The death of Caylee Anthony is still a mystery they say, since Casey Anthony was acquitted today. She was only convicted of providing false information to police. Really? I find it impossible that Casey Anthony would provide false information to police about her missing daughter Caylee, if she wasn't at least an accomplice to her murder. Impossible! That Casey got off is a testament to what we know about people. Were the jurors stupid? Probably not. What went wrong then? Only one juror had a criminal record, that of drinking and driving. Good people, decent people, upstanding people in any community just cannot fathom that a mother would kill her own daughter, and that's it. Place a few felons on that jury and they would've spotted a criminal mind in action, because it's really true to say "it takes one to know one." The problem is that felons cannot serve as jurors in thirty one states and in federal courts. No, these jurors probably weren't stupid people. They were blinded by their own prejudices, a recurring theme here when it comes to Christianity. ;-)
This post theme is dedicated to District Supt. Harvey Burnett who once told me: “Write what you will you INTERNET misinformed anti-
christ advocate! Love to see it and love EVEN more to put the garbage where it belongs...BACK IN HELL!” (His reply to a post 4/19/08)
[Written by John W. Loftus] I get comments and emails from skeptics who think Christian apologists do not really believe what they defend. They think the case is so bad that apologists must be lying for ulterior motives, that they are liars for Jesus. Here is a case in point for two apologists, Paul Copan, President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and Matthew Flannagan. I'm not accusing these two apologists of lying for Jesus. But it sure makes it appear that way when they won't or can't answer some simple questions both Hector Avalos and I have posed to them.
Christianity can only be defended by blind ignorance involving so many informal fallacies it can make one's head spin. Case in point today is David Marshall, a nice guy and budding scholar who has written a few books. I guess he was feeling left out since I have been highlighting these things with other Christian scholars. Now it's time to turn my attention to him. ;-)
Read and respond to two similar stories, one by Antony Flew, and the other by Carl Sagan. They both have to do with the OTF:
[Written by John W. Loftus] Dr. (they hand out PhD's to anyone these days) Matthew Flannagan said: "As to the OTF you'll see I have pointed out that argument is incoherent." Really? No, Really? That's a very large claim of his, akin to the claim to have refuted it. I don't think in these debates of ours I would ever claim to have refuted an argument. Remember, the larger the claim is then the harder it is to defend. Does he know this? A refutation of an argument is a very difficult thing to produce. My response:
How Dr. Copan Explains Away Biblical Violence
This is known as the ECREE principle mentioned by Carl Sagan and others. I think it's expressed better as "extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence," or better yet, "extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of ordinary evidence," or even better yet, "extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of ordinary evidence, especially when we should expect that evidence to be there," but the point is the same. It's no surprise that Victor Reppert objects to it in these words:
Reppert has been thinking and responding to the OTF longer than any other informed believer I know of, so if you are a believer and you object to the OTF then learn from him. When first confronted with the OTF Reppert criticized it as embracing too radical of a skepticism. Then over the years as I explained it to him further he now says he's a graduate of the OTF and wants a diploma. Cute. As far as I can tell most believers criticize the OTF when they first hear of it. Then they go through the same stages Reppert has gone though, by subsequently embracing it in the face of my arguments, basically wanting their diplomas too. Should I start printing them off and signing them just because they say so? First, here is what Reppert recently admitted:
Faith is pure wishful thinking, nothing more and nothing less. It offers a person a leap beyond what the probabilities actually lead us to think. For if something can be known to be the case we wouldn't need faith. Faith therefore is not a virtue when it comes to knowing the truth about anything. Skepticism is.
Yep, he does not deal with what scientifically minded skeptics actually think.
I just cannot seem to disabuse him of his inconsistent position. He said:
Almost all of the objections to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) are red herrings placed in the road to sidetrack us from getting at the truth. They do not understand the perspective of an outsider, or they grossly misrepresent it in favor of faith. Since I like beating my head against the wall, let me try again.
Why Dr. Flannagan is still Wrong
[Written by John W. Loftus] This is getting ridiculous and predictable. So let me get this straight, okay? In order to believe, Flannagan must denigrate science. Get it.? What utter rubbish. This alone should cause believers to question why they believe what they do based on their upbringing in a Christian culture. Science is the only antidote to how easily we can believe and defend what we were taught on our Mama's knees.
Dr. Flannagan's use of sources shows some careless scholarship.
Dr. Matt Flannagan, of the MandM blog, has directed a few criticism at my chapters (“Yahweh is A Moral Monster” and “Atheism was not the Cause of the Holocaust”) in The Christian Delusion. Those criticisms rest not only on a basic misunderstanding and misreading of my arguments, but also on a very selective and uncritical reading of the sources Flannagan cites for support.
This is my chosen title for a guest sermon I'll be preaching for the "One True Church of Jesus Christ That Has Ever Existed in History." The preacher is away on vacation. This church meets in a little building on "Faith" Street in a town called Saint Paul, Missouri, the "Show Me" state (never-mind the oxymoron). They have a membership of 10 people, all related to each other in some way. Here are my chosen texts. How should I develop my sermon?
I agree wholeheartedly with his assessment of the OTF:
Here's a clip with the standard Christian responses to reasoned arguments:
That's the Christian claim, that non-Christians reject the gospel because we prefer to sin (or do wrong). Let's try to put this canard to rest.
Written by TGBaker:
I developed this ditty from a Facebook spat with a friend of mine who is a Christian Philosopher, Dr. James F. Sennett. I had never really thought about this area before. But I think it produces another problem with the omni-attributes of a proposed god.
This video is from QualiaSoup:
There is just something about the Christian story that makes me want to believe it. I know of no other story like this one. In fact, when I watch music videos of the Christian story I feel its psychological pull on me, and I'm a former believer who has rejected that story. So how much more does the story have a great amount of psychological pull on the hearts of others, especially believers, whose faith is confirmed whenever they ponder it. Case in point are the three videos below:
This is just one of many ways to take the OTF:
On pages 11-15 of his critique of the OTF Christian philosopher Thomas Talbott discusses “The Presumption of Skepticism.” According to him there are three “different kinds of skepticism.” There is “the skepticism of disbelief,” which sometimes requires “a kind of dogmatic certainty.” This is my kind of skepticism he opines, and he implicitly suggests I come across as a “closed-minded dogmatist.” The second kind of skepticism is that of “suspended belief,” which is his kind of skepticism that is “incompatible with dogmatic certainty and sometimes arises when one has the humility to recognize the limits of one’s own knowledge.” Since this is so he says of himself, “I am a true skeptic.” *cough* The third kind of skepticism is “merely the opposite of being overly gullible,” which is a “healthy skepticism” that everyone should have.
On pages 15-20 of the paper written by Christian philosopher Thomas Talbott, “The Outsider Test for Faith: How Serious a Challenge Is It?,” he critiques the idea of an outsider. Let me begin with pages 15-16.
First let me say that whenever it comes to defending any argument critics will offer objections that the author may not have initially considered. This comes as no surprise since authors cannot usually anticipate everything. Even if they can anticipate additional objections they cannot say everything they know in an initial article or chapter. It’s an ongoing dialogue of learning as we go, in making the best case in light of new objections, in responding to these additional objections, and in refining or revising the argument in light of them. That’s why many articles in the journals end up being made into whole books. It looks as if that will happen with my OTF someday too.
Well, the book has been printed and is being shipped out anyway. Order it now. While you're at it tell your "peeps" and/or get the other books below. This is a good time to do it since if you buy two or more the shipping is free. *ahem*
Craig agrees with and "wholeheartedly endorses the bizarre...conclusion that the universe had a beginning and yet there was no time at which the universe did not exist.” What is this delightful brainteaser?
On pages 15-20 of Christian philosopher Thomas Talbott’s “The Outsider Test for Faith: How Serious a Challenge Is It?,” he critiques the idea of an outsider.
All religions have the same faith-based foundation. When faith is a foundation anything can be believed. --John W. Loftus
I can't believe how many pages you can read for free when looking inside the book, but it's now available for preview. The price on Amazon is amazing: $13 for a $21 book. Buy two of them (one for a Christian friend) and the shipping is free. ;-) Or you can buy one of my other ones with it instead:
Watch out now boys! Get ready for this smack-down:
I hope the effort was worth it. Let me know as you get your copy. It'll surely be hotly contested on Amazon and elsewhere. The reaction should prove to be intense. Stay tuned.
my previous book. From the planning stage to the final production TEC took a year and nine months of hard work. It is much easier to grab already published material and place it in a book than in getting new essays from scholars. The chapters in both books are new essays. They both took a lot of work.