The Case Against Miracles (a modern retelling of Hume's famous argument)

0 comments
This is a brief video explaining why rational people should never believe miracle claims.  Essentially what it boils down to is that you should always believe the explanation with the highest probability.  Since miracles by definition violate the laws of nature, they must have a lower probability than any conceivable natural explanation.  When hearing miracle claims, it is always more likely someone is being intentionally dishonest (lying, joking, exaggerating, etc), or honestly mistaken (were tricked, suffered a hallucination, or simply misperceived or misremembered an actual event), than that a real miracle occurred.  (continued below)

Mazzaferro Loses Bible Bet

0 comments
WHY CHECKING PRIMARY SOURCES PAYS OFF

Recent comments about Harry H. McCall’s post on the lack of biblical texts before 250 BCE have prompted some to request that I comment on this issue. See: McCall’s post

I have been occupied with medical issues recently, but I can comment on a few items, and especially those pertaining to Mr. Howard Mazzaferro’s attempted refutations of some of McCall’s claims. In general, McCall is stating what is standard knowledge in modern biblical studies:The oldest manuscripts of the Bible we have are among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and they are dated to no earlier than about 250 BCE.

On the Diversity of Perspectives at Skeptic Ink Network (SIN)

0 comments
One of our aims at Skeptic Ink Network (SIN) was/is to get a diversity of perspectives. One kind of diversity is that we have writers from several parts of the globe.

Blurbs for My Book "The Outsider Test for Faith"

0 comments
Here are the blurbs for my book The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True (OTF) in no particular order:
-------------

Formulating and extensively defending the OTF is Loftus’ greatest contribution to the philosophy of religion and atheism. The basic idea is that you can only have a rational faith if you test it by the same standards you apply to all other competing faiths; yet when you do that, your religion tests as false as the others, and the same reasons you use to reject those become equally valid reasons to reject yours.

This is the greatest book Loftus has ever produced. It's without question a must-read for believers, and atheists who wants to debate them. Superbly argued, air tight, and endlessly useful, this should be everyone's first stop in the god debate. Loftus meets every objection and proves the Outsider Test for Faith is really the core of every case against religious belief, and the one argument you can't honestly get around. It takes religion on at its most basic presuppositions, forcing the believer into a dilemma from which there is no escape: either abandon your faith or admit you don't believe in being logically consistent. After reading it, and sincerely applying its principles, anyone who really wants to be rational will be on the road to atheism in no time.

Though this idea has been voiced before, Loftus is the first to name it, rigorize it, and give it an extensive philosophical defense; moreover, by doing so, he is the first to cause a concerted apologetic to arise attempting to dodge it, to which he could then respond. The end result is one of the most effective and powerful arguments for atheism there is. It is, in effect, a covering argument that subsumes all other arguments for atheism into a common framework. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2981/

 -- Dr. Richard Carrier, author of Why I Am Not a Christian: Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith.

 -------------

John Loftus's Outsider Test for Faith is well-written; it is passionate; it is important; it is engaging; and it is surprising. It's well worth the relatively short read and a lot of consideration. It's a silver-bullet argument on its central theme: which religion is true? None of them! Get it; read it; and press the OTF out into the world where it can do some good. I strongly recommend it for anyone interested in discussions about religious faith.

For the believers this book presents itself as a test for determining which religion is true. Specifically, it sets out to engage readers on the question of the distribution of world faiths, asking them to look at their faith as would an outsider. This removes the double standard and allows believers their one shot at strengthening their faith-based claims in an increasingly secular world. Every believer today owes it to himself or herself, as well as to his or her faith community, to engage Loftus's arguments openly and honestly. It is a total game-changer.

  --Dr. James A. Lindsay, Author of  Everybody Is Wrong About God.

 -------------

 John Loftus will be remembered a century from now for his Outsider Test for Faith.

 -- Frank Zindler, former president of America Atheists and editor of American Atheist Magazine.

 -------------

The Outsider Test for Faith should earn Loftus a permanent place in the history of critiques of religion.

 -- Christopher Hallquist, author of UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God: Debunking the Resurrection of Jesus.

 -------------

Without doubt one of the best books I've ever read on faith. A masterpiece.

 -- Dr. Peter Boghossian, author of A Manual for Creating Atheists.

 -------------

John Loftus has done it again! He has produced a lucid and exhaustive explanation of the simple proposition that individuals should examine their own faith with the same skepticism they show toward the claims of other faiths. No significant objection is left unexamined, and no major objector escapes unscathed. This is a potent antidote to those who elevate faith above reason, and superstition above science. It is a bravura performance.

 -- Dr. Hector Avalos, author of The End of Biblical Studies.

 -------------

I am a big fan of John Loftus’s “Outsider Test for Faith”-the view that because one’s religious faith is almost completely an accident of birth, believers should be highly skeptical about whether their own faith is correct. The wisdom of this rational and quasi-scientific approach is unquestionable. But if it's used honestly, its outcome is inevitable.

 -- Dr. Jerry A. Coyne, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago and author of Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religions Are Incompatible.

 -------------

Loftus makes a convincing case that believers who are willing to honestly apply the outsider test cannot but fail to see the irrationality of their faith.

 -- Victor J. Stenger, author of God and the Folly of Faith.

 -------------

Over the past ten thousand years there have been tens of thousands of religions and thousands of gods. Which one is the right one? To believers in each one they all appear unique. To an anthropologist from Mars they all look the same. . . . John W. Loftus’s clever Outsider Test for Faith gives you the intellectual firepower you need when engaging believers, pointing out, for example, that they are religious skeptics, too—of all those other faiths. Some of us go one faith further in our skepticism. You will, too, after reading this testament to the power of reason.

 -- Dr. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, and author of The Believing Brain.

 -------------

The Outsider Test for Faith is an ingenious way of helping the religious take a step back so that they can fairly and impartially examine what they believe, which can only be a good thing.

 -- Dr. Stephen Law, senior lecturer in philosophy, University of London, and author of Believing Bullshit.

 -------------

John Loftus has written a bold book based on a simple premise: The unexamined faith is not worth believing. Of course, every Christian apologist gives lip service to this premise and claims to have given the tenets of faith a full and fair hearing. Loftus shows just how cheap and hollow such talk usually is. He demands that believers examine their own faith with all of the rigor and skepticism that they direct towards other faiths. To those who condemn the beliefs of others while elevating their own dogmas, Loftus’ message could come straight from the Gospel: Remove the beam from your own eye before you seek to remove the speck from another’s.

 -- Dr. Keith Parsons, PhD, Professor of Philosophy, University of Houston-Clear Lake; author of books in the philosophy of science, history of science, and philosophy of religion.

 -------------

Perhaps the most intractable argument against Loftus’s outsider test of faith is some version of “I can’t do it. I can’t get far enough outside of my emotions and beliefs to examine my own religion like I would any other.” As a psychologist I find that credible. We all have a very imperfect and fragmentary ability to see ourselves as others see us. But this in no way undermines Loftus’s foundational argument that the outsider test should be the gold standard.

 -- Dr. Valerie Tarico, psychologist and author of Trusting Doubt.

 --------------

When an evangelical minister can ask tough questions about religion and leave the faith, then so can you. John Loftus is the religious believer’s genuine friend, respecting your intelligence enough to show you how religions really work. His new book questions every religion with the same challenge: what reasons could it really have for claiming to possesses the unique truth? When the façades of familiarity and unquestionability are ripped away, exposing faith’s weaknesses to both insiders and outsiders, can any religion pass this test?

 -- Dr. John Shook, PhD, Center for Inquiry and American Humanist Association and author of The God Debates.

 -------------

This is an excellent exposition of a relatively obvious argument. The OTF is intuitively simple. The multitude of religions require explaining, from a theistic point of view, and until adequate answer is given, skeptical agnosticism is the most reasonable position. That is common-sense. Loftus takes this idea and thoroughly defends it in a fully convincing and very readable manner.  

 I wasn't expecting to like this book as much as I did because I thought that the argument was simple and obvious, but the way Loftus drew in quotes and arguments from a plethora of different sources meant that this book packs a really hefty punch and left me thinking, on many, many pages, that I must remember this quote or that quote.

 I think this book deserves to be very widely read as the argument seems not to have any significant counters.

 --Johnathan Pearce, an Amazon review, author of many books including The Resurrection: A Critical Examination of the Easter Story.

