I doubt it, not the way it's going. Evangelical Christians are being forced to retreat from our culture. Many of them prefer home-schooling. And given the entertainment industry I doubt they can watch many TV programs that make the rest of us laugh. I have mixed feelings about this since some of the stuff is getting pretty raunchy, like the CBS sitcom "Two and a Half Men" (linked below). But if pop culture continues headed in this direction then evangelicals might as well become Amish in their way of life to maintain their moral purity. Or, if they are watching, then their morals will continue changing and with it so will their theology.
[Written by John W. Loftus] I've liked this quote by GK Chesterton from the day I read it. Doing something badly is at least doing something productive, if what you're doing is the right thing to do. It's better than not attempting something at all. At least you will learn from your efforts. All of the most important things we learned to do we started out doing them badly, like walking, talking, singing, dancing and riding a bicycle. You improve as you go. You cannot improve until you start. You begin by starting out badly. You have to be willing to fail, sometimes often, to achieve what you want to. So if you decide to do something, anything, be prepared to start out by doing it badly. If you wait until you can do something perfectly you'll do nothing at all.
That's what one Christian who comments here said to me in an email:
In the sidebar it may look as if I think highly of myself. There seems to be a lot of self-promotion going on over there. The reason that you see it is precisely because I know I'm not that important. There are new visitors here every hour who have never heard of my work. So it's to introduce them to it. Until I make it on the cover of Time Magazine, or until I am the president of an atheist organization that has billboards all over California, or until I am interviewed on Nightline, not very many people in the over-all scheme of things know of my work, especially the people in Europe. And I don't think that will happen. My books have never been on the "New Books" table at any national chain bookstore. They sit on an atheism shelf in the back of the store, if there is an atheism shelf at all. I'm not complaining. That's just the way it really is. And since I have no new arguments defending metaphysical naturalism and have decided to kick a dead horse, evangelicalism, I'm only dealing with a small slice of the pie. I know that. But I want to get the attention of the people feasting on that slice of pie.
I am set for the express purpose of destroying the influence of evangelical Christianity in America and in the world at large. I hope atheists can appreciate this. I'm doing what I think it takes as a former evangelical insider. Whether I can do this is not the question, since I just want to be a part of what many others are doing. I embrace a multifaceted approach to accomplishing this shared goal of ours.
Well it feels like that anyway, for a donation. I'm moving so I need the money.
There are some doubts that Jesus was known as a miracle worker in his day. David Friedrich Strauss (1808- 1874 CE) was the first to systematically argue this case. Against the rationalist approach of explaining them all away naturally, and against the supernaturalist approach which took these claims literally, Strauss argued in what can be considered a book of its own (a chapter containing 121 pages), that these miracle stories were myths.1
Nine months ago at Randal's initiation we finished a book proposal tentatively titled: God or Godless: One Atheist, One Christian, and Twenty Irreverent, Interesting, and Somewhat Informative Debates. In it we each propose ten topics for debate. This has been a slow process but we finally got a contract from Baker Book House, a major Christian publisher.
Why didn't we get a choice in whether or not we would be born on earth? Wouldn't the reasonably good thing to do is to create us and then ask us if we would want to be born knowing the risks involved?
[Written by John W. Loftus] Christian apologists point out that the probability of a miracle is increased when it occurs in a “religious context” as opposed to one that is a merely an “anomaly.” William Lane Craig states that: “A miracle without a context is inherently ambiguous. But if a purported miracle occurs in a significant religio-historical context, then the chances of its being a genuine miracle are increased. For example, if the miracles occur at a momentous time and do not recur regularly in history, and if the miracles are numerous and various, then the chances of their being the result of some unknown natural cause are reduced.” Then he proceeds to argue that in the case of Jesus his resurrection took place in such a religious context.1
All a person has to do is make an interesting argument that provokes debate. If you have done that then you have done well. It furthers the discussion. The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is such an argument. Here is a recent email and my answers to the objections.
Link. Atheist Jane Caro (at 35:15) expresses one of the main reasons I am against religion, the oppression of women. I loved what she said and silently cheered as she spoke! Atheist Russell Blackford (at 54:15) was excellent as well.
Well it feels like that anyway, for a donation. I'm moving so I need the money.
I understand why some people don't like debates. I really do. Only in an honest dialogue can we get at the truth. In a debate format you'll probably never hear one side admitting the other side has a good point, or retract a statement that was shown to be wrong. No one concedes anything in such a contest because the goal is to win for their side. Just the same, let me offer six reasons in defense of debates.
Some Christians think they have Biblical precedent to scoff, mock and malign those of us who are apostates from the faith because Jesus Paul and Elijah mocked their opponents. Let me try to reason with them.
Well it feels like that anyway, for a donation. I'm moving so I need the money. I also have no plans on writing something about the historical Jesus. For anyone interested in that issue these books should help for a donation.
Anyone care to step up and say "I do"? ;-)
My publisher has dubbed me "a leading atheist spokesperson." I didn't say this. I don't care if I am. They do it to sell books. So let's explore this. Am I? Let's take the issue of whether or not there is a historical person behind the Jesus cult, okay? Do I speak for you?
[Written by John W. Loftus] Christian apologists Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have proposed a "minimal facts approach" to the resurrection of Jesus. Along with William Lane Craig in his debates, they want to stress that which most scholars agree on as facts and then seek the best hypothesis that explains all of these agreed upon facts. They do not want “to be saddled with the task of first showing that the Gospels are, in general, historically reliable,” writes Craig.[20] Instead, Craig wants to establish “that the Gospel accounts of the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb can be shown to be historically reliable without first showing that the Gospels are, in general, historically trustworthy.”[21] Habermas and Licona tell us about their own “minimal facts approach” in these words: “This approach considers only those data that are strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones…We present our case using the ‘lowest common denominator’ of agreed-upon facts. This keeps attention on the central issue, instead of sidetracking into matters that are irrelevant.”[22]
What follows is my four part defense of Bill Craig placed into one long post. I thought I'd put together all of the relevant posts and comments for further reference.
Just tell me I cannot do something. Tell me I shouldn't even try. Tell me to abandon my goals. Don't people know that one of the reasons I have done so well in putting together some great authors in anthologies with a popular blog is that I am a driven/passionate man? I said so in my book WIBA. Driven people get things done. It may be a fault with our types to get pissed off at naysayers, but then why fault the very thing that makes us who we are? Being a driven man is a double-edged sword. Without the one edge I wouldn't have the other. I have been proving naysayers wrong nearly all of my life. When it comes to my goal of debating William Lane Craig, I will show the naysayers wrong.
At Debunking Christianity I welcome most anyone to comment on what is written. I like the challenge of educated discussions between educated people. I think educated people can disagree agreeably. Only people not fully exposed to alternative ways of thinking will claim their opponents are stupid merely because they disagree. But not all Christians who visit here are educated. I get a lot of utterly ignorant and even some threatening comments from Christians ("You are going to hell Loftus.") These kind of comments will not be tolerated. Nor will I tolerate personal attacks against me coming from my side.
