That's right. I don't. Not one bit. I learn from other atheists, that's for damned sure. But given my focus and goals I dislike it to the extreme. For it wastes my time when I should be spending it arguing against evangelical Christians, and they visit me here. That's one of the reasons I have not argued against other atheists much at all. And that was one of the major reasons I left Freethought Blogs. There were just too many atheists and not enough Christians. I found myself arguing with the atheist commenters, some of whom showed no better critical thinking skills then the ignorant believers I have encountered here time and again. Atheists do not, on the whole, have much better critical thinking skills than the general populace. We don't see it until there is a disagreement, for until then it looks like we agree because we are good thinkers. They also didn't show me much respect, at least, that's what I felt. So it's better for me over here. I wish them all well, a few of whom I consider my friends. They can do their thing. I'll do my thing. But I learned something. I might argue against other atheists from time to time when I see ignorance. Hell, maybe I'll even permanently change the header to this blog to "Debunking Ignorance." How does it look to you? ;-) [Edit, I've changed it back.]
[First Posted 12/16/09] Since I get asked this from time to time let me share what I did a few years ago to increase traffic to DC...
When I started Blogging there weren't as many blogs so it was easier to get noticed. But what I did tirelessly was to read other blogs and then link back to something I said on my own blog. I did it often, all of the time. That got me noticed. Then people would read what I wrote. If they liked it they came back. And I engaged popular blogs where many people already visited. I challenged the Christian sites, or on skeptical blogs I made substantive comments. Then what happened is that sometimes the authors would respond in a post of their own, which drove even more traffic my way. Remember, even bad publicity is publicity[!] Being the atheist that I am, Christian sites will tear into you so be better prepared for that than I was. It's very hard not to wallow in the mire with people who personally attack you, but that's what happened. Nonetheless, these sites have readers who will come and stay at your blog for a while.
Around the web I have several detractors. They accuse me of a few things which I’d like to take the time to answer. I’m accused of being an egotistical self-promoting control freak who censors comments at DC and bans people off his Blog who disagree with me. I’m accused of wanting fame and financial gain. I'm accused of being childish and abrasive. Granted this comes from a small fringe of people but since their noise is discovered by search engines I should respond.
I’ve tried to resist responding to such ignorant and false drivel before. I know I cannot satisfy the people making such accusations. I also know that by responding I’ll give them more fodder. But here goes.
Some of them remind me of Christians when disagreement arises. Enjoy.
Mormons assume other religions have the burden of proof. They assume human not divine authors to their holy book(s). They assume a human not a divine origin to their faiths. They critically evaluate all other religions by reason and science.
This is one of my posts when I was at Freethought Blogs.
This is an episode from a BBC program hosted by neurologist V.S. Ramachandran that explains his key findings in certain instances of brain damage that have long been viewed as mere curiosities by the scientific community.
Christian, do you agree that objective evidence is external to the knower and can be verified by a third party at least in principle? Yes or no? How then can any third party verify a claim such as someone else's inner witness of the Spirit? At least someone's claim to be abducted by aliens is able to be verified in principle by a third party. Anyone in any religion or sect within one can claim to have had a veridical religious experience. These claims are a dime a dozen when they cannot be verified even in principle by a third party. That makes all of these claims subject to the charge of delusion, and as such, no evidence at all EVEN TO SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE HAD ONE! Q.E.D.
There are lots of books not listed in my sidebar. So let me explain my choices since some authors might feel slighted for not seeing their book listed.
Hint: It probably means nothing at all.
There are other considerations.
I have not read everything. There are a lot of books I have not heard about yet. There are more being published every week, especially ebooks. And keep in mind I don't have the space in the sidebar to list all of the books I know. Furthermore, I have tested some books but they don't sell well here. Books that don't sell I don't keep on the list. Books that sell well factor in my choices. There are even a few books I place in the sidebar because they are important to be aware of, although I might not agree with some important aspects in them.
I hope this helps. If your book isn't listed it probably means nothing at all. Cheers.
------------------
If you'd like to recommend a book or two or more, do so below and tell us why you recommend it.
William Lane Craig claims the inner witness of the Spirit "trumps all other evidence." It is "an intrinsic defeater-defeater" for anyone who experiences to it. So even if I don't have that witness, and even if I don't like the idea of such a witness, I'm in no position to judge that he does not possess it. Craig claims this inner witness provides all the evidence he needs to know Jesus personally and that Jesus is his savior. This witness is sufficient for him. It defeats any evidence to the contrary as utterly irrelevant. But this is delusional on a grand scale. How do you convince a delusional person like this? I probably can't. That's the power of a delusion like this. So for people not impervious to reason let me speak to them. What Craig is doing is sophistry plain and simple. He's describing a subjective experience and claiming it's an objective veridical experience that defeats all other objective evidence. Now it's one thing to say a subjective experience is to be considered objective evidence, as delusional as that is. It's another thing entirely to say a subjective experience carries more weight than all objective evidence. People wonder why I call Christians delusional. You need not wonder any more.
You have probably never heard of Julian but he is one of the unsung heroes among skeptics. Here we see him writing his nephew on Adam's supposed free choice in the garden.
I cannot conceive of an omniscient God being able to do this given all that I know about Christianity, the Bible, theology, philosophy, science, and the history of the church. For God to do this he would have to re-create this universe and basically rewrite history itself. But what is done is done. If however, it takes omniscience (or near omniscience) to show the Christian faith is true, then God should also know that without it I could not think otherwise. I might be wrong. But not even an omniscient God can show me that I willfully reject Christianity against the overwhelming evidence given that I am not omniscient and given what I find in this world. What the evidence leads me to think is that the Christian faith is wildly improbable.
Just once--once mind you--I'd like to see just one believer, only one, who will say, "Hey, I'm like most people. What I believe is based on my cultural prejudices just like most everyone else." I have never heard one believer admit this, not one, even though in a scientific poll Michael Shermer found that 9 out of 10 people say that other people adopt their religious faith because of cultural influences and emotional reasons. Every single one of them claims to be the exception to the rule, to a person.
which I highly recommend. Here's a brief summary of it:
It has 536 pages, a 110 more than the previous edition. It's such a massive revision my publisher is treating it as a new book.
