Biblical Discussions Are Notoriously Manufactured

Earlier I had said that written out discussions are notoriously manufactured. I said that in reference to Randal Rauser's book, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that all of them are to some degree (barring audio or video-taping). This is especially true when one side of a particular debate gets to write them. Now for the Bible lesson of today. Read the chapter I've reproduced below from Luke's Gospel. Have you ever actually seen religious debates like the ones in this chapter, where one side (Jesus) repeatedly and conclusively stumped the other side? I haven't. It's manufactured. Don't trust it to represent what actually happened. Hint: The Pharisees and Sadducees were not convinced, I guarantee it, and they had rejoinders which were never written down by the gospel writers. The Bible is a biased book that needs corroboration at every turn, and it lacks it.

Wannabe Christian Apologists, Tackle This Book!

I recently received Howard Bloom's massive new book, The God Problem: How a Godless Universe Creates. It looks like a real intellectual feast, although I've only skim-read it at this point. You can look inside the book at Amazon to see for yourselves. Bloom's central question is how the cosmos creates without a creator. Even if you disagree with his thesis there are startling insights and gems for thought that will probably stun you. For everyone interested in such a question on both sides of our debates this is sure to be essential reading.

A Typical Discussion With a Christian

In homage to Randal Rauser's book The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails, which is set in a conversational tone, let me do the same from my perspective. I have but a few minutes right now so this could be bettered, and these type of written out discussions are notoriously manufactured *cough* *cough*. But let Smoe represent a Christian and Joe a non-believer.

Give Drs. Rauser and Marshall a Big Welcome!

Christian apologists Drs. Randal Rauser and David Marshal seem to have conspired together to comment here as a tag team in a wrestling match against me at DC. Why? Because I have "a big audience," said Rauser in a comment, an audience of atheists, agnostics and skeptics. And so it seems with Marshall as well. Give them a big warm DC welcome. No, seriously, I welcome them. Now I don't want to be over-run with Christian apologists, but I suppose they will be met with more atheists who want to debate them over the issues that divide us. So I would welcome this too. Just be careful when it comes to my involvement. Don't assume that if they have the last word that I cannot answer them, and don't expect me to have the time to answer them either, since I now have a second job (I had told my readers this might be necessary for a long time, and the time has come. I'm tired of living on a meager income). I'd like to say some additional things about this development, if it's something that will continue into the future (and of this I don't know).

David Marshall's Failed Attempt to Argue Against the OTF

It's not just me who thinks he fails. So does the A-Unicornist. I previously had tried disabusing Marshall of his arguments right here but to no avail. Now he even wants to debate me on it!

An Index for Dr. Jaco Gericke's Writings Here at DC

If you admire Jaco's scholarship like I do, you may want to read his posts here at DC. Just click. They appear from the most recent ones to the oldest. Enjoy. [First posted 7/15/10]

Dr. Peter Boghossian on NPTR: "Faith is a Cognitive Sickness"

Listen to internet radio with NationalProgressiveTalkRadio on Blog Talk Radio

An Open Letter To Dr. Randal Rauser

Randal Rauser is a test case for how Christian apologists operate. So here is my open letter to him based on all of our dealings.

Dr. Rauser, I've concluded that you are just playing games, intellectual games, head games. You say you want to engage the non-believer and so you initiated a book with me to show that you do. But you don't listen. Of that I am sure.

My Response to Dr. Rauser's Criticisms

About a year ago Dr. Randal Rauser wrote a series of reviews on chapters for The End of Christianity, an anthology I edited. He wasn’t the only one who did so and I lacked the energy to respond to them all at that time. I don’t feel the need to do so now either. Intelligent readers can decide for themselves. The problem is that most Christians will read Christian reviews of my books without actually reading what I and other atheist authors actually said, which is unfair and prejudicial. I’ll place my books up against any Christian reviewer of them, but you must read them to see for yourself. Then Christians can see how contorted the reasoning must be in order to defend what I consider to be indefensible. Nonetheless, I will oblige Randal who asked me to take a look at what he wrote, only in so far as he offered criticisms of what I said in it. Other authors can do so if they like banging their heads against the wall, like I apparently do. ;-) Here goes:

Quote of the Day, by B_R_Deadite99

"Believing is easy, thinking is hard."

Is There Any Evidence For Christianity At All? A Review.

