First the bad news. What annoys me about Blogging is that there are ignoramuses whose names aren't made public who get to act like equals with scholars and credentialed intellectuals. Imagine a written discussion before the rise of the internet. It took place in books, magazine articles, Op-Ed's, journals, and even in the Letters to Editor section of national and local newspapers. The discussion was monitored by editors, so not just anyone could engage in it, or if they did, what they wrote was considered worthy by an editor or peer reviewers to be printed. Discussions of these written works took place in the universities under the supervision of credentialed professors who chose which texts were important to discuss. There were also a lot of discussions in the halls of these universities and in the pubs and coffee shops of the world based on what these editors/reviewers/professors thought worthy for publication and discussion. The rise of Blogging has somehow changed this.
You can see the Billboard below, along with my comments. Lowder writes this about President David Silverman:
Silverman seems to have fallen into the trap, typical among so many leaders of organized atheism, of thinking that the United States is a post-theistic society. It's not and it's delusional to think otherwise.
Since the U.S. is not a post-theistic society, what is the point of the ad? It's not like the attendees at the Democratic National Convention are going to say, "Wow, I was going to vote to nominate Obama, but after seeing that American Atheists ad, I guess I had better nominate an atheist instead." Likewise, I don't think this ad is going to have any impact on how nonreligious voters will vote. I think many pragmatic atheists believe that nonreligious voters do not have the luxury of choosing a viable nonreligious candidate for President: most will vote for Romney or Obama.
From a marketing or public relations perspective, it's hard to see how these ads accomplish anything positive for atheism. As far as I can tell, all they do is create the impression that atheists are rude. Link
What's the probability that my short-term memory is correct and that I agreed yesterday to meet with someone today? Pretty high actually, really high, extremely high, or perhaps even close to being virtually certain. I live my life based on short term memories. If I doubt them and fail to make that appointment, or any agreed upon appointment, I would fail through life in a haphazard dream world of random choices. I would be an unreliable person. Life demands that I trust my short term memories and that I am not now dreaming of thinking I made an appointment I didn't make. Faith has nothing to do with this reasoning process. Probabilities here are all that matter. Faith is superfluous, utterly irrelevant, completely unnecessary, and even irrational. We should think exclusively in terms of probabilities.
I have Murray's book, Nature Red in Tooth and Claw, the one Bill Craig uses to defend the lack of animal pain. I have been planning on posting something about it but so far haven't. Hint: Murray doesn't conclude what Dr. Craig does. In the meantime, I found this story by Harry McCall interesting when commenting on Craig's debate with Dr. Law:
The topic was "Does God Exist." The debate took place in front of an audience of 2,000 (largely, though not entirely Christian) at the Westminster Central Hall, London, October 2011. Enjoy.
This internet problem is highlighted by a Scientific American article where the authors write:
These days, online comments “are extraordinarily aggressive, without resolving anything,” said Art Markman, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. “At the end of it you can’t possibly feel like anybody heard you. Having a strong emotional experience that doesn’t resolve itself in any healthy way can’t be a good thing.”
Today CFI-Indiana commemorates the birth of Robert Ingersoll (August 11, 1833) whom the Washington Post described as the Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins of his day. In 1876, Robert Green Ingersoll delivered one of his most famous speeches to Civil War veterans on the circle in downtown Indianapolis. This speech included what has become known as "The Vision of War" which is considered by some to be second only to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in Civil War oratory.
CFI-Indiana is commemorating Ingersoll's birthday tonight at 7 PM with readings from his speeches in the place where he made his famous Civil War Speech in 1876--the circle in downtown Indianapolis. Tom Flynn, Executive Director of Council for Secular Humanism, Editor of Free Inquiry Magazine, and Director of the Robert Green Ingersoll Birthplace Museum, is their special guest and participant. He will read Ingersoll's Vision of War in the very place Ingersoll spoke it. To help commemorate Ingersoll, Julian Haydon, a friend of mine, will be sending me excerpts of several of his speeches that I'll publish once a week. Here's the first one:
For anyone wanting new information about my two forthcoming books, no matter how meager, here it is. Dr. Randal Rauser and I just finished the galleys for our co-written book God or Godless. We've also been informed Baker Books is making it into an audiobook with Pee-wee Herman as Randal's voice. (Just joking!) It's a really good exchange and I'm happy to have been a part of it. Then too, I've learned Prometheus Books has subtitled my book, The Outsider Test for Faith, with this: How to Decide Which Religion is True. I wanted them to use a different one instead: How to Decide Which Religion is True (If There is One), but they didn't go with it. Their decision was based on marketing I suppose. That's all I've got for now. Both books will be published early next year. Skeptics and Christians will be able to give them to each other for a great discussion. They would also be great as college textbooks in some classes.
If my readers want to know why I promote my books so much, here is the reason. Take a look at the DC Google Analytics stats graph for the number of visitors I get per month (see below). It tells me that most of them are new to DC (or some mix of them with others who visit once a month).
Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans that "Jesus is at the right hand of God interceding for us" (ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν = Present Indicative or to keep doing intercession for us) in Heaven. (Romans 8:34, NIV)
“While many Olympic athletes attract criticism and praise based on their personal characteristic instead of their athletic performance, Saudi Arabia's female athletes get more scrutiny than most due to their country's deep social conservatism. On Twitter in Saudi Arabia, Attar and Shaherkani's Olympic participation has generated hateful comments. One Twitter user, apparently a Saudi Arabian man, started a hash tag calling Saudi Arabia's female competitors "prostitutes of the Olympics," sparking both support and ire. For instance, a lecturer at a Saudi university reportedly tweeted that "You [Shaherkani] do not represent the chaste Muslim women." Other comments on Twitter about Shaherkani's judo participation have been so offensive that her father is trying to sue the Saudi Tweeters. (Good luck to him.)”
Even as someone that does not associate her/himself with any religion, I do believe there are things we can learn from them. For instance, I believe in the aphorism attributed to Jesus that states “We know a tree by the fruit it bears.” Yes indeed, we do know a great deal about a tree by its fruit, and a person by their actions and words.
This being said, I have been rather disappointed by the actions of many of those who consider themselves “free thinkers” as of late—specifically those so-called “free thinkers” that have gone on rampages against other so-called “free thinkers”--and the chaos that has resulted. Actually, whether one considers themselves “free thinkers” or not, ad hominem, strawmanning, etc, do nothing to promote better ways of thinking. Better ways of thinking come via the dialectical process and arguments. Arguments are subject to counter arguments, and without subjecting them to fallacies, we can come to better conclusions. So I thought I would give anyone who has participated in this type of behaviour something to think about. That is—The Tao.
Thunderf00T seems to have gone on a rampage. Ed Brayton wants to completely censor him from speaking at all atheist conventions. Natalie Reed subsequently blisters the atheist community. Atheistlogic even calls for a new atheist movement. There is a war going on! Natalie Reed writes:
We all know the story told in I Kings 3. Solomon was given wisdom by God more than anyone else. To show us how wise he was Solomon issued a ruling involving two prostitutes who both claimed a particular baby was theirs. To settle the matter Solomon ordered that the child be cut in two, with each woman receiving half of him. This is supposed to be considered wise. I demurr. I think it was the dumbest judicial ruling in history, well, at least one of them. Here's why.
Just imagine Solomon’s so-called “wise” judgment in our day in a courtroom situation in a divorce child custody case. Go ahead. Imagine it. It was anything but wise. We would be morally repulsed if any judge issued such a judgment, for it was always possible that both women in Solomon's story might agree to have the child killed. Even the real mother might have wanted the child killed rather than have it raised by such a lying conniving pretender/thief. If this had happened then the child would have been killed since that’s what Solomon said, and he could not back out of it, could he? Any civilized judge issuing such a judgment would be thrown out of the country it’s so utterly repulsive. It’s actually the dumbest ruling that was ever made.
