Prayer is NOT the Answer to Gun Violence
The Des Moines Register has published my latest editorial on the relationship of prayer to gun violence: Des Moines Register editorial.
Why Randal Rauser is Impervious to Reason
Rauser is an epistemological solipsist just as I argued with regard to William Lane Craig, a second post of which can be read here. I had previously argued Rauser is impervious to reason. This is why. If anyone is living in a house of delusion they are. They are both impervious to reason. They are epistemological solipsists. I don't really care if they are, and I like them both, but so long as this is true I'll keep pointing it out to more reasonable people.
Too bad for Christianity if this represents its best defenders.
The Trouble with Christmas
At this season let me leave you with some study material on Christmas.
For great reading on the history of Christmas see Thomas Flynn's book, Trouble with Christmas.
See also the Wikipedia Article on it. Check out Richard Carrier's essays on The Date of the Nativity, and The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy at the Secular Web. Happy 25th!
For great reading on the history of Christmas see Thomas Flynn's book, Trouble with Christmas.
See also the Wikipedia Article on it. Check out Richard Carrier's essays on The Date of the Nativity, and The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy at the Secular Web. Happy 25th!
Jonathan Pearce vs Randal Rauser Debate the Nativity Narratives
with me. They debated the historicity of the birth narratives found the gospels. The format was a 20 minute opening, 15 minute rebuttals, and so on. To the left is the amusing picture that Justin Schieber did at Reasonable Doubts, who hosted it. The link to the debate is right here! Jonathan writes at Skeptic Ink Network and wrote a good book on this topic: The Nativity: A Critical Examination.
The Kalam Argument and Counting Backward to Infinity
Top 10 Zombie Scenes in the Bible
Professor Gilmour of Providence University, Manitoba, Canada, has listed his favorite zombie imagery of the Bible. See his Top 10 Zombie Scenes in the Bible.
What Would Christianity Have Without Its Myths?
While attending its annual spring Greek festival, I noticed the church was open so visitors could venture inside to get an introduction to the Greek Orthodox tradition and its icons, so I decided to check it out. As I entered, I was given a brief printed history which included the claim that the Greek Orthodox Church was the ONLY TRUE Christian Church established by Jesus Christ himself. (Wow, and I thought it was the Mormons!)
My Reviewers Reviewed, by Robert Ingersoll
This is the final part of a lecture delivered by Col. Ingersoll in San Francisco Cal., June 27, 1877. It was a reply to various clergymen of that city, who had made violent attacks upon him after the delivery of his lectures, "The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child," and "The Ghosts." [Thanks once again to Julian Haydon for this excerpt].
Three Biblical Spirits of Which One is Likely to Affect People This Holiday Season
A. The Holy Spirit (The promised “Comforter”, Acts 2: 4)
B. An Evil Spirit (Afflicted Saul, 1 Samuel 16: 14)
C. The Distilled Spirit (Lives in a bottle before possessing humans. Often cohabits with either of the above spirits! Proverbs 23: 31 -32)
May your Holiday Season be a spirit filled one! Harry
B. An Evil Spirit (Afflicted Saul, 1 Samuel 16: 14)
C. The Distilled Spirit (Lives in a bottle before possessing humans. Often cohabits with either of the above spirits! Proverbs 23: 31 -32)
May your Holiday Season be a spirit filled one! Harry
The World Will NOT END on December 21, 2012
The world will not end on December 21, 2012. I guarantee it. This is an easy prediction to make. Those who predict the world will not end on any particular day, month, or year have been right 100% of the time. Those who have predicted that the world will end on a particular day, month, or year have been wrong 100% of the time. See Iowa State Daily Story.
What Kind of Christianity is This? A Review of Mark Roncace's Book
Professor Mark Roncace was raised in a conservative Christian church and attended a Christian school for thirteen years. He is now an Associate Professor of Religion at Wingate University in North Carolina who debunks the Bible in his popular level book, Raw Revelation: The Bible They Never Tell You About.
His book is bittersweet for me, both a joy and a pain to read, brilliant and, well, ignorant. Yet, I recommend it highly just the same.
His book is bittersweet for me, both a joy and a pain to read, brilliant and, well, ignorant. Yet, I recommend it highly just the same.In a Godless Universe the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting is What We'd Expect Would Happen
Even though I'm a godless atheist I say this. Don't quote me though, at least not without my explanation. I'm not speaking about a godless ethic, that supposedly atheists do these kinds of deeds, and/or that they have no ethical standards to condemn such terrible senseless acts. I do have an ethic and I do condemn these kinds of deeds. That's a topic for another time so don't derail what I'm saying with irrelevant comments. What I'm saying here is something different.
The Use and Abuse of Scholarship by The Watchtower Society
Of all the religious groups in America, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are probably the most zealous missionaries. Chances are that one will knock on your door or approach you on the street to hand you a Watchtower or Awake magazine. Most of these missionaries are pleasant and well-groomed individuals, and they would like nothing better than to discuss their literature with you. What these Witnesses don't often know is how poorly researched their literature is.
The Late Semitic Scholar Anson Rainey’s Description of Most Jews Living in Israel and Scholarship
This email by Anson Rainey was his answer to my question over his conversion to Judaism. (One likely reason most Israelis would have let John Strugnell’s comments pass.) [Click on the email to enlarge for reading.]
Frank Moore Cross: A Secularist’s Assessment
It’s been two months since Professor Frank Moore Cross (1921-2012) died on October 17. Cross was Hancock Professor of Hebrew and other Oriental Languages at Harvard from 1958-1992. In 1991, Hershel Shanks, the powerful editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, called him “one of the world’s leading Biblical scholars and probably the most influential.”
Much
has been said about his life and work, and I have left it to others to assess
his enormous contributions to the study of ancient Hebrew poetry, the
composition of the Deuteronomistic History, and many other areas of biblical
studies.
Here,
I aim to place his work in perspective for those interested in the secular
study of the Bible. In addition, I was the only openly agnostic/atheist
doctoral student that he had as far as I know, and I completed my doctoral
thesis under his supervision in 1991. Therefore, I may have a different
perspective on the implications his work for secularism.
Although
Prof. Cross was no atheist activist, his work contributed much to undermining
traditional Christian views of the Bible even if that was not always his intention.
My Reviewers Reviewed, by Robert Ingersoll
This lecture was delivered by Col. Robert Ingersoll in San Francisco Cal., June 27, 1877. It was a reply to various clergymen of that city, who had made violent attacks upon him after the delivery of his lectures, "The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child," and "The Ghosts." Thanks once again to Julian Haydon for sending me this.
Science Denialism in Congress is Rampant and Appalling
We've been talking with David Marshall who denigrates and/or denies science in favor of his ancient holy book. So in order to highlight what we're talking about, Maria Maltseva, of Skeptic Ink Network (SIN), recently interviewed Dr. Donald Prothero who speaks to that issue. He tells us of some "scientific illiteracy and science denialism that are appalling enough by themselves, but even scarier is the thought that they come from the members of the House Science and Technology Committee!" Enjoy.
Quote of the Day, by David Marshall
Actually, John, I would say that almost all scientific evidence COMES TO US as historical evidence. Science is, in effect, almost a branch of history, as it transmits knowable and systematically collected and interpretted facts to our brains.What then? Does the fact that you're not a scientist, and therefore have to trust what scientists say, entail that you don't have to trust science when it contradicts what you find in an ancient pre-scientific holy book based on the supposed historical evidence? Historians do not have at their disposal very much evidence to go on in many instances, especially the farther back in time they go. A miracle cannot be investigated scientifically since if it happened then the past is non-repeatable. Science however, progresses in the present with experiments that can be replicated in any lab anywhere on the planet. The only reason you want to bring science down to the level of the historian's very difficult but honorable craft is because you need to believe your faith-history is on an equal par with scientific results, only you place it above science because you say science is a branch of history, and not