Here's the evidence. Are you ready? Christians have the argument from ignorance which is a known informal fallacy, that is, the as yet unexplainable mysteries of existence. Then you have private subjective anecdotal religious experiences, something every believer claims to have, which basically nullifies that subjective private evidence. Then you have historical evidence from the ancient pre-scientific superstitious past. Historical evidence is paltry evidence indeed, especially when it comes to the ancient superstitious past. Am I missing anything? Christians basically got nothing, nothing substantial that is. Not in comparison to science. All Christians do is attack science at this point which is a mark of a deluded person. Who in their right mind would not see this as it is? There is no parity between the "evidence" to believe and the evidence that causes me to disbelieve, at all.

So Far So Good, a Review of SBs and a Clarification

Our new Skeptic Blogs Network has gotten off to a great start with 45,000 pageviews in 15 days. This is only the start. We have 13 excellent bloggers and 39 more applicants to join us, some of which are really good ones. In the next couple of weeks or more we’ll have some very exciting news to share so stay tuned, visit often, and subscribe so you don’t miss a thing. We think we’re about to blow the doors off this thing with the changes and explode into your living rooms. Okay, Okay, I get a bit excited. ;-)

People have asked me that since I now blog in two places, at my flagship Blog, Debunking Christianity (DC), and also at Skeptic Blogs (SBs), how do I plan on doing this? We’ll as Tevye says in the Fiddler on the Roof, “I don’t know. But it’s a tradition.” Actually, I have an idea.

Quote of the Day, by GearHedEd

I literally haven't prayed in decades, and my life is no worse for wear than anyone else's...Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Why I Am Justified in Telling God What To Do?

How dare I demand that God gives me what I need to believe? How dare I tell him how he should reveal himself to me? How dare I question the reasonableness of revealing himself in the pre-scientific past such that I must accept what ancient people claimed to have seen in a remote part of the world, or be condemned to hell if I don't? How dare I disbelieve because of the so-called mysteries of an eternal three-in-one God, who became incarnate, and who died for my sins, even though none of these doctrines make any rational sense at all.

Well I do dare to demand better of God, if he exists. That's the point. How am I to know he exists when his lack of divine forethought led to massive slaughter among Christians themselves over the stupidest of doctrinal trifles that if he had foreseen them and had even average communication skills he could have averted? Or, he could have told us more important things than what to do with our penises and vaginas, by giving us the knowledge to make vaccines and anesthesia for surgeries?

Why do I demand better things? It's simple:

If God created me as a reasonable human being, then I can doubt the reasonableness of a God who fails to give me what I need to believe as a reasonable human being.

If God created me as human being who seeks sufficient evidence to believe, then I can demand that he gives me the sufficient evidence I need to believe.

Connect the dots.

Of course, maybe he doesn't want reasonable people? Who knew? ;-) But then, why am I who I am? Still, if that's the case then he could snap his omnipotent fingers and take away my critical thinking skills so I would believe as others do. I did at one time. Then I grew a brain, just as ex-Mormons, ex-Muslims, ex-Orthodox Jews, ex-Scientologists and others did. ;-)

Emotionally Engaged People Do Not Think Clearly At All

Christians really believe they have a personal relationship with their God. They feel certain of it. They really believe their God listens to them and in turn is communicating to them, answering their prayers. They really believe their God agrees with what they believe too, which I find to be a dangerous thing. They are emotionally engaged just like most every believer in other religions with their own gods. So consider for a moment someone who was in love. Could you say anything of a critical nature of that lover and get a rational discussion? Have you ever listened to someone who was angry? Could you say anything of a positive nature of the person that anger was directed against and get a rational discussion? Not usually in most cases. Outside of religion in mundane examples we see this with crystal clear clarity. An outsider who is not emotionally engaged can have a better view of such things because emotionally engaged people do not think clearly at all. We already know this about human beings because the brain was built haphazardly by the process of evolution. How much more so when it's emotionally engaged. But wait, there's more!

Some Mistakes of Moses By Robert Ingersoll (Continued)

First, here's a note from my friend Julian Haydon who is submitting something from Robert Ingersoll for us to read each week:

These are extracts from an 84 page paper written 1879 by Ingersoll. There were some Christians who were beginning to reject a talking serpent in favor of allegorical explanations; but there were millions who regarded every word in the Bible as holy fact. Ingersoll was contending with the latter. His tactic is to recount the story as told; drive home the clear meaning; allow the impossibilities and contradictions to speak for themselves; and draw stinging conclusions. Most of the biblical story is here omitted. Now to get to Ingersoll himself.

