August will be time for me to get some needed things done, so I'll be inactive this month. Not that I won't post some things, just not that much. Become a follower or subscribe by email not to miss a thing. If you have something to share do it below. Cheers.
vorjack, the managing editor of Daniel Florien's blog Unreasonable Faith, wrote a review where he said, "All told, there are fourteen strong articles here, plus Loftus’ OTF in the introduction and a brief closing from Robert Price. It’s a solid collection of essays that work well together...On balance, the book is a solid addition to the atheist library, and it makes an excellent companion to The Christian Delusion." That's cool, but I get the sense he's tired of me or something, for he also wrote: "No one has ever accused Loftus of being timid," and, "By this point Loftus can only muster a three paragraph introduction..." and, "Richard Carrier, who Loftus credits with doing the actual editing of the book..." and, "One of the advantages of these collections is always the chance to hear new voices, and that gets lost when you turn it over to the usual suspects...if Loftus et. al. wants to publish another book, it may be time to develop the field a little more and bring in some new blood."
He has been kind to discuss this issue with me even though it was an aside to a post of his on Bible study. It's hard to replicate the order of our comments since it was two different discussions, but I tried. See what you think:
At my recent talk in Indy a Christian named Phil heard it and said that given how passionate I am I'll come back around to Christianity. He also said the atheist movement was from God, presumably God's judgment on America in the last days before Jesus comes back. Jerry Wilson was there and shouted, "How do you know that?" That's a great question! There is no evidence leading Phil to believe what he said, none. Which reminds me, Bill Craig said there is still hope for me too! Yep, and that's why I reject faith. It can and does lead people to believe almost anything. Who in their right mind would say such things? If I haven't committed the unforgivable sin then no one has.
They certainly do not come from the Bible, that's for sure. But Christians claim otherwise. In order to do this they must cherry-pick the Bible for minority voices and reject the majority voices since much of Biblical morality comes from a barbaric era. Let's take a different tack and say there was never a Bible and never a Christian religion at all, or any religion. Is it really plausible to say we needed the Bible to tell us anything about slavery such that without it we would still embrace slavery, or any other socially needed change? Where do social advancements come from? How about human creativity and need, just like the advancement of science? We noticed slaves were human beings. We noticed women were not inferior to men. We noticed people are not evil so much as they may be maladjusted. We noticed that democracy is a better way to solve our disputes. We noticed that medicine heals people and that science works. We noticed that animals feel pain. We noticed that the environment is important to sustain all life. Isn't that enough for social and ethical change? No, Christians did not get their morals from the Bible. They noticed the same things and simply picked the few good cherries out the Bible and rejected the overwhelming number of bad ones.
As an ex-Christian you've heard the same spiel, "You were never a Christian." How do you respond? I respond in four ways: 1) That's just one of your delusions. There are many more; 2) Your God promised that if I believed he would save me. I believed, so why didn't he keep his promise?; 3) I don't care what you think. Deal with my arguments; 4) You're right, because there isn't any truth to Christianity. I was never saved because Jesus doesn't save anyone and that includes you.
Hemant Mehta, The Friendly Atheist, announced how you can win a free copy of my book, which was very nice of him. As you can see, the Kindle version is doing very well right now:
[Written by John Loftus] Among other things atheism can probably best be defined as the view that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe in any one or more proposed gods, such as Zeus or Hathor or Odin or Baal or Yahweh. Everyone can understand this definition quite easily since we all know what it's like not to believe something that doesn't have sufficient evidence for it. So how is atheism a religion? How is nonbelief a religion? By contrast a religion is probably best defined as the belief in one or more supernatural beings or forces. So again, how is atheism a religion? How is the nonbelief in one or more supernatural beings or forces a religion? I really want to know. Theists have developed a deeply flawed view of these things because they fail to make at least two simple but critical distinctions.
Say that again? He's doing a skeptical review of the book? This is clearly Orwellian Doublespeak where the word "skeptical" now replaces the word "believing". It is a believing review of my book! And can you or not clearly see that his criticisms miss the mark? I tire of this shit, big time. I'll not even offer a critique since it's so lame. You either see it or you are blind, bat shit blind. Sorry, but that's what I think. That Christian scholars make these kind of arguments only reinforces my claim that defending the faith makes otherwise brilliant people look dumb. Enjoy discussing these things below.. I believe that most Christians have little difficulty maintaining their faith, even when challenged, since it is propped up by dozens, if not hundreds, of individual pieces (& thought patterns) they deem to be solid on their own (and even stronger together)...if one of those pieces takes a hit, hey, no big deal, there are still plenty of reasons to continue believing!...But what happens when a sizable number of those pieces, propping up your worldview, are attacked simultaneously? Well, this can cause one to question their entire paradigm, and in my case, that paradigm was the truth of Christianity.
, was published in 2006, one frequent criticism that has been levied against it is that the treatment of Christianity is insufficient and too naive. Professor Dawkins has very little of a religious background, and I would agree that it shows in his book. The same may be said for Christopher Hitchens and god is not Great
or Sam Harris and Letter to a Christian Nation
. While there is still plenty to appreciate about each of those books, they have not offered a thorough refutation of Christianity. Although several other authors have produced wonderful works criticizing Christianity, this ex-Evangelical minister, John Loftus, has compiled an outstanding anthology of scholarly essays that strive to expose The Christian Delusion
. [It] is the most comprehensive, well-written, and entertaining refutation of conservative Christian beliefs that I have come across yet. GodlessHaven.com