valid. They have not done this. They cannot do this....The truth is, you know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims. Isn't it obvious Muslims are fooling themselves? Isn't it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Koran is the perfect word of the creator of the universe has not read the book critically?...Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions." Letter to a Christian Nation (pp. 6-7).

Quote of the Day by Alvin Plantinga

Yep, this one comes from fundamentalist Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, who wrote:

"To show that there are natural processes that produce religious belief does nothing, so far, to discredit it; perhaps God designed us in such a way that it is by virtue of those processes that we come to have knowledge of him. Suppose it could be demonstrated that a certain kind of complex neural stimulation could produce theistic belief. This would have no tendency to discredit religious belief....Clearly, it is possible both that there is an explanation in terms of natural processes of religious belief, and that these beliefs have a perfectly respectable epistemic status." Warranted Christian Belief (p. 145).

Why is this the quote of the day?

American Christianity is not well, and there's evidence to indicate that its condition is more critical than most realize — or at least want to admit.

So writes William Lobdell for the LA Times today, after telling us of Anne Rice's defection from her faith. He also reported on some other interesting facts about Christians:

Paul Tobin Responds to The Infidel Delusion (Part 2)

Part 1 can be found here. Quote of the day from Paul Tobin below:

I shake my head in wonderment when I see the evangelical mind at work.

Quote of the Day by Walter

I have the hardest time believing that the creator of the entire cosmos put on a 'meat suit' to masquerade as a human for thirty something years just so this deity could undergo some form of blood ritual sacrifice so that the other 2/3 of his triune self could then feel good about forgiving humans for not living up to an impossible standard of perfection. Further, this deity's forgiveness is contingent upon believing in revelations and miracles that only happened in the ancient past. Any god that will only reveal "himself" in the ancient past should not be surprised nor upset that large numbers of people don't believe in him today. - Walter

Christians Must Denigrate Reason, Science and Evidence to Believe

I've said before that most Christians must denigrate reason, the sciences and evidence in order to believe. This just in, another Christian denigrates the sciences in order to believe. I've seen believers do this time and again. But with Paul Manata it is extremely blatant. So, let me get this straight Paul, just because the social sciences don't yet "have anything remotely approaching a scientific understanding of human society" we can dismiss what they do tell us about human society, eh? Until the social sciences "predict human behavior comprehensively and reliably" there is nothing at all we can learn from them, right Paul? Balderdash! Complete and utter foolishness. Oh but wait, faith demands foolishness.

Of Lions and Dogs: They Can Remember, Have Emotions, and Feel Compassion

Since human beings have evolved from the lower animals we would expect the lower animals to exhibit some of the traits we have developed more fully. There is plenty of evidence they can remember, have emotions, and feel compassion. They also know in limited ways that they are doing wrong. I see this in my cat every day. When we say no he throws a temper tantrum. Some dogs poop on the carpet when neglected to get our attention, if we're gone too long. This evidence bolsters the claim that morality evolved and it also presents theists with what I call "The Darwinian Problem of Evil." Why do they suffer so much if a perfectly good God exists?

The Darwinian Problem of Evil Visualized

This is an excellent graphic video about natural evils and the problem of animal suffering that was made by Rhetorical Bullshit based on my chapter in The Christian Delusion. Just ask yourselves while watching it: 1) What did animals do to deserve their sufferings? (Hint: nothing); 2) What moral lessons are they supposed to learn from their sufferings? (Hint: none); 3) Will they all be rewarded in heaven for their sufferings? (Hint: What about parasites?); 4) Can a perfectly good God be reconciled with this amount of suffering? (Not a chance!).

Top Seven Ways Christianity is Debunked By the Sciences

[Written by John W. Loftus] God is dead, Friedrich Nietzsche predicted it over a century ago. No, God did not die. We just came to the realization he never existed in the first place. We no longer need him to explain what needs to be explained. We now have better natural explanations of the existing phenomena. They explain more without recourse to the ad hoc theories that supernatural explanations offer believers. Theologians came to realize this in the 60's as announced on the cover of Time magazine, April 8, 1966. What killed him? The sciences.

The Top Ten Ways to Avoid Being Criticized

[Written by John W. Loftus] After thinking about this topic may I present to you the top ten ways to avoid being criticized:

Here are Links to Several Interviews I've Done

Starting with the most recent ones to later ones:

David Pakman Interviews Me: How an Evangelical Christian Preacher Became an Atheist. March 25, 2016

I was interviewed by the Legion of Reason which included Nathan Phelps, aired September 28, 2015.

In this September 2015 interview by the Humanist Hour we talk about my upcoming book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.LINK.

Does Christianity Pass the Outsider Test?, Part 1 with David Marshall, aired Jan. 24, 2015, for the Unbelievable? program. I wrote a response to this podcast where I accused the host of not even trying to be fair.

Does Christianity Pass the Outsider Test?, Part 2 with David Marshall, aired Jan. 31, 2015, for the Unbelievable? program.

Bill Cunningham's interview aired in December 2014.

Fox News Radio with Alan Combs interview on November 2014.

The Filipino Freethinkers with Red Tani, on January 6, 2014.

NonTheology, about my Outsider Test for Faith, first aired August 5th 2013. We had some fun.

Reasonable Doubts Podcast, where I talk about my two most recent books, aired on June 21, 2013.

Unbelieveable Podcast with Randal Rauser, aired June 15, 2013.

The Malcontent's Gambit Interview about my book "The Outsider Test for Faith" on May 7, 2013.

Minnesota Atheist Interview about my book "The Outsider Test for Faith" on April 21, 2013.

Christian Meets World Interview, aired July 29, 2012.

"Think Atheist" Interview About My Revised WIBA Book, aired April 8th, 2012.

With Barry Lynn of Culture Shocks, on 8/16/11.

With Irreligiosophy on 8/9/11.

Think Atheist Radio Show, which aired March 27, 2011.

Minnesota Atheists, which aired March 20, 2011.

A three part interview on the Tuesday Afternoon podcast aired between January 27th and February 10th 2011.

Oklahoma Atheist podcast aired October 26, 2010.

American Freethought aired July 2, 2010.

My Interview on "Conversations From the Pale Blue Dot", aired April 28th 2010, about my book, The Christian Delusion.

My Interview on the Freedom From Religion program, aired April 3rd, 2010.

My Interview on the Enlightenment Show, September 9th, 2009.

My Interview with Minnesota Atheists. Talk #0071, May 24, 2009.

The Things That Matter Most, March 1, 2009.

CFI's Point of Inquiry, January 30, 2009.

My Interview on the Freedom From Religion program, November 15, 2008.

The Infidel Guy Show, November 14th, 2008.

CFI of Indiana Freethought, September 28th, 2008.

Robert M. Price and I are interviewed together on The Enlightenment Show of Freethought Ft. Wayne, August 17, 2008.

The Friendly Atheist, June 26, 2008.

By Infidelis Maximus, July 2, 2007.

People Believe and Defend That Which They Prefer to Be True And the Facts Won't Change Their Minds

It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one....If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight. In the end, truth will [win] out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

TOP 16 WAYS TO GET A WOMAN/ WIFE ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE

This list was sent to me by Ed Babinski:

Contra Victor Reppert on the Emotional Appeal of Christianity

Vic had written:

I understand the emotional appeal of Christianity. I also understand what isn't so emotionally appealing about it, such as the claim that I am a sinner whose actions offend the creator of the universe. If I were to invent a religion that appealed to me emotionally, I wouldn't pick Christianity.

Paul Tobin Responds to The Infidel Delusion (Part 1)

When John Loftus informed me that there is a “book length rebuttal” available on the net to The Christian Delusion I was expecting an intellectual challenge but instead what I found amounts to no more than relatively lightweight and easily dismissed assertions.

Triablogue’s Moral Relativism Exposed

Killing children could sometimes be obligatory, according to Triablogue.

People Believe and Defend That Which They Prefer to Be True

I take it that the title to this post is uncontestable and undeniably true from what we know about human beings. The ONLY responses I have gotten from believers are these two: 1) The Ad Hominem Tu Quoque Fallacy which does nothing to address the point (see link); and 2) "No this does not apply to me when I assess the truth claims of Christianity because I am the exception to the rule." [How can all of them be the exception to the rule if this is the rule?]

What a load of bunk, oh but wait, what's the title to my Blog again? Ahhhhh, yes.

Dr. Valerie Tarico Responds to the Triabloguers

She does so in the form of a letter to me:

John, you have asked me to respond to a critique at the site, Triablogue, of my chapter, “Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science” for The Christian Delusion. Reading the critique, I am struck, primarily, by the perception that the reviewers, in attempting to state their case, overstate mine. Psychology is a profession focused not on possibilities but on practicalities – not on how things might function in an abstract, philosophical sense, but rather on what we can know about how they do function in the ordinary lives of ordinary humans (and sometimes other species). Psychology asks and attempts to answer a set of questions regarding the contingencies–-replicable cause and effect relationships—that govern people’s lives. At this level of analysis, there is a tentative but useful distinction between knowing and not knowing.

People Believe and Defend What They Prefer to Be True

People believe and defend what they prefer to be true. This is an obvious and non-controversial fact. That's who we are as human beings. That's what we human beings do. That's what psychological studies have repeatedly shown us over and over.

Richard Dawkins: If Science Worked Like Religion

I've been faulted for suggesting that the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) has force primarily against religious faiths. I think this because of the nature of them, how they were first adopted, the evidence (or lack thereof) that can decide between them, and so forth. To see why, check out the video below by Richard Dawkins. The sciences are in an entirely different league than faith:

The Outsider Test for Faith Visualized

[Written by John W. Loftus] I've argued for the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) but most believers just don't get it. For people like that I've made a playlist of five short videos so they can see what they refuse to see because they're blinded by faith.

Amateur Hour at Triablogue

Triablogue’s amateurs have compiled a supposed refutation of The Christian Delusion. Some uninformed bloggers are already hailing it as a “massive” and definitive refutation. Yet, even the most superficial look at Triablogue’s efforts reveals yet another instance of amateurs who don’t know enough to know that they don’t know enough about the topics they discuss.

Being merciful to DC’s readers, I will not provide an exhaustive catalog of Triablogue’s factual errors, illogical arguments, or misreadings of my chapters. I will provide a few samples within these categories:

A. The Credentials Card
B. Ill-read Reviewers
C. Misrepresented arguments
D. Misunderstood Arguments
E. The Ridiculous and the Mundane