Dr. Matt McCormick's New Book Is Out. I Just Got My Copy!

How To Engage a Christian

Someone in my CFI online class asked me what the best strategy is for discussing faith with a Christian. What would you say? My response:

There are so many Christianities there is probably no one single way to proceed. You just have to start listening. I like to provoke at least enough doubt that they will read a book or two on it by atheists. I like to quote other Christians against each other. That has shown itself to be effective since it's not pitting their particular faith against atheism.

I like to show weaknesses in the Bible and the theology that comes from it, most notably its superstitious nature and the barbaric nature of Yahweh. My claim is that once the brain of the believer is divorced from the Bible he or she probably wouldn't believe at all.

One guy sent me a supposedly new cosmological argument for the existence of God. I responded by asking him if this is the reason he became a believer in the first place. He had to say no. So I asked him what were his initial reasons for believing in the first place, saying this question is much more important to me than anything else. He didn't like this at all. He wanted to debate this new argument of his. I asked because people who became believers in their different religions probably stated out young in their faith as taught by their parents in their respective cultures. Since the adult attitude is skepticism they ought to re-examine these reasons as an outsider or non-believer would. For if one's faith cannot be accepted by an outsider with such a perspective, then that particular God would be found condemning people for simply being born in a different culture, and that's unreasonable for a reasonable type of God.

Church Names Are Revealing

I saw a church yesterday that had this name: The Church of the True God. Yep, that was its name. Everyone else is going to hell. Church people are deluded. For the most part they all think that. This church states it with candor. Then I saw another church named "Prince of Peace Lutheran." These churches don't even know their Bibles. Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name."

A Major Second Temple Scholar Joins the Case Against the Existence of Jesus Christ

Did Jesus Exist?

Professor Davies is well known for his books, “In Search of "Ancient Israel: A Study in Biblical Origins” (now in its 2 edition) and his newest book, “Memories of Ancient Israel: An Introduction to Biblical History--Ancient and Modern”, Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.

Enjoy

24 Hour Youtube Atheist Marathon for Doctors Without Borders - Sept 8th 2012

The Youtube atheist community has raised over $100,000 for Doctors Without Borders over the past three years, and it is nearly time for their annual marathon.  It will take place the weekend of 8/9th September. Familiar faces will be appearing on the show including Aronra, Zomgitscriss, ProfMTH, C0nc0rdance, Matt Dillahunty, and Seth Andrews (The Thinking Atheist).  Here is DPRJones explaining how it works:

Thought For Today

“There are some people who can receive a truth by no other way than to have their understanding shocked and insulted.”

Carl Sandburg (January 6, 1878 – July 22, 1967)

On the Christian Doctrine of Salvation and Damnation: Fact or Faith?

We get confirmation here at DC all the time from Christians that God exists whether we atheist believe it or not! Thus, it is an affirmed fact that “God” does NOT and IS NOT based on faith . . . He exists and will judge both the good (Saved) and the bad (Damned) at the Final Judgment “according to their works:

Ockham's Razor and Christianity and why I have been scarce

I don't know if anyone has missed me, but I have become scarce around here as John, myself and the rest of the team at Skeptic Blogs have been setting up shop and getting things moving. I have migrated my old blog and revamped it over at SBs: A Tippling Philosopher. On the blog, I have guest posts from Andreas Schueler, Cody Rudisill and Aaron Adair, and accept other decent pieces from anyone else willing to contribute good sound writing to the cause.

Come join in the fun. Here is a piece I posted the other day, which I have embellished a little. Also, I hope to still contribute the odd piece here as time permits - I just thought I'd let you know what was going on.

Ockham's Razor and Christianity:

Here is a definition of Ockham’s Razor:

Ockham's Razor: the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.

The Meaninglessness of Sin

P1. If God created us as Christians claim, then God gave us “human nature.”

P2. If human nature allows us to sin, then God is to blame for the problem of evil.

C. Therefore, God is to blame for the problem of evil. Link

No Cross No Crescent, New To Skeptic Blogs

I was raised in the Islamic world...My goal in writing this blog is going to be presenting science and skepticism. I hope to bring more of an international perspective to the table and expose religious doctrines for the harmful they are, and the suffering they cause way too often for women, gays, dissenters and religious minorities. I wish to bring to light the religious roots of some of violent conflicts around the world causing graves tragedies and loss of life, as I think that this is a very serious issue that gets next to no attention in the media. From the threat the rise of dominionist and christian reconstructionists poses to US democracy, to plight of women in Afghanistan accused of “sexual crimes” under Islamic Sharia, I hope to make the issues visible, as the traditional media have always been giving religion the kind of deference it doesn’t deserve and has never earned. Link

Skeptic Blogs is the Reasonable Alternative to Freethought Blogs

Read why here.

A Review of Michael Murray's Book "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw"

Since William Lane Craig continues to tout Murray's book as a good answer to the problem of animal suffering, read what professor Mylan Engel Jr. of Northern Illinois University says about it:

Notung Joins Skeptic Blogs

Ed Clint invited Notung and we're happy to have him with us. He tells us, "My main philosophical interests are epistemology, ethics, logic and the philosophy of religion. The purpose of this blog is to concentrate on these issues, examining them as critically as I can." Link. While you're there check out Maria Maltseva's post, SB responds to Atheism +, where she writes about our kind of skepticism:

We fear being blindsided by groupthink and welcome dissension in the ranks. Even if you disagree with us on some of our goals, you’re welcome to join us and choose which battles you, personally, want to fight. No matter what, we will not dehumanize you (online or off) or allow ourselves to think that we are better than you. Whatever else, we will not hate.

A growing number of people are subscribing by email and following us on Facebook. Join us.

Rebecca Bradley Joins Skeptic Blogs

Who is Rebecca Bradley? She has a PhD in Archaeology from Cambridge, UK, and maintains a strong interest in examining pseudo-archaeological claims. Read her first post and welcome her.

Some Mistakes of Moses, by Robert Ingersoll, Part Two

It is not easy to account for an infinite God making people so low in the scale of intellect as to require a revelation. Neither is it easy to perceive why, if a revelation was necessary for all, it was made only to a few.

Below you'll read extracts from an 84 page paper written in 1879 that my friend Julian Haydon sent me. There were some Christians and even ministers who were beginning to reject a talking serpent in favor of allegorical explanations; but there were millions who regarded every word in the Bible as holy fact. Ingersoll was contending with the latter and defending the rights of the former, pushing them even farther and farther away from the Bible. Part one can be seen here. A bit of his language is antiquated but it is a great defense of freethought.

Justin Vacula Joins Skeptic Blogs

Who is he? See this. We keep getting better and better. More will be joining us. Be sure to subscribe by email.

Staks Rosch: Are Religious Believers Stupid?

Religious believers ask me all the time if I think all religious believers are stupid. My answer to this question is almost always the same. “Of course not; smart people can believe really stupid things too.” There is no doubt that the belief in the all-powerful god as described in the Torah/Bible/Koran based off of no valid evidence is stupid. Depending on how serious this belief is taken, it can even be ridiculously stupid. It would be like me telling people that Voldemort is real based off of my reading of the Harry Potter books. Link.

William Lane Craig vs Victor Stenger: Does God Exist?

Local Atheist Billboards Attack Christian, Mormon Religions

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Two controversial billboards dot the Charlotte skyline just in time for the Democratic National Convention. The two signs appear to attack the Christian and Mormon religions .

What if Satan Is the Good Guy?

Christians concoct wildly implausible scenarios in order to defend their faith, most notably Alvin Plantinga, who supposes Satan causes all natural evils, and Peter Van Inwagen, who supposes that before the fall in Eden there was no suffering even though carnivores and human beings both co-existed on the earth before then. But what if Satan is the good guy? What if he rebelled against God because he was aware of God's evil plan to create this kind of world and with it condemn human beings to hell forever? What if Satan told Adam the truth in the garden and wanted him to have a true knowledge about God that was forbidden him? What if God was the one who revealed a lie, that Satan was the bad guy even though he isn't? What if God also had some innocent sap be crucified and subsequently claimed it represented his love for us? What if God laughs that so many people believes what he revealed? What if God is the bad guy? What if this so-called cosmic war is being won by the wrong guy? What if in response Satan is sending prophets (i.e. intellectuals), to tell believers the truth, that God is a liar, an evil egomaniac, a moral monster? What evidence is there to deny my scenario? Evidence. That's what I'm asking for in any scenario. Probabilities are all that matter. For if any of these scenarios are to be taken seriously then people are within their epistemic rights to believe the Scientology tale too.

Skeptic Blogs Now Has a Facebook Page

Skeptic Blogs (SBs) now has a Facebook page. Like us and you'll be notified of any new posts.

Who goes to heaven? Who goes to hell?

If Christianity is true, then reaching the correct belief (about Jesus) is necessary to avoid damnation.  Here is a brief video highlighting one of the more unpleasant implications of Christian theology. Admittedly it is not a logical argument, however since most believers tend to believe for emotional reasons, bringing up issues like this can be very effective at "putting cracks in the shell" of faith.

My Seven Most Important Living Atheist Authors

By this I mean the five, no six, no seven living atheist authors from whom I have learned the most. This is a personal statement of mine and not to be representative of the most influential atheist authors, for that ranking would surely be different to some degree. There are atheist authors I've read who have said some really important things, but this is about the ones I've learned the most from. And I have not read everything. So, here they are in alphabetical order by last name:

Some Mistakes of Moses by Robert Ingersoll

A Note: These are extracts from an 84 page paper written in 1879 that my friend Julian Haydon sent me. There were some Christians and even ministers who were beginning to reject a talking serpent in favor of allegorical explanations; but there were millions who regarded every word in the Bible as holy fact. Ingersoll was contending with the latter and defending the rights of the former, pushing them even farther and farther away from the Bible. This is a great defense of freethought.

Robert Ingersoll On Being Accused of Lecturing for the Money

The arguments I advance are either good or bad. If they are bad, they can easily be answered by argument. If they are not, they cannot be answered by personalities or ascribing to me selfish motives. It is not a personal matter. It is a matter of logic–not a matter of slander, vituperation or hatred. I presume I am about as bad as most folks, and as good as some, but my goodness or badness has nothing to do with the question. I may have committed every crime in the world, yet that does not make the story of the flood reasonable, nor does it tend to show that the three gentlemen in the furnace were not scorched. I may be the best man in the world, yet that does not go to prove that Jonah was swallowed by the whale.

A New Skeptical Network Blog Has Launched!

I am very happy to announce that a new kid is on the block:

Skeptic Blogs

Skeptic Blogs already boasts an impressive, if small, group of talented bloggers and we expect to expand considerably. I am there. Click around to see the others. If you want to read our mission statement and posting policy see this. As you can tell I'm excited about it. Please, everyone, let others know. Tell them via your own blogs, facebook, twitter, by email, by horseback, train, space flight, and so on. We need the word to get out. We aim to do this right. Don't forget to subscribe by email. (Oh, and don't neglect to help us with our start-up costs by using the Chip-in Widget).

Jerry Coyne Recommends My Book

[L]et me put in an unsolicited plug for John’s new book, Why I Became an Atheist. Despite its unfortunate title, which implies that it’s a personal story of John’s journey from faith to unbelief, it’s really a thoroughly-reasoned and well documented account of the follies of faith. It belongs on your shelf beside the books of Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Stenger, and Dawkins, and I recommend it highly. Link.

Professor Coyne has recommended it before.

Religiosity Plummets In Ireland And Declines Worldwide; Atheism On The Rise

This Huffington Post article shows the continuing trend away from religion across the world, with new figures illustrating that Catholic Ireland may no longer warrant that description:

Rocked in recent years by sex-abuse scandals and crises in leadership, the Catholic Church in the Republic of Ireland has been struggling to keep its members close.
But this week, a new global survey on faith and atheism has revealed that the crisis of faith inIreland may be much worse than previously thought.

WL Craig’s Use of Michael Murray’s Thesis on Pain Exploded: Insects Reconsidered

"The effect of organophosphates was discovered in the 1930's during World War II. They were used in the creation of nerve gas, which was used in chemical warfare. When used in lethal dosages for humans, organophosphates cause extreme excitability, convulsions, paralysis and in most cases, death.

The Good and the Bad News About Blogging

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.

On Animal Pain and Pleasure

Jeffery Lowder Speaks Out Against the American Atheists Billboard

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

We Should Think Exclusively in Terms of Probabilities

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.

Bill Craig's Use of Michael Murray's Book On Animal Pain

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: