Final Installment of "Some Reasons Why" by Robert Ingersoll
This piece contains a masterful evisceration of the fundamentals of Christianity. Here are samples from Julian Haydon:
An Atheist Sermon by Jerry DeWitt
Jerry DeWitt is a former Pentecostal minister turned atheist and now the director the organization “Recovering From Religion."
Remembering and Honoring Professor Stuart C. Hackett
Stuart was born on November 2, 1925 and passed away on October 17, 2012. Paul Copan, a former student of his and President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, wrote a very deserving tribute to him which can be read here. Stu was my professor as well, a sometimes flamboyant individual with the taste for speaking very long sentences filled with tough words to chew on.
Just like Paul Copan, my first class at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School was taken with Stu, and it was the same one, Religious Epistemology. I had taken that class in the Fall of 1982 three years before Copan, only I argued against Hackett's dualistic rational-empiricism epistemology and decided afterward to take as many classes with William Lane Craig as I could (which ended up being half of the hours required for my Th.M. degree in the Philosophy of Religion). My own recollections of Stu, written almost five years ago, can be read here.
In Copan's tribute he lists several Christian scholars/educators who also studied under Hackett besides himself: William Lane Craig, Stephen Evans, Jay Wood, Mark McLeod-Harrison, Chad Meister, Mark Linville, Mark Mittelberg, and Nicholas Merriwether. So I'm in good company. While at Trinity I also studied under the late Kenneth Kantzer, the former editor of Christianity Today known as the Dean of Evangelicalism, and the late Paul Feinberg, a somewhat towering figure among evangelicals at the time, although he didn't write that much. Stu will be missed, just like Kantzer and Feinberg before him. It's too bad they will never know they were wrong. They will never know they were on the wrong side of history.
In any case, there is one thing you should know about me. You may think I'm wrong, but I am clearly not ignorant. That option is not available to you. I have studied with the best and the brightest, including the amazing James D. Strauss, whom I credit with my anti-apologetics. I just take his apologetics and reverse it. Former students of his include James F. Sennett, Terry Miethe, John D. Castelein, Richard Knopp, Dan Cameron, and Robert Kurka, so I'm in good company there as well.
Just like Paul Copan, my first class at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School was taken with Stu, and it was the same one, Religious Epistemology. I had taken that class in the Fall of 1982 three years before Copan, only I argued against Hackett's dualistic rational-empiricism epistemology and decided afterward to take as many classes with William Lane Craig as I could (which ended up being half of the hours required for my Th.M. degree in the Philosophy of Religion). My own recollections of Stu, written almost five years ago, can be read here.
In Copan's tribute he lists several Christian scholars/educators who also studied under Hackett besides himself: William Lane Craig, Stephen Evans, Jay Wood, Mark McLeod-Harrison, Chad Meister, Mark Linville, Mark Mittelberg, and Nicholas Merriwether. So I'm in good company. While at Trinity I also studied under the late Kenneth Kantzer, the former editor of Christianity Today known as the Dean of Evangelicalism, and the late Paul Feinberg, a somewhat towering figure among evangelicals at the time, although he didn't write that much. Stu will be missed, just like Kantzer and Feinberg before him. It's too bad they will never know they were wrong. They will never know they were on the wrong side of history.
In any case, there is one thing you should know about me. You may think I'm wrong, but I am clearly not ignorant. That option is not available to you. I have studied with the best and the brightest, including the amazing James D. Strauss, whom I credit with my anti-apologetics. I just take his apologetics and reverse it. Former students of his include James F. Sennett, Terry Miethe, John D. Castelein, Richard Knopp, Dan Cameron, and Robert Kurka, so I'm in good company there as well.
DC Blog Stats
In just the last month according to Google Analytics, DC had 21 thousand visitors who visited 34 thousand times with 56 thousand pageviews. Blogger reports instead that DC had 154 thousand pageviews, so I suppose Blogger knows best. Of these visitors 55% of them were new to DC. The new visitors mostly come here from one of over 4000 posts in the archives. According to Feedburner DC is approaching close to 3000 subscribers. The graphics can be seen below. This encourages me to keep beating my head against the wall. I am very honored and thankful for my readers, I think. ;-)
Got Any Funny Stories? Here's One.