In series hosted by "God" (Well, Morgan Freeman did play god a few times..;) he asks the question, did we invent God? I have watched a few episodes in this series, and they are quite interesting. In this episode however, I found that the experiments were somewhat flawed in their conception. (For instance, in the first experiment children are set up to "cheat" at a game, but the administrator of the experiment never lets on that he thinks cheating is wrong, but in the second part of his experiment, he does imply that cheating is wrong.)
Anyway, I did find the virtual reality experiments interesting--reminiscent of the "God Helmet."
You might find it interesting to watch too. Episodes are free to download at Fastpasstv.ms
Surly Amy at Skepchick is collecting denunciations of hatred toward women in the atheist community. So far she's collected twelve of them from atheist leaders. One of the most recent ones is from Dan Barker, co-president of Freedom From Religion Foundation. I wholeheartedly agree with what Dan wrote, reproduced below. I would be extremely doubtful any atheist leader or leading blogger would not denounce this and embrace feminism. In fact, I don't think a woman-hater could be found among them, even prior to Elevatorgate.
"Without doubt one of the best books I've ever read on faith. A masterpiece." -- Dr. Peter Boghossian, Portland State University Philosophy Department.
Jack Schapp was fired after admitting he had a sexual relationship with a 17 year old girl. But this amazing video should have provided church people a clue. This is must see stuff!
Dr. Avalos shows how Christians who oppose Shariah Law don't seem to know that much of what they fear about Shariah Law actually derives from Biblical laws. He writes: "Some of the most feared aspects of Shariah also derive almost directly from biblical values and laws." Link.
Continuing with the previous observations, when we die, we die and forget it all. And then the cells that made us up disassemble and become a part of the earth again. Just like their dancing little sub-particle components, they dance and shift around and trade partners like some hand-clapping, toothless country folk with stupid smiles on their faces, as they switch partners in some rural dance hall with flickering neon lights seen from a poorly-paved, two-lane highway...
John’s post got me thinking about my lake experience last month. While out water skiing, I noticed that when I cut my slalom ski, the spray behind my ski was making a rainbow in the noonday sun. So I decided to have some fun with God as based on his covenant with Noah. According to Genesis 9, God uses all rainbows throughout the world like a string tied around his figure to remind him: “Hey, you don’t need to use water again to destroy humanity!” (How quickly God keeps forgetting about the million he destroyed)!
Yesterday a thunderstorm got us. You've seen them approaching. You know their effects. I was thinking as one approached what God had to do with it. No really, what did God have to do with it? At what point did he decide when to send it? Did he violate any known natural laws to do so? Did he make it rain here because of anything we had done or not done? Matthew 5:45 has Jesus, supposedly the Son of a creator God saying, "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
I would like to draw people's attention to an interesting list of historicity criteria for establishing historical credibility in claims about Jesus found in the New Testament (provided by Richard Carrier here). Recently, and showing a similar technique, I posted a piece on how Christians have a tendency to argue things in such a way that no matter what end of the evidential continuum we have, they would claim it as evidence for God or similar:
If the universe had been much smaller, just right for human life on a human scale, then the universe would have been obviously designed for humans, so would claim the same theist. The universe is the direct opposite of that, but still this somehow shows that God obviously designed it, such as the design being based on other purposes, using the analogy of the Sistine Chapel (one marvels at the size and beauty of it but it doesn’t need to be that big; that the awe and wonder derives from its magnitude) and so on.
Sometimes it makes sense to speak of an "atheist movement" or the likes in the US, particularly in the context of efforts to increase social visibility and acceptance. But by and large, beyond such narrowly focused concerns, "atheists" are not a politically coherent group...I don't fully accept recent arguments like that by Greta Christina that "atheism demands social justice." Like it or not, people like Ayn Rand and her fandom are significant parts of the landscape of American atheism...To the extent that there is a "we" at all in the sense of "we atheists," we are a remarkably useless bunch in political terms. Link
I'm loving the Olympics, I really am. I have even been to see some women's volleyball and it was great. It has all been so well organised (and in so being, it's great to put one up Mitt Romney for his silly comments). However, the good ole sporting problem raises its theological head. Who does God support?
Recently, I wrote two posts indicating the relationship between the "mature social medium" in which we live, interact with, and that helps form our personal identity and self--in relation to the tragic shootings committed by James Holmes in Colorado. (Post 1; Post 2)
I argued that Christianity influences our "mature social medium" which then influences people such as James Holmes and others to act in the way they do. The ancient Christian philosopher Pelagius also pointed this out long ago. That is, the Christian version of salvation promoted by Augustine, leads to "moral laxity" as believers are "saved" regardless of their actions--no consequences in relation to their salvation.
In light of anti-gay marriage comments by the president of Chick-fil-A, Mike Huckabee's concocted "Appreciation Day" was a success yesterday. What will happen in the future? We'll see. But these people probably do not have a clue about what the Bible says about marriage, sex and homosexuality. Let's inform them:
I find Dr. Coyne to be a refreshing alternative to Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers. They're all scientists but Coyne is actually trying to understand Christian theology and reach out across this great divide of ours. Victor Stenger and Michael Shermer do likewise. We need more scientists like them. Stenger and Shermer have both recommended my works. Now Coyne does too. He wrote:
I want to give two thumbs up to John Loftus’s book, Why I Became an Atheist. Despite its title, it’s far more than the story of Loftus’s journey from Christian minister to outspoken atheist. It’s really a thoughtful and well-documented dissection of religious arguments and theological claims. And there are two nice chapters on the “problem of suffering,” in which Loftus takes on and destroys the pathetic arguments offered by the faithful for why a good and powerful God allows gratuitous suffering. Link
A pesar de un aumento enorme de recursos para ateos, existe todavía una escasez de recursos ateos para personas de habla hispana, y los cuales consisten de cerca de 500 millones de personas.
¿Se puede saber si Dios existe? (Prometheus, 2003), un libro escrito por el Dr. Héctor Ávalos, es, según lo que yo entiendo, el único libro escrito originalmente en español por un erudito bíblico ateo de habla hispana.
One of the most popular sections of the Gospels used by both Fundamentalist and Evangelicals is the story given by Jesus of The Rich Man and Lazarus as recorded only in one Gospel: Luke 16: 19 – 31. Bible Believers, along with their preachers, love to harp on this section not only in their Gospel Tracts, but especially in revival sermons with the justification being; “I’d rather scare sinners into Heaven than to love them into Hell!”
For the average gullible Bible Believer who thinks everything he or she hears from their church’s pulpit is Gospel Truth, this afterlife story told by Jesus is but a foretaste of what an unrepentant sinner can expect immediately after death.
One Christian response to the Outsider Test for Faith is that it is faulty in some way. If that's the case then perhaps they ought to listen to Chesterton, who became a Catholic. His book, The Everlasting Man, contributed to C.S. Lewis's conversion to Christianity. In his Introduction Chesterton said:
I agree with Jeffery Lowder and ask Chris Hallquist to never again make such a claim. Link. I personally know William Lane Craig and am myself a former believer. Hallquist, just like PZ Myers, simply does not understand the mind of the believer. I have previously defended Craig against such an ignorant claim. Just read this closely.
I've been critical of PZ Myers for five principled reasons: 1) he doesn't understand the mind of the believer, 2) he treats people who disagree as if they are morons, 3) he's a divisive force within the ranks of atheism, 4) he panders to the younger baser type atheist audience, and 5) he doesn't much value the contributions of people like me who deal with Christians on their own terms. I don't understand his motivations. He may like the power and the money that come from having a large audience. Or, it just may be his personality. He may be an ideologue by nature, an extremist, the type of person who can usually make a big difference. Can he change his ways? Should he? That's the question here. One thing is sure, more atheists are speaking out against him and his ways. John Draper, an important Canadian atheist blogger known as the Cobourg Atheist, recently said of him:
Christian theology tells us that the whole reason Jesus came into the world was to redeem fallen humanity (Jesus himself in Matthew 16: 21 – 23 and especially the Paul letters). He was born from a virgin by the power of God, healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, casted out demons, fed 4,000 / 5,000 people with just a few fish and loafs of bread - all this with his supernatural God given power. Moreover, Jesus even talked with Moses and Elijah on the Mt. of Transfiguration where the Gospels tell us he shone as bright as the sun and where both he and his disciples (Peter, James and John) heard God preach: “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him. (Matt. 17: 5)
As I am going on holiday for a week, I thought I'd leave you with a couple of my videos on the inconsistencies of the idea of heaven. Heaven, in the normal understanding of the notion, seems wildly logically incongruous. As an idea that seems to have developed late in Jewish theology, it appears more likely to have been contrived by human minds seeking to justify why good people could die so harshly, particularly during the time of the Maccabean Revolt when Jews were being persecuted in the Seleucid Empire. Its development appears also to mirror the development of the idea of an eternal soul, stolen off the Greeks. With heaven, hell and the eternal soul, any earthly injustices are suddenly sorted out. These seem such fundamental pieces of theology that it is a wonder they are not investigated earlier in the Bible. Unless, of course, they hadn't been made up or stolen by that point... Feel free to elucidate any points of interest with regards to heaven:
Hemant Mehta posted this. Whether or not Marcus Aurelius said it or not is beside the point. We have nothing to lose if we live a good life with or without a god:
Jason Rennie is doing a five part series of interviews with believers and skeptics exploring the question, “How would the Gospels look different if …?” He interviewed Dr. Ben Witherington III from Ashbury Theological Seminary in Part 1. His interview with me is Part 2. Enjoy.
There has been a great deal of talk by secular women about the need to support women and women's issues. I endorse that goal most emphatically. Let me tell my readers about the tragic case of Professor Andrea M. Weisberger. She is on a short list of atheist scholars I admire the most. She first introduced me to the problem of animal suffering that I have written so much about. Have you heard her story? You should.
Christians must face the fact that the majority of the New Testament (likely 99%), especially Paul’s letters and the Book of Revelation both teach that all souls (both good and evil) sleep in the earth (much like the Israelite dead did in Sheol) until the general resurrection and Final Judgment when Jesus returns...the Bible never tells us how a place under the earth where all the dead go (Sheol) becomes modern Hell or how Christians go up into the sky to live with God. Link.
CFI stands for the Center for Inquiry, probably the leading secular humanist educational organization in America and the world. Some call its headquarters in Buffalo, NY, the Satanic Vatican. ;-) I'm team teaching this class with Dr. John Shook. We'll be using the 2nd edition of my book Why I Became an Atheist. To learn more of the details and to sign up click here. I sure hope lots of people sign up. We have a lot to cover. It should be very educational with a lively discussion. Christians, by the way, can sign up too.
During our evolution conversation with The Theist, which can be found here, sir_russ summed up a few salient ideas in this concise quote:
Let me make this as plain a I can: all by itself, evolutionary theory debunks Christianity.
Evolutionary theory tells us beyond doubt that no first humans ever existed. There was no Adam and Eve. There was no original sin. Mankind has not inherited a sinful nature. There was no need for an atonement. So, if a person named Jesus actually existed his life and death were only the life and death of a human being. Evolutionary theory tells us that the Jesus stories as Christian relate in Sunday school are myths, legends and fairy tales.
When it comes to the problem of suffering for a good omnipotent God, in my books I argue for the possibility of perpetual miracles from God that alleviate suffering among his creatures. I call it the Perpetual Miracle Objection. David Hume didn't use this exact phrase when he objected that the ordering of the world by general natural laws "seems nowise necessary" for God, but it's the same concept. Link. Let's apply this line of argumentation to what Holmes did and see another preemptive way God could have averted the massacre from happening if he exists and if he cares.
Previously I've suggested some reasonable ways a good God could have stopped James Holmes from firing on innocent people in that Colorado theater without revealing himself, and without abrogating Holmes's free will. Link. But is there another way to exonerate God in what I call the Omniscience Escape Clause? Could God have overriding reasons based in his omniscience for allowing that horrible tragedy to happen? I don't think so at all. While this isn't impossible it's extremely improbable to the point of being virtually impossible.