  -------------

Loftus Brings the Hammer Down! Simply one of the most powerful books I have ever read. I was stunned as on page after page his sensibility, his logic, and his obvious way of finding out what the real and true religion is, is literally shunned by all religions! Loftus has very well written his very finest with this one. Profoundly influential thinking. Detailed rebuttals of those lying Christians who love to pretend they have taken the test and passed it. Not a chance, and Loftus demonstrates step by step exactly why. The problem is faith, the most problematic concept in all of religion, and Loftus absolutely demonstrates with beautiful detail. What a powerful book! READ IT. Faith lacks the power to discriminate between true and false, as all the various thousands of Christian denominations demonstrate for us all to see with our own eyes. All use faith for their own views and condemn all others, who also use faith for *their* own views, and no one has a clue. Not a pea-pickin clue at all! Loftus shreds faith and demonstrates that reality is never confirmed by mere possibility, but only through probability. A most stimulating and powerful book! It was so doggone good when I finished it, I immediately started over and re-read it again. And I will do so yet again soon as well.

 --Kerry Shirts, an Amazon review. 

To say I'm excited is an understatement of gargantuan propositions.

Why Women Especially Should Reject Christianity

0 comments
The first mark for Paul against women is that THEY ARE NOT created in the image of God, but have been taken from Adam (who alone is created in the image of God). In 1 Corinthians 11: 7b – 9 Paul states this fact: “…he (the man) is in the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”

Some Mistakes of Moses Concluded

0 comments
Note from Julian Haydon who is providing these excerpts:
This was written 133 years ago; for a public beginning to receive "explanations" for absurdities; but still when many, as now, believed every word in the bible true. Robert Ingersoll relentlessly drives home the full implications of what they believe -- but some of the learned doctors he quotes are in no way embarrassed.

Honest Evangelical Scholarship is a Ruse. There is No Such Thing!

0 comments

Biblical professors and apologists in evangelical institutions are not allowed to be honest scholars. That is a fact. They are not allowed to think and write freely. If they step out of line they are fired. But more and more of them are doing just that. Here's some proof that evangelical colleges requiring their professors to sign a confessional statement cannot be trusted to be honest scholars and should therefore be ignored, all of them. Below are links with discussions about a few evangelical scholars who were fired, suffered censorship, and/or intense scrutiny because they tried to interact honestly with the wider scientific and scholarly communities.

My last talk is now a podcast: "Free Will?"

0 comments
My last public talk which I gave, on free will, has now been made into a podcast which can be heard here. The talk, given to Portsmouth Skeptics in a Pub on 14th June 2012, was a nice informal gathering of about 50-odd people of varying skeptical persuasions. I have not listened to it yet, but the Q and A was an interesting and challenging time with some good questions which I think I dealt with pretty well.

As a Forged Document of the Second Temple Period, the Bible’s Historically Based Theology is Worthless (Revised)

0 comments
Let's be honest and face reality: There is no Biblical manuscript (I repeat), not one single section of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) older than 250 BCE at the earliest! An ironic and alarming reality check for a text claiming to record over 4,000 years of divinely guided history! This presents a huge problem for believers in that a falsified historical record means a death blow for theology.

(In giving credit where credit is due, part of the idea that Biblical text was very late was inspired by a statement from Qumran scholar J.T. Milik who stated that the Book of Genesis should be re-dated and placed with the rest of the late Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. (quote to be located) In fact there is only one artificial term which really makes the Hebrew Bible different from the rest of the forged Pseudepigrapha texts: Canon!)

To Overcome Cognitive Bias Examine Your Faith As An Outsider

0 comments
That's what Julia Galef says about other things we accept as true. She's the President of the Center for Applied Rationality. Christians, take the Outsider Test for Faith if you want to do the same.

Ed Clint Interviewed About Skeptic Ink Network (SIN)

0 comments
"In this podcast, Chas interviews Ed Clint, co-founder of Skeptic Ink. Ed explains his history in the movement, why he and John Loftus decided to create a new network of bloggers and how he and John hope to maintain a network of positive, skeptical thinkers who are willing to explore any thoughts/philosophies being bounced around in the movement. We also touch on Atheism+ and Ed Clint's run in with Free Thought Bloggers." Link.

Some Mistakes of Moses (Continued)

0 comments
A note from Julian Haydon, who is choosing these excerpts each week from Robert Ingersoll: "This was written 133 years ago; for a public beginning to receive "explanations" for absurdities; but still when many, as now, believed every word in the bible true. Ingersoll relentlessly drives home the full implications of what they believe -- but some of the learned doctors he quotes are in no way embarrassed."

New Writers Join Skeptic Ink Network (SIN)

0 comments
Check them out: Beth Ann Erickson of Incongruent Elements. Caleb Lack, the Great Plains Skeptic. Damion Reinhardt of Background Probability. And for a different perspective The Prussian. More are coming. Subscribe. Tell others.

Professor Matt McCormick's Double Whammy

0 comments
He just keeps getting better and better. His book Atheism and the Case Against Christ is the best of its kind, a superior debunking of Christianity and why it leads to atheism. He has also argued for two tests for faith, the moral test and the defeasibility test, which I've endorsed. Recently he has two posts which I consider a double whammy.

Tomorrow I’ll Post My Most Devastating Article on the Bible I’ve Ever Written

0 comments
I have come across a MAJOR fact that will destroy the Bible’s very foundation as a religious document of truth. In all my 42 years as a student of Biblical history and languages, I’ve NEVER heard any apologist address this fact nor have I ever heard any atheist or agnostic use it! The tentative title is:

When One Major Fact Is Considered, The Bible Must Be Rejected As Both History And Theology,

Stephen Law on the Apologist Claim that Animals Don't Feel Pain

0 comments
You can see his post and watch the video below:



Dr. Law thinks William Lane Craig should admit he made a mistake. It's the honest thing to do. Ahhhh, but intellectual honesty isn't a trademark of the deluded mind. He's not unlike Randal Rauser. For more on this topic read chapter 9 in my book The Christian Delusion, titled "The Darwinian Problem of Evil."

How Would the Gospels Look Different if...

0 comments
Jason Rennie is did a series of interviews with believers and skeptics exploring the question, “How would the Gospels look different if …?” My interview can be heard here. He also did one with Robert M. Price that can be heard here. Enjoy.

Christian Apologist Douglas Groothuis Brought his Dog to Class

0 comments
That's true, he says on Facebook, and asked his readers to guess why. He did it "to illustrate a principle from the ontological argument." I commented thusly: "You illustrated that if dogs could conceive the greatest possible being their conception of that being would be like them? ;-)"

Xenophanes, who preceded Socrates by over one hundred years, said something similar:
But if horses or oxen or lions had hands or could draw with their hands and accomplish such works as men, horses would draw the figures of the gods as similar to horses, and the oxen as similar to oxen, and they would make the bodies of the sort which each of them had.

What's It Like Being an Atheist?

0 comments
I'm all ears. How does YOUR family treat you? My cousin wrote a genealogical book about my mother's side of the family. Along with his Dad (my uncle) they are putting together a big reunion to take place this Saturday. Guess what? I am not invited because I'm an atheist. My uncle says, "What fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14). Some people are unhappy about this but they are a very religious group of people, and they haven't seen him in decades. My uncle rejected his whole family 35 years ago because none of us were true Christians. Since he wants to associate with them now, it appears he's getting liberal in his later years. If only he could live another 100 years. Then he might accept me as a person too. What a nutcase!

Skeptic Ink Network (SIN) Has Launched Today!

0 comments
Skeptic Blogs is now the Skeptic Ink Network (SIN). This new platform is much better and versatile, giving us plenty of room to grow with some nice graphics.

SIN already boasts an impressive group of talented writers and we expect to expand considerably. I am there. Dr. Stephen Law has recently joined us too. Stephen is the editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy Journal THINK, published several books, and is the senior lecturer in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London. His blog is "Believing Bullshit," which is also the title to his most recent book.

Click around to see the others. In the coming week or two you'll see six new writers. As you can tell I'm very excited about it. Please, everyone, let others know. Tell them via your own blogs, Facebook, twitter, reddit, 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 at the top of the main page.

I Could Conceivably Be Wrong. So?

0 comments
Randal Rauser repeatedly tells us that, "Faith consists of assent to a proposition that is conceivably false." I have repeatedly said that faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities, and as such, we should think exclusively in terms of probabilities. He claims I'm ignorant. I cannot hope to convince the deluded mind, but maybe more reasonable people can see what seems obvious to non-believers.

Some Mistakes of Moses, Continued

0 comments
Note from my friend Julian Haydon who is sending me these excepts: "This was written 133 years ago; for a public beginning to receive "explanations" for absurdities; but still when many, as now, believed every word in the bible true. Ingersoll relentlessly drives home the full implications of what they believe -- but some of the learned doctors he quotes are in no way embarrassed."

Dissecting and Dismantling Rauser's Definition of Faith

0 comments
Randal Rauser repeatedly tells us that "Faith consists of assent to a proposition that is conceivably false." I have repeatedly said that faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities, and as such, we should think exclusively in terms of probabilities. He claims I'm ignorant. Okay then, let's see. Rauser's definition is a Christian language game utterly irrelevant to whether Christianity is true, because it forces him to choose between being a skeptic, a non-believer, and beyond this an epistemological solipsist, or he is forced to admit we should think exclusively in terms of probabilities after all.

We Should Think Exclusively in Terms of Probabilities

0 comments
Any questions? Faith has nothing to do with this reasoning process. Probabilities are all that matter. Faith is superfluous, utterly irrelevant, completely unnecessary, and even irrational. We should think exclusively in terms of probabilities.

Religion 101: Final Exam

0 comments
If you're a believer then you shouldn't have any problem with this Final Exam.

Go ahead, see how you do. ;-) Hat Tip: Jim Jones.

Science Is Doing What God Can’t Do: Answering Prayers for Healing

0 comments
Spray-on skin, made-to-order muscle, and print-out kidneys aren't just science fiction anymore. Dr. Anthony Atala and Dr. Stephen Badylak, two pioneers of regenerative medicine, talk about the latest methods for building new body parts, and the challenge of growing complex organs like the heart, liver or brain.

Audio @ NPR:
What the Doctor Ordered: Building New Body

THIS is how you debate the resurrection. (Arif Ahmed vs. Gary Habermas Debate)

0 comments





Cambridge Professor Arif Ahmed undercuts all potential arguments for the resurrection with his opening salvo (a variation of Hume's argument against the probability of miracles/magic).  Habermas never really recovers, and his typical apologetics for the resurrection do not offer a coherent reply.

Some Mistakes of Moses, Continued

0 comments
Note from my friend Julian Haydon who sends me these posts every week: "This was written 133 years ago; for a public beginning to receive "explanations" for absurdities; but still when many, as now, believed every word in the bible true. Ingersoll relentlessly drives home the full implications of what they beleive -- but some of the learned doctors he quotes are in no way embarrassed."

God Cannot Be Perfect Because Perfect Does Not Make Sense

0 comments
So in a recent post on Skeptic Blogs I was talking about how God, prior to creation (at least according to classical interpretations of God based on the Ontological Argument), had ontological perfection. That is to say, he was in a perfect state of being (since this is built into the definition of God). The argument followed that, in creating the world, God would be either lacking something and thus having a need, which is incoherent with ontological perfection, or he was downgrading his perfect state in the process of creating this world.

Was Jesus Married? New Papyrus Fragment Fuels Debate

0 comments
BOSTON (Reuters) - A previously unknown scrap of ancient papyrus written in ancient Egyptian Coptic includes the words "Jesus said to them, my wife," -- a discovery likely to renew a fierce debate in the Christian world over whether Jesus was married.

The existence of the fourth-century fragment -- not much bigger than a business card --was revealed at a conference in Rome on Tuesday by Karen King, Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Dr. Victor Reppert On Why He Doesn't Read Any Book I've Recommended

0 comments
I don't think there is another blog where so many educated evangelicals and atheists converge for debate but here at Debunking Christianity. I like this very much and admire these Christians who wish to engage the opposition even though at times it gets a bit rough. Some of the best evangelical scholars visit and comment here like "The Big Four": Victor Reppert (ranked about 18th in all-time comments), David Marshall, Randal Rauser, and Matthew Flannagan (although Matt only comments when I write about him). I have even allowed guest posts by several other Christian scholars, like James Sennett, Doug Groothuis, Craig Blomberg, Kenneth Howell, John F. Haught, and even one by William Lane Craig (posted by proxy), all of which can be read here. Few of them however, have ever acknowledged that my arguments are any good (Sennett, Howell and Haught are the exceptions, but then they aren't evangelicals). Probably none of them have ever heard any really good faith-damaging atheist argument (the ones they acknowledge don't actually provide an under-cutting defeater to their Christian faith). Perhaps because I have interacted the most with "The Big Four" I've become convinced Christian apologetics is rank sophistry, or just plain blind willful ignorance. By sophistry I mean "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning," or rather, "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation."

For the record, Reppert seems to be the most biblically ignorant of the "Four" (because he focuses on his specialty, the Argument from Reason). Randal Rauser is biblically literate but is also almost pure sophistry. Vic is the most cool, calm, and dispassionate commenter, willing to take the heat without responding in kind, and the most willing to learn from his opponents (but as you'll see that doesn't mean much). Marshall is the wittiest and the most biblically literate (although that too doesn't mean much). Rauser loves to communicate in hypothetical stories which I find very interesting (although most of them utterly miss the point). Flannagan pretty much argues like I do although with a great deal of sophistry. Now for my case in point of the day, Dr. Reppert's ignorance.

Have Someone Different At Your Campus, Atheist Meet-Up, or Convention

I'm available for speaking engagements, debates, weddings, funerals, and other stuff like that. To learn what I can offer and how to contact me, read below.

Quote of the Day, by Thomas Paine On The Evidence to Believe

0 comments
The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.

Analytical thinking erodes belief in God

0 comments
Will Gervais asked 93 university students to rate their own belief in God and other supernatural agents such as angels. Then, several weeks later, they underwent "priming" for analytical thinking – they were asked to unscramble sentences that included words such as "ponder" and "rational", read text written in hard-to-read fonts, or even just look at a picture of Rodin's sculpture The Thinker
After tallying the results here is the conclusion:

Some worthy secular organizations need your help.

0 comments

As I write this, three amazing secular organizations are all within striking distance of *major* money courtesy of the Chase Community Giving Program  The 46 charities who receive the most votes will receive a minimum of a $50,000 grant from Chase,  The Secular Student Alliance and Foundation Beyond Belief are in a close race with many other charities for the guaranteed $50k (Foundation Beyond Belief is only 15 votes away from 46th place!), and they could use a few extra votes to help push them over the top.  Camp Quest  is also in the running for a runner up prize of $20,000 which will go to those who place lower.   Voting is free, so please take a few seconds to help out these worthy organizations.

Some Mistakes of Moses, Continued

0 comments
This was written 133 years ago for a mainly hostile public, and in a time when the Bible was regarded as "every word true and inspired by God". Ingersoll uses the Bible against itself. [Provided by Julian Haydon]

THE NECESSITY FOR A GOOD MEMORY by Robert Ingersoll.

It must not be forgotten that there are two accounts of the creation in Genesis. The first account stops with the third verse of the second chapter. The chapters have been improperly divided. In the original Hebrew the Pentateuch was neither divided into chapters nor verses. There was not even any system of punctuation. It was written wholly with consonants, without vowels, and without any marks, dots, or lines to indicate them.

These accounts are materially different, and both cannot be true. Let us see wherein they differ.

The second account of the creation begins with the fourth verse of the second chapter, and is as follows:

Quote of the Day, By Matt McCormick on Randal Rauser

0 comments
One exercise that I run with my students is to have them spend time at the outset of an essay giving a clear, charitable, and accurate reconstruction of the author’s arguments they wish to criticize. I’m still not seeing anything like that in these posts. Link.

Three Fair and Impartial Tests For Christian Faith

0 comments
There are three impartial tests for intellectually honest Christians who wish to test their faith. 1) We have The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) which I've written extensively about. But there are two others that Professor Matt McCormick has written about.

The Old Testament Caught in Lie, After Lie, After Lie

0 comments

Each segment is 51 minutes long. If you don’t have time, please just watch the summation in video 4: The Book (I would love to see WL Craig try debate either Israel Finkelstein or Neil Silberman over the truth of the Bible! These videos will be a foundation for my forthcoming post.) "In God We Trust" . . . Like Hell!

The Bible Unearthed 1.The Patriarchs

The Bible Unearthed 2.The Exodus

The Bible Unearthed 3.The Kings

The Bible Unearthed 4.The Book

I Doubt Rauser is Even Trying To Understand Me

0 comments
I have said that Dr. Randal Rauser is not being intellectually honest when it comes to his faith. This does not mean I think he's doing anything unethical or immoral. It means his faith blinds him from being honest with the arguments to the contrary. Let me try, yet once again, to persuade him to throw off his blinders with what I consider one of the dumbest rejoinders to my arguments I think I have ever heard. I do so in hopes he will see it for what it is, and then take seriously that this same blindness affects how he treats other arguments against his faith. I hope in vain though. Dr. Victor Reppert endorses what Rauser wrote, so hey, he's no different. Faith makes otherwise brilliant people stupid, and I mean this. They must hand out PhD's to almost anyone, is all I can say. Let me show you this stupidity from a post Rauser wrote titled, "Is John W. Loftus 'dumber than a box of rocks'?" Warning, this is going to get ugly.

Rauser, This Is Not A Intellectual Game of Chess With Me

0 comments
How can I convince a deluded person that he is playing intellectual chess games when he is really really good at them? I probably can't. Case in point, yet once again, is Dr. Randal Rauser. I had previously written an open letter to him but to no avail. Perhaps others can learn from it on how not to search for the truth. That's who I write for, others, people searching for the truth, not Rauser. I do so in hopes they can see this for what it is, because he can't. I'm sure that if I were discussing the ideas that separate us with an equivalent Rauser type of Scientologist or a Mormon, I couldn't convince them either. He doesn't get this point. He may never get it. He discounts the overwhelming probability that the whole gospel is based on a lie. Now let's consider his rejoinder to what I had previously written.

Responding to Rauser On the Wildly Improbable Christian Faith

0 comments
Dr. Rauser fancies himself as a Christian intellectual who seeks to straighten the rest of us crooked people out. We’re bent out of shape, you see. He’s gonna fix us. ‘Cause we need fixed. He wrote a review of my chapter in The End of Christianity titled, “Christianity is wildly improbable.” I had not read a word of Rauser's review until lately, after he practically begged me to comment on it. He shouldn’t oughta do that. ;-) Since I said I would comment, here goes.

A Note On the Bible and the Kingships of God and Jesus

0 comments
{I’m working on a major post on the why the Bible cannot be trusted as either history or theology (complete with footnotes) which I hope to post within the week.}

With just the simplest reading of the Bible, we find that both God and Jesus are depicted as kings. That is, while they maybe divine, they rule as earthly kings just as the pharaohs of Egypt or the emperors of Rome ruled with absolute power and fear. Since the professional scribes of the Biblical world did not know of any other rule, plus the fact that religion was used to support imperial dictatorships, all ancient rulers were appoint by some King God (be it he Yahweh, Zeus, or Aten) to function as an extension of their God King. So to it was for even Paul and his justification of the divine rule of the Roman Emperor in Romans 13. Likewise in the final book of the Christian Bible (Revelation), the kingship of God and the kingship of Satan clash in one final battle over who will rule humanity as the last and eternal dictator.

The Whole Gospel (or Good News) is Based On a Lie

0 comments
Today I was eating lunch and watching people. You know, it's fun. It keeps our minds occupied wondering about them. Where are they going next? How was their morning? What are their concerns today? Are they happy? Things like that. It's fun guessing based on our limited view of what we see ever so briefly. My wife and I play a game where we have some fun at their expense by doing so. But have you ever wondered what they think about the various issues of ethics, politics and religion, specific issues? Going even deeper have you ever wondered what it would like being them? Ever wonder what it would be like being a closeted gay person, or the opposite gender, a different race, or being older than you are? Ever wonder what it would be like to be someone else, to have all of the experiences another person had, having learned everything he or she did? Now take this beyond the shores of your particular country or continent. Ever imagine what it would be like being a person from Japan, or Africa, or South America, or France, or Greece? I know one thing. If we were raised in a different culture as a different person we would largely think like people who are different from us and who live in different cultures. The evidence is overwhelming.

Now let's back this up with a question: How is it possible to reasonably judge people, all people, based on what they believe happened in a lone part of the ancient world? The gospel "belief unto salvation" dogma dies on this rock. It's reminiscent of the ancient barbaric thought police. Even liberals of every religious persuasion are persuaded that one's beliefs cannot be the basis for pleasing any god, or being judged by him. And yet this "belief unto salvation" dogma is reflected in the New Testament over and over. It cannot possibly be true. The whole gospel is based on a lie.

Them's My Rules

I treat people more respectfully and graciously than most people do online, unless they violate one of these three rules: 1) tell me what I should or should not do (It's my life and it's my blog); 2) malign me in some demeaning way (I will not allow believers to dehumanize me); or 3) show a repeated lack of ignorance and unwillingness to learn from me (Unfortunately, the more I interact with a Christian then the more I can see whether this is the case). I'm saying don't do these things if you want a reasonable respectful civil discussion with me. If anyone violate these rules I'll tell them off, sometimes in a big bad mean way, and I don't care who you are either. Just don't do it. Ever. I would hope people know this by now. It's who I am and I'm not about to change. If you don't break these rules I will not verbally abuse you in any way, although I cannot guarantee others won't. They are not up for discussion or debate either. Repeated violations will get you banned and will cause a cessation of contact from me. And to any morons out there, how I respond to violators of these rules does not adversely affect the strength of my arguments, as Robert Ingersoll said when accused of lecturing for the money:

Christopher Hitchens' Widow On Mourning And 'Mortality'

0 comments

For 18 months, while undergoing treatment for esophageal cancer, Christopher Hitchens chronicled his year of "living dyingly" in a series of essays for Vanity Fair. Those essays, as well as never-before published notes from Hitchens' final days, are compiled in a new, posthumous book titled, Mortality. Carol Blue, Hitchens' wife of 20 years, wrote the afterward to the book. She talks with NPR's Neal Conan about her husband's final days.

What Contrary Evidence Troubles Me?

0 comments
Davis Marshall asked me three questions:
What existentially difficult questions do you even admit face you, as an atheist? What contrary evidence troubles your confidence? Do you dare confess?
Let me take the last one first. I think he is probably "projecting" onto me. That line of psychological reasoning goes like this: "Since I have secret doubts then John probably does too." I'm not presuming to know this about him, but I suspect it's true. Perhaps he'll say that having doubts is a good thing, since he could claim it to be a mark of an open-minded person. Nonetheless, I have no trouble telling people what I think. He knows this. Perhaps that's why he asked. But he envisions me secretly fearing hell, worrying that if I am wrong I'm doomed, or worrying whether I'm doing a good thing by arguing against Christian faith, or that I hide some facts that support faith whenever it's inconvenient to do so. So in obliging his request what follows isn't a confession. I have no secret or hidden questions so there is nothing to "confess." This doesn't mean I know everything. I am continually learning as I go, and I have a lot of unresolved questions about the Bible, theology, and the history of the church. I have a lot of philosophical questions, the kinds that science can solve in principle, if not outright. I have questions about whether there will ever be a grand unified theory of everything, concerning the ultimate origins of everything, of human self-awareness and consciousness, and questions about metaphysical free-will, and the nature of ethics. They all interest me but they are not my specialty.

Honest Christians, Answer This Question!

1 comments
I'd like for you to be honest with your faith here. No delusional sidesteps, okay? Answer a question having to do with what came first, your faith or your understanding. As we know, Anselm argued that "faith seeks understanding." That's the same stance other believers view their own religions. First they believe, then they seek to justify it by understanding it. Did you reasonably examine your faith before you adopted it? Or, did you try to justify it post hoc, after believing it?

My claim is that justifying something post hoc is an unreasonable way to examine a religion. It's something the Outsider Test for Faith finds to be an inconsistent double standard. For we know from cognitive studies that the strong human propensity is to unreasonably justify what we believe after the fact. We do this in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance in our heads (that uncomfortable feeling we have from for holding two contrary propositions at the same time).

Here's how cognitive dissonance works. You made a public stance in a confession for Jesus. Then you come across disconfirming evidence. What do you do? You already stated publicly you believed. So you must make a choice, either recant and be embarrassed for making a rash commitment, or find some way to escape the force of that disconfirming evidence. Sometimes that escape hole is so small only an ant could crawl through it, but when it comes to faith that'll do just fine.

In any case, this question has two aspects to it. The first aspect is chronological, the second one is logical.

How Did 9/11 Change Your Religious Beliefs?

0 comments
Huffington Post is asking this question so I thought I would as well.

I've Propped Up a Couple of Christian Sites For Too Long

0 comments
On or about August 14th I ceased linking to Christian blogs in my sidebar. I had done so for years in some cases under the rubric "Sites I Visit From Time to Time." What I didn't realize is that by doing so I was propping up their audiences. I made them more important than they were. And anyone who had anything nasty to say about me eventually congregated at them. The owners of those blogs reveled in their success and learned that by berating me they could get even more hits. So this played itself out over and over until those sites became cesspools of Loftus bashers. Two of them used to be ranked by Alexa at or about the 600,000th mark. Now look at their Alexa rankings, but before you do, let me crow a bit at my absolute power over them. *peep* *peep* ;-)