An atheist friend of mine told me of a time when some guy asked if she was born again. She said "no." So they proceeded to argue back and forth. Then her atheist husband showed up. The proselytizer asked him if he was born again. He said "yes" just to get him off his back. She was upset at the time but had a good laugh over it later.
God May Own the Cattle on a Thousand Hills, But What He Really Wants is that Dollar In Your Wallet
("For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills.” Psalms 50: 10)
Ironically, there are far more verses in the Bible about giving God your money than giving God your soul!
The Cover for My New Book On the Outsider Test
The production process is moving forward. Now there's a book cover:
Dr. Hector Avalos, on the New Holocaust Deniers
There is a new movement of holocaust denialists, and the prime architects of this movement are biblical scholars. I am speaking not of the Jewish Holocaust under the Nazi regime, but of the Canaanite holocaust reported in biblical texts. These Canaanite holocaust denialists argue that the Canaanite holocaust did not really happen. And if it did happen, then it was justified and not analogous to the Nazi holocaust. Link.
Christian, Why Not Just Shoot Yourself?
[Warning: For the cognitively ill what I'm about to suggest is something only a highly trained professional should attempt, if it should be done at all. Do not try this at home. ;-)]
Christian philosophers and apologists love to speak about several bizarre scenarios when it comes to the limits of knowledge. Is there really a material universe? What if we're dreaming right now? Maybe the real world lies behind a Matrix? What if we're nothing but brains in a mad scientist's vat? Who knows, right? Maybe. So they conclude we all have faith in the same sense as Christians have faith. We believe we are not in an illusory world, dreaming, in a Matrix, or brains in the vat they say, because there is no evidence that can discount these possibilities granting the various scenarios proposed. So therefore, we all believe unevidenced claims in the same way and in the same sense.
However, these scenarios are mere possibilities. Probabilities are all that matter. Faith is unnecessary and superfluous. Let me show this with one simple question. Why not buy a gun and shoot yourself? Why not? Think about this and you know it is much more probable that none of these hypothetical scenarios have the slightest degree of probability to them. So you do abide by the probabilities after all. You know all of these hypotheticals are improbable. Faith is not involved to see this. The improbabilities themselves do. Or, you could test them by shooting yourself. The problem with such a test is that if your aim is good you'll die and never know the result. Others will though.
Christian philosophers and apologists love to speak about several bizarre scenarios when it comes to the limits of knowledge. Is there really a material universe? What if we're dreaming right now? Maybe the real world lies behind a Matrix? What if we're nothing but brains in a mad scientist's vat? Who knows, right? Maybe. So they conclude we all have faith in the same sense as Christians have faith. We believe we are not in an illusory world, dreaming, in a Matrix, or brains in the vat they say, because there is no evidence that can discount these possibilities granting the various scenarios proposed. So therefore, we all believe unevidenced claims in the same way and in the same sense.
However, these scenarios are mere possibilities. Probabilities are all that matter. Faith is unnecessary and superfluous. Let me show this with one simple question. Why not buy a gun and shoot yourself? Why not? Think about this and you know it is much more probable that none of these hypothetical scenarios have the slightest degree of probability to them. So you do abide by the probabilities after all. You know all of these hypotheticals are improbable. Faith is not involved to see this. The improbabilities themselves do. Or, you could test them by shooting yourself. The problem with such a test is that if your aim is good you'll die and never know the result. Others will though.
If Christianity Were True Compared With If Christianity Were False
One of the things Bayesian thinking requires from us, aside from thinking exclusively in terms of the probabilities, is that we must compare the probabilities of alternative hypotheses. I don't do the math though, since I have a hard time assigning numbers to the probabilities. For instance, is it 1 in 100,000 that Jesus was raised from the dead, 1 in a million, 1 in a billion, or is it 1 in 60 billion (the number of homo sapiens that have ever walked the earth)? It's probably the later. Nonetheless, I can get along just fine without stating these numbers. It communicates better to the non-technical person, the educated person in the pew, the university student. So, let's compare these two hypotheses: 1) If Christianity were true what would we expect to find? 2) If Christianity were false what would we expect to find? Then let's see how each hypothesis fares. Join in with me.
Bible Inconsistencies
[First posted 9/20/07] Evangelicals will typically quote from the Bible to settle any question it speaks directly about, since they believe it’s God’s word. Some fundamentalists will repeat the phrase, “God said it, that settles it.” Using proof texts like those found in II Peter 1:21 where it’s said the prophets of old “spoke the words of God,” and II Timothy 3:16 which says Scripture is “God breathed,” they claim the very words in the Bible are from God (see also Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 10:35; 17:17; Romans 3:2; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 15:3; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 4:15; I Timothy 5:18; Hebrews 1:1; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 3:2). However, there are several serious problems with this view:
Confused? How to Decide Which Religion is True.
I'm writing a tract with the intention of it being something secular student groups can hand out on their campuses. I only have a limited number of words and was wondering if I should add something to it. See what you think of this draft below:
Two Original Thought Experiments Related to the Outsider Test for Faith
A professor of mathematics has come up with two original thought experiments related to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) that are akin to the Veil of Ignorance of John Rawls. I like them. Let's look at the first one below.
Quote of the Day, Concerning My Book
Well, you know an author can't help but like this quote from an email sent to me while I was on a speaking tour of four Colorado universities, even if it's quite an exaggeration: ;-)
"Why I Became An Atheist" is a book that can end Christianity on its own, and is to Christianity what the Iceberg was to the Titanic.
Al Stefanelli's Review of My Book "Why I Became an Atheist"
Al and I were writers at Freethought Blogs. Since then we've kept in touch. He now stays on his own blog where wrote a very nice (and humbling) review of my book. He calls it "exhaustive" and says:
Thanks so much Al! I appreciate all you do as well. Link. It's a shame that William Lane Craig, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, David Marshall and many others who comment here have not read it, or won't. Maybe this might change their minds. I'd like to have an honest review by one or more of them. But no, they've heard it all before they'll say. ;-)
At first glance, John’s book seems daunting. I’ve written a couple, myself, and when you look at a five-hundred-plus page book, it can be off-putting. Don’t let this sway you, because when you pick it up and start reading, and begin to understand the detail and clarity that John uses, you will soon realize that this book could have been written no other way. It’s exhaustive in content because it has to be. Everything in it is important, and the range of topics covered offer the reader a collective of information that I have not been able to find in one volume, anywhere.Concerning the subjects in the first part of my book, Al writes:
John goes into such great detail on these subjects, tearing them apart, laying them out on a literary operating table, and surgically examining them with such a precision that this book has earned a spot on my shelf with the reference books.Concerning the second part, Al writes:
The wealth of information here is astounding, and the way it is presented offers the reader one of the most detailed breakdowns of the problems with apologetics, and the cognitive dissonance that comes with religious belief.He concludes: "To a theologian, he is a worthy adversary. To an armchair apologist, he is positively lethal."
Thanks so much Al! I appreciate all you do as well. Link. It's a shame that William Lane Craig, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, David Marshall and many others who comment here have not read it, or won't. Maybe this might change their minds. I'd like to have an honest review by one or more of them. But no, they've heard it all before they'll say. ;-)
Obama and Atheists
I am glad to see President Barack Obama re-elected. He certainly has sought to include open atheists, such as myself, in his campaign from the beginning. I served on his Iowa Latino outreach committee in 2007, when this photo was taken in Des Moines, Iowa. But he still has much more work to do to ensure that open atheists can feel more accepted in political office.Mary at the Census? Er, no.
Here is my latest video offering to the world of You Tube. Let me know what you think.
President Obama Did It. Four More Years!
Woooooo Hoooooo! I'm happy for him and for our country. I voted before leaving for my Colorado speaking tour--I LOVE COLORADO! After he was projected to be the winner some lady in the hotel bar went on about how she and her kids have no hope for the future, blah, blah, blah. Wow, she might as well leave the country, or end her life. What pure poppcock. People on opposing sides of most presidential elections have said the same things. And yet, here we are, alive and doing fine. How someone can put that much faith into an election is beyond me. The processes of democracy grind slowly, sometimes very slowly. The US has checks and balances in place that help to keep it that way, like a written Constitution, the three branches of our government and a free press. I'm so glad the right wingers don't dominate the political landscape as they did in the 80's. Looks like we've learned some good lessons and are being more reasonable to me. But it's taken time. Anyway, here's your chance to weigh in on this historic occasion.
Robert M. Price exposes William Lane Craig
Writer and New Testament scholar Robert M. Price exposes some of the flawed reasoning of Christian apologist William Lane Craig.
William Lane Craig is Shamelessly Taking the Low Road
I've heard three interviews where Bill Craig says I didn't leave the Christian faith because of intellectual reasons but because of moral failures, like an addiction to pornography and adultery. I've seriously considered filing a lawsuit against him for defamation of character, and I might do it. When I spoke to him after he debated Sam Harris he acknowledged not having read my book. I suspect he still hasn't. So to falsely and slanderously describe my deconversion while not having read my book is reprehensible ignorance at best and criminal at worst. While I'm no prude I have never said I had a pornography problem. Such a suggestion conjurers up a pervert to Christians, even though many of them ARE perverts by his own understandings who watch porn and then later publicly condemn it, or who have gay lovers then publicly condemn homosexuality. Is Bill projecting his own porn addiction on to me, or is he knowingly lying about me? Believers have always spread lies about apostates. In a different era we were killed. There is no evidence for this porn accusation of his. But who needs evidence when one is constantly in debate mode in defense of a faith that cannot be defended.
Frank Moore Cross, Jr. (1921-2012): In My View
Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages Emeritus, Harvard University
The first time I heard Frank Cross was at the 1974 Society of Biblical Literature and American Academy of Religion meeting in Washington, DC where he delivered his SBL Presidential Address: A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration. His passing last month at age 91 will be felt throughout the world of Biblical studies especially by his students. For those of us who followed his influence and control over the Qumran Scrolls, his legacy will marked by how the Scrolls were subjectively denied access to the scholarly world especially in the United States to those who were not part of the Harvard community.
Some Reasons Why, by Robert Ingersoll
My friend Julian Haydon with another excerpt from the illustrious Ingersoll. He writes:
Ingersoll compares Biblical and Pagan morality: "If the Jehovah of the Jews had taken upon himself flesh, and dwelt as a man among the people had he endeavored to govern, had he followed his own teachings, he would have been a slaveholder, a buyer of babes, and a beater of women. He would have waged wars of extermination. He would have killed grey-haired and trembling age, and would have sheathed his sword, in prattling, dimpled babes. He would have been a polygamist, and would have butchered his wife for differing with him on the subject of religion."
God Hates Dogs And the People Who Love And Raise Them!
No other animal is as detested more in the Bible then the dog. Even when compared to swine, dogs fall at the bottom having the most contempt and disgust of all the animals ever created by God (though I do wonder why God created something He detested in the first place)! Even the Talking Snake in the Garden of Eden didn't do enough to hurt its own species to earn Gods eternal hatred as the dog.
Dr. McCormick's Lecture: "What's Wrong with Having Faith?"
Religious believers often appeal to faith to justify their beliefs. Believing by faith seems to mean believing a religious claim even though the evidence on the whole is contrary to, or at least inadequate to fully support, the claim. Having faith is widely thought to be virtuous, admirable, desirable, and at the risk of being technical, epistemically acceptable. While faith is widely employed as a defense of religious belief, this answer to questions and problems with the God hypothesis is riddled with problems. It robs the believer of an important ability: she can no longer claim that her belief is true. She opens the floodgates for other outlandish views to do the same. Link.
Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?
This is the title to the very last chapter in my forthcoming book, The Outsider Test for Faith, some blurbs of which can be found here. That chapter is about faith, which I define as "an irrational leap over the probabilities." Victor Reppert is claiming that if this is what faith is then he doesn't have it. Here's what he said and my response below. I think this exchange cuts to the heart of the issue:
What's Wrong With Other Religions?
What's wrong with Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Haitian Voodoo, Animism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Scientology, Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, the Unification Church, and the many tribal and folk religions? Faith. You know it. I know it. We all know it. The adherents of these religions do not believe based on sufficient evidence because faith is a leap over the probabilities, an irrational leap over the probabilities. If they thought exclusively in terms of the probabilities they would not believe at all. Now that we've got that straight, what's wrong with Christianity? Faith. :-) You know it. I know it. We all should know it.
Victor Reppert Now Says He Doesn't Have Faith!
John: I am quite frankly prepared to admit that, given your definition of faith, I have no faith. Damaging admission? Not. Link.I know what he's saying so don't think I'm claiming otherwise. My definition of faith is that it's a leap over the probabilities. It fills in the gap between what is improbable to make something more probable than not without faith. As such, faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities. What Reppert is saying is that he doesn't have faith that leaps over any probabilities. He doesn't have faith, the only kind that exists among believers of all stripes and sects. He just doesn't have it. There are no gaps in the probabilities that need to be filled in. His is a reasoned conclusion that all reasonable people should accept. His is a reasoned religion, just like deism, but he concludes much more than any deist could ever do. He thinks with me that faith in my sense is indeed superfluous, irrational, unnecessary, and even dangerous. He thinks that in the end, when pressed, he should think exclusively in terms of probabilities after all! He's claiming this is what he does when embracing the Christian faith. *cough*
Once again folks, this is the kind of intellectual gerrymandering we expect from believers. When pressed against the wall they will say anything to get out of any problem that calls into question their faith. Stephen Law is right: “Anything based on faith, no matter how ludicrous, can be made to be consistent with the available evidence, given a little patience and ingenuity.” (Believing Bullshit, p. 75). It reminds me of a story:
Dinesh D'Souza is Now Being Accused of Stealing
THE CONSERVATIVE pundit recently ousted as head of a Christian college in Manhattan for alleged adultery is now being accused of breaking another commandment — thou shalt not steal. Dinesh D’Souza allegedly diverted profits from “2016: Obama’s America,” the anti-Obama movie that’s been a big hit with right wingers, to a new book project, one of D’Souza’s partners charged in a lawsuit. Link.
Should We Think Exclusively in Terms of Probabilities or Not?
Christians cannot agree on a definition of faith because faith cannot be consistently defined except that it is an irrational leap over the probabilities. They cannot agree on a definition because they refuse to admit this about faith. It's what they think best describes all other religious faiths except their own. It's what I think of all of them. I'm just more consistent. Faith can be described as a body of doctrine of course, but the word "doctrine" in the religious sense is "a codification of beliefs" best described in a creed. And a "creed" is a statement of faith shared by a religious community. There is no getting around these facts. A creed is a doctrinal statement of faith of a religious community. Faith is what all religious adherents accept and promote. Yet faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities.
Most all modern Christian definitions of faith are not biblically based. Others are irrelevant or superfluous. But regardless of they way they define faith I want a straight-up answer from Christian apologists like Drs. Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser and David Marshall who haunt these halls (it is the Halloween season ya know). Should we think exclusively in terms of probabilities, or not? If so, then why can't you admit faith is irrelevant, unnecessary, superfluous, unreasonable, irrational, and dangerous? If not, then why not? Come on boys, pony up. Put up or shut up!
For our lesson today let's look at what Jesus said about faith, and compare it with what Reppert said about it.
Most all modern Christian definitions of faith are not biblically based. Others are irrelevant or superfluous. But regardless of they way they define faith I want a straight-up answer from Christian apologists like Drs. Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser and David Marshall who haunt these halls (it is the Halloween season ya know). Should we think exclusively in terms of probabilities, or not? If so, then why can't you admit faith is irrelevant, unnecessary, superfluous, unreasonable, irrational, and dangerous? If not, then why not? Come on boys, pony up. Put up or shut up!
For our lesson today let's look at what Jesus said about faith, and compare it with what Reppert said about it.
A Comparison of Books, by Robert G. Ingersoll
Julian Haydon with another bit from Robert G. Ingersoll: "If it was worth God's while to make a revelation at all, it was certainly worth his while to see that it was correctly made—that it was absolutely preserved."
God or Godless on Sale at Amazon
In case you're interested in getting the book God or Godless that I co-wrote with Randal Rauser, it's on sale at Amazon for just $8.47 (as of today). If you pre-order it the price will never be higher. If it sells for less at any time before publication you'll get it for the lowest price. Here are four blurbs for it by Michael Licona, Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier and David Marshall:
The God of the Bible Knows Nothing About Modern Psychology and Cannot Offer Real Solutions to Our Problems
A study done by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago tells us all believers think God agrees with what they do about a host of non-related issues. We know this. And it's dangerous. If this study shows us anything at all it should make believers less certain of what they pontificate about. In fact, this study falsifies faith itself, for there is no independent way to determine what God thinks, if he exists at all. Believers simply create their own religion, their own Gospel, and their own God in their own image.
There is something else, a few corollaries that need highlighted. What believers think about God is also what believers think that God thinks about God. Why not? Not only this, but what believers think about God is dependent on what they think of their parents and themselves to a large degree. The real causes of one's beliefs are almost never addressed and since that's the case believers cannot offer real solutions because they aren't to be found in the Bible. In the Bible people who are selfish, unruly, prideful, lustful, divisive, unforgiving, doubting, lazy, liars, disobedient, un-pure in heart, and who cannot love their enemies, are simply told not to be like that. [Yes, yes, I know, the New Testament promises God's Holy Spirit to help, but if that's the case then why didn't he communicate his will more effectively so that eight million Christians would not have slaughtered themselves during and after the Protestant Reformation?] In any case, I think this can be tested when it comes to the supposed "spiritual gifts" Christians claim to have been given by their God.
There is something else, a few corollaries that need highlighted. What believers think about God is also what believers think that God thinks about God. Why not? Not only this, but what believers think about God is dependent on what they think of their parents and themselves to a large degree. The real causes of one's beliefs are almost never addressed and since that's the case believers cannot offer real solutions because they aren't to be found in the Bible. In the Bible people who are selfish, unruly, prideful, lustful, divisive, unforgiving, doubting, lazy, liars, disobedient, un-pure in heart, and who cannot love their enemies, are simply told not to be like that. [Yes, yes, I know, the New Testament promises God's Holy Spirit to help, but if that's the case then why didn't he communicate his will more effectively so that eight million Christians would not have slaughtered themselves during and after the Protestant Reformation?] In any case, I think this can be tested when it comes to the supposed "spiritual gifts" Christians claim to have been given by their God.
Paul Kurtz On Why Eupraxsophy Matters
[In the wake of the death of Paul Kurtz I'm republishing this review I wrote of his last book].
Eupraxsophy (pronounced yoo-PRAX-so-fee) is a term Paul Kurtz introduced in 1988 to characterize a non-religious approach to life, which literally means "good practice and wisdom." In a newly released collection of Paul Kurtz's essays, Meaning and Value in a Secular Age: Why Eupraxsophy Matters,
edited by Nathan Bupp, we read Kurtz at his best. To read up on Kurtz's many accomplishments see his Wikipedia page. Kurtz is presently the Chairman of The Institute for Science and Human Values. So you can imagine how I felt when my blurb for this book by a giant of a man was placed on the back cover, which reads:
Eupraxsophy (pronounced yoo-PRAX-so-fee) is a term Paul Kurtz introduced in 1988 to characterize a non-religious approach to life, which literally means "good practice and wisdom." In a newly released collection of Paul Kurtz's essays, Meaning and Value in a Secular Age: Why Eupraxsophy Matters,
edited by Nathan Bupp, we read Kurtz at his best. To read up on Kurtz's many accomplishments see his Wikipedia page. Kurtz is presently the Chairman of The Institute for Science and Human Values. So you can imagine how I felt when my blurb for this book by a giant of a man was placed on the back cover, which reads: With his pioneering spirit and relentless efforts Paul Kurtz has done more to advance a positive image for a secular society devoid of religion than any other person in our generation, and perhaps in history. In an era like ours of angry atheists he is a breath of fresh air. Eupraxsophy does matter if we want to change our world. This may be his most lasting contribution, so it's wonderful to have all of these essays spanning his career together in one volume.
Michael Shermer on Paul Kurtz's Role in the Modern Skeptical Movement
There has been some debate (and much quibbling) about who gets what amount of credit for the founding of the modern skeptical movement...Regardless of who might be considered the “father” of the modern skeptical movement, everyone I have spoken to (including the other founders) agrees that it was Paul Kurtz more than anyone else who actually made it happen. All successful social movements have someone who has the organizational skills and social intelligence to get things done. Paul Kurtz is that man....For 20 years now I have been at the head of the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine, and as such as much as I admire Randi, Gardner, and the other public faces of skepticism, I have come to respect more than ever before what Paul Kurtz has done for our movement. He may not be as prolific and famous a writer as Martin Gardner, or as public and visible an activist as James Randi, but in terms of the day-to-day grind of keeping a movement afloat through the constant battering and assaults that come from variegated sources, there are few that can be compared with Paul Kurtz....R.I.P. Paul Kurtz. We all owe you a great debt of gratitude for making the world a better place. You will be missed. Link.
One of the dirty little secrets of historical Jesus scholarship
Dr. Hector Avalos was asked by Brad Haggard, “do you think Tacitus wrote more 'Annals' than we have now? He was such a prominent historian, but we only have one contemporary (Pliny) mention anything about him. How strange. Surely you are 'agnostic' about Tacitus' writings, or that he wrote more history than what we have.” His response:
Why Religion Makes Enemies Instead of Friends, by Robert Ingersoll
After his promising political career was cut off because of his agnostic views, Robert Ingersoll became the most successful American lecturer of the nineteenth century. His secretary, I. Newton Baker, wrote:
I entered office in 1879 as Mr. Ingersoll's. secretary, and remained with him continuously until in 1892, a period of nearly fourteen years. . . . He loved to speak. It was to him an exultation. After one or two presentations of a new lecture he had it by head and tongue and heart and, needed no prompting thereafter.
Paul Kurtz, a Great Man, a Visionary, a Pioneer, Has Died
Paul Kurtz, founder and longtime chair of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, the Council for Secular Humanism, and the Center for Inquiry, has died at the age of 86. He was one of the most influential figures in the humanist and skeptical movements from the late 1960s through the first decade of the twenty-first century. Among his best-known creations are the skeptics’ magazine Skeptical Inquirer, the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry, and the independent publisher Prometheus Books. Link.I had a great deal of admiration for him. He will be missed.
SIN Is Awesome!
If you haven't recently checked out Skeptic Ink Network (SIN) then you are missing a big bit of awesome! In the right-hand sidebar is a listing of the sites and below that are the most recent posts. Don't miss out on the goods. You'll be glad you did. LINK.
Dinesh D'Souza Resigned Under Pressure From King's College Amidst Scandal
While attending a conference last month, the president of the King’s College was spotted in the company of a woman other than his wife. At a typical institution of higher learning, a sighting like that might not have turned into a major controversy. But the King’s College is not a typical institution of higher learning. It is a tiny Christian college based in a downtown Manhattan office building, whose mission statement articulates a “commitment to the truths of Christianity and a biblical worldview. The King’s College announced Mr. D’Souza’s resignation on Thursday, two days after World Magazine, a Christian-oriented publication, reported that he had checked into a Comfort Suites in South Carolina in September with a woman he introduced as his fiancée, despite the fact that he was already married. Link.Dinesh is in the process of getting divorced. He said, “I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced.” Really? ;-) Now he's saying I am not having an affair with his new girl. Really, no sex before re-marriage? What a prude, or a liar, or something.
Why All Oppressed Minorities Should Reject Christianity
Harry McCall's post, Why Women Should Especially Reject Christianity, now has the second highest hit count of any post at DC. I agree. They should. There are other minorities the same thing could be said of them. African Americans should reject Christianity given their history as slaves in Christian America. The same thing goes for Native Americans who were conquered by American Christians (ala Manifest Destiny), as well as Mexican and Hispanic Christians who are largely Catholics because of the Spanish Conquistadors who killed, raped and plundered their ancestors. There are gay (or "gay friendly") Christian churches like The Metropolitan Community Church of San Francisco. All oppressed minorities should reject Christianity, even the liberal or radical ones, given what "true" Christians have done to them. I know I would if I were them. It's almost absurd to me that they embrace the faith of their oppressors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)