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.
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).
"Believing is easy, thinking is hard."
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.
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. ;-)
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."
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
“
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)
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:
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:
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 .
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.
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:
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.
