I'll tell you what, the more time I spend arguing with believers the more I become interested in psychology and how the brain works. It's not just the utter buffoons I'm talking about, which are many, but all of them. Christians are illogical and delusional. This I know, after spending years in my own delusion and after years of dealing with them since my deconversion. How can they be so deluded, I ask myself? How can they be so dumb? Recently a PhD sent me his criticisms of a part of my book, WIBA, so I began writing a response but abruptly stopped and deleted it, because it didn't deserve a response. I've heard it all before. And I've said it all before. I am convinced that defending the faith makes otherwise brilliant people look stupid. I mean it. That's what faith does to a person.
I am personally attacked almost every day on the web for something I've written. If I don't respond then it's taken to mean I can't (WTF?). These Christians think all skeptical arguments are utterly lame, including mine. Who in their right mind would think this? Just once I'd like to hear a devout Christian say something like: "Hey, that's something I haven't thought of before," or, "This is a serious problem for my faith." It's just that these things are almost never said. No, they have the answers. And they laugh at all skeptical arguments, many of which derive from David Hume, who is thought to be the greatest English speaking philosopher who ever lived.
Now it's one thing to disagree with the skeptics. It's another thing entirely to think our arguments have no force at all. The fact that most Christians think they have no force at all simply means these Christians are delusional.
A few Christians and skeptics have criticized my book WIBA because in it I quote from many different sources to make my points for me. Let me explain why I did this and see if it makes sense.
If you are seriously interested in knowing the real basis for belief you should read one of more of the following excellent books.
Anyone who understands the slightest bit of epistemology knows enough not to claim he or she knows too much with any degree of assuredness. Doubt about what we claim to know is a virtue. This is one of the reasons I doubt the Christian claims. Most Christians claim to know what they believe with complete assuredness. Just read their comments here at DC. I have repeatedly made the distinction between claiming to know something and doubting someone's claims. I simply doubt the Christian claims, and the following books could give Christians an insight into why this is reasonable to do...
[Written by John W. Loftus] I can think of at least seven problems with believing in the biblical claims of miracles.
For a religious faith to pass the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) it must be justified by the sciences. Period. If believers reject the sciences as a way to know the truth then let them propose a better alternative. So if the OTF is to be rejected, what do we put in its place? What’s the alternative?
Yep, this is him. Wow, such contorted logic knows no bounds:
Navigate around at
Closer to the Truth. There are some very interesting videos on a number of different topics by top notch philosophers, scientists and apologists, and they keep adding to it. You could spend hours and hours there. There are many hours of videos about
the God question too. Let me know which ones you find interesting.
First posted on 10/18/08
This objection comes in several different forms. Christians complain that skeptics demand that God should make his existence obvious to us with undeniable proof before we will believe, or that God should make all religious diversity disappear, or that we wouldn’t believe no matter what miracle God did before our eyes. Some atheists have even said as much, including PZ Myers, who recently said he would seriously consider that he had gone mad rather than believe a miracle had happened before his eyes.
The Christian then shoots his double barrel shotgun at us: 1) If we wouldn’t believe should God’s existence be obvious, then why would God bother providing more evidence in the first place? We simply have hardened hearts. If the present amount of evidence will not convince us then no amount of evidence will convince us at all. 2) If God’s existence was made to be obvious then it would eliminate the possibility of real choice, for it would equally be obvious what we ought to do. And if we would know what God requires of us and that we’d be punished if we disobey then “who but a complete fool would not do what is right?” Let me respond once and for all.
There are several blog posts in criticism of what I've written that I have not attempted to answer. Because I choose not to do so the accusation is leveled at me that I don't interact with the opposition. This is such idiocy that no wonder these people believe. Let me explain.
This 13 minute cartoon video is very instructive, although a bit boring. It's the kind of stuff that converts people to Christianity within a Christian culture. [Warning: Watch it at your own risk! You may convert! lol] This is all you need to do to convert people. Tell a person who is in need a nice tear jerking story. It's easy!
Given the proliferation of religious delusions that seem to be growing around the globe in an age of weapons of mass destruction, atheists must start breeding like rabbits. ;-)
Someone recently said: "I would love to see conversion rates to atheism between creationist/conservative Christians (like John Loftus) and more liberal Christians." The implication is that conservatives leave their faith and become atheists more often than liberals do. By proxy this shows liberalism is a better brand of Christianity. I suspect both implications are correct. Conservatives have already rejected liberalism as outsiders to liberalism, and for good reasons. So once they reject their own conservative Christianity it's probable that a high number of them eventually become atheists. Unlike former conservatives though, liberals have probably never critically examined their faith from an outsider's perspective, and this makes all the difference. Since liberals believe in less then liberalism is harder to reject, for the less you take on faith the better it is. ;-) Of course, since that's true agnosticism (understood as a position against all metaphysical claims) would be better than liberalism. And atheism (understood as no religious beliefs at all) is the best conclusion of them all.
I'm amazed when Christians argue their faith is more probably true than not, and then try to live as if they're 100% certain of it. So let's grant them a 51% probability that their brand of Christianity is true. Now to put this into perspective, would they walk out on an ice covered lake if there was only a 51% probability the ice would hold them up? ;-)
Someone emailed me what an unnamed Christian scholar had written him so I responded as follows. I'll blockquote his comments:
, has been nominated for the best atheist book in 2010. Please cast your vote 
is refreshing in several ways as a reminder that we need more dialogue between opposing sides, rather than more vitriol. 
