Richard C. Miller's "Mark's Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity," Journal of Biblical Literature, v. 129, no. 4 (2010) is a good read. According to Miller the story of an empty tomb as found in the earliest Gospel owes more to similar Hellenistic stories than Christian scholars have been wont to admit.
This clip from "The Wrath of Khan" expresses my thoughts as I ponder the impact of my revised book, Why I Became an Atheist, which I am now officially done editing.
In 1971 a NASA space orbiter named Mariner 9 discovered that the canals on Mars were illusory. This discovery strongly disconfirmed the claim that there was intelligent life on that planet. Before this discovery many people claimed they encountered Martians. Afterward, Martians stopped visiting us and aliens started visiting us from Venus. Then after the surface of Venus was found to be hot enough to melt lead Venusians stopped visiting us too. Now they come from far more distant places in our universe. What best explains this? It’s because there were never any Martians or Venusians who visited earth.
Why is it Christians cannot agree to the point where they have condemned each other to hell and/or slaughtered each other because of doctrinal differences that other Christians don't think are essential for salvation? My answer is that Christianity is man made, and as such, doctrinal differences are due to different human ways of understanding the Bible. There is no divine mind behind the Bible, otherwise God should have communicated his will much better than he supposedly did. That's the major reason why there is no doctrinal Christian unity. These different doctrinal understandings continue to be used by denominational leaders to differentiate between Christianities for financial gain and power. Christian, what's your answer?
I have had the privilege of reading through Victor J. Stenger's soon to be released book,
God and the Folly of Faith,
and it's a
tour de force. Among the published atheists trying to bridge the gap between scientifically minded people and people of faith, I think Stenger is the best.
[Written by John W. Loftus] This topic interests me to no end. Why don't most believers seriously question their faith? Does it take a special type of individual? Does it require some personality trait that believers don't have? Does that make skeptics different people? Could it be intelligence? Could it be that skeptics have a higher self-esteem than others? Is it that we don't need social approval? Is it that life's experiences have shown us we cannot accept the dominant opinion on a matter? Is it that we question what we're told in general? Perhaps, but when we look at skeptics in general there doesn't seem to be a set pattern. Perhaps a scientific poll might help answer that kind of question. What I do think is that the following ten reasons are almost certainly necessary conditions even if they are not sufficient ones:
I want to briefly make the case that there is no atheist community. There are only atheist communities. There is likewise no atheist movement. There is only an atheist momentum. Atheists do not even share the same goals. Again, briefly, because my time is limited, here goes.
I've decided to return to blogging here. I like it better. Stay tuned.
Dr. Avalos's guest editorial was published in the politically influential Des Moines Register, and centers on how the nomination of Newt Gingrich would signal the erosion of self-described Christian conservatism.
Follow this Link.
If atheism is the rejection of belief in gods then Buddhism is an atheistic system! Buddha himself was an agnostic who said in Deer Park, "I can not say whether there is a god, no god or not a not-god. But I can tell you how to obtain enlightenment"
Yep. I am not exempt from this. I own a carpet cleaning business and one of my best paying customers decided to talk to me about Jesus as I was cleaning. She asked if I had “a personal relationship with the Lord.” I said, I did at one time but now I have some doubts. She replied that she has doubt too. I said I used to be a minister but don’t even go to church anymore. She said she and her husband don’t go to church either. When I asked why, she said they haven’t been able to find any church that teaches the truth. Really? I said. She and her husband listen faithfully to Pastor Andrew Wommack’s radio program instead. Interesting I said. She offered me one of his books, and I said that was not necessary, “You don’t need to do that.” She insisted, saying they buy several copies and give them out so it’s no trouble at all. Not to offend her I said, “sure, that would be very nice of you,” and she handed me two of them. I thumbed through them, and once again said, they looked interesting. She told me that life isn’t worth living without Jesus, and I said I’ll look into it. Then I escaped without her offering a prayer. Bullshit! Now the next time I clean she’ll ask me what I thought of them. I’ll probably say “interesting.” ;-)
That’s how it is sometimes. We must eat crap once in a while. I’m sure if I had argued with her I would’ve lost her business and she would not recommend our services anymore.
I think "external material world" is a dualistic habit we continue to carry from religious language. It presupposes that there is some homunculus that is presented the external world in a mental theatre inside our head. But it serves our syntax well . The use of a subject and predicate places the I in the brain by tradition. Our language almost insures it. But if we posit a monism would not the only difference between a physical monisim and a mental one be semantics? What would be the means of comparison? What is internal to that spiritual/mental "external world?"
If god is omniscient there is no free will. God sees the entire contents of the world's unfolding events from beginning to completion prior to his creating or actualizing of it. If he creates the world as he sees it prior to its existence his act is the first cause of all constituents of that world. Those events will occur necessarily if god acts. The only resolution to this dilemma is, if there is a god he must sacrifice omniscience in the act of creation in order for there to be freewill. In other words he must make a boulder too big for himself to lift.
So I was talking to a Christian mother whose daughter is an atheist and sure to go to hell. I asked her if she's praying for Jesus to return to earth soon. She says yes, every day, and she thinks he'll come back soon too.
Duh. Where is the compassion when it comes to faith? Wouldn't the reasonable thing to do is pray that Jesus does NOT return soon so her daughter might come to repentance and be saved? Are believers brain dead or something?
For two years I worshipped with and studied the Baha'is. They are a group who believe that they originated from direct revelation by god. However their guardian, Shogghi Effendi, acknowledges, "A handful of students, belonging to the Shaykhi school, sprung from the Ithna-'Ashariyyih sect of Shi`ah Islam."
This is a weak argument concerning theodicy that is meant to address the premises of an ontological argument for god. It requires one to look at the attributes of god before they are assumed for the ontological argument itself. It focuses on "capability" rather than omnipotence:
I sadly learned that a team member here at DC has died. I feel a great sorrow for this since Tommy G. Baker had so much more to share. There are six posts of his that I have yet to release and will do so one at a time this week. So he will speak from the grave. But first I'll share what he told me when I asked him to join DC and also link to his previous posts:
I'm doing the copy-edits for the revised book, Why I Became an Atheist, and also co-writing the book with Dr. Randal Rauser. Use the comments section below to provide some interesting links. Cheers.
To help me keep blogging I'd appreciate my readers buying books on Amazon from one of these links below (or anything else for that matter). I get about 7 cents on the dollar from what you purchase at no extra cost to you. Thanks so much in advance! And thanks too for
any donations you can send me. Blogging is a very time consuming activity that takes away from my ability to earn some more needed money.
[Written by John W. Loftus] I have extensively read both atheist and Christian literature, their blogs, journals and books, along with listening to their videos and podcasts. What I have discovered is that most people are preaching to the choir. They do not step inside each others shoes to understand where they are coming from. They do not meet on common ground, assume common assumptions, and common understandings. They are talking past one another like ships that proverbially pass each other in the night. Instead, they are speaking to people on their own side more than anything else, who seek to confirm what they have already come to accept. There is a time and a place for this, I admit. But I see it almost everywhere I look. More often than not each side speaks from a position without trying to really understand the position of the people they are trying to reach. I’ve thought a lot about this, so in the interest of starting up this conversation let me offer ten ways how to resist preaching to the choir, with specific reference to how skeptics/atheists can do this.
I heartily endorse it as do many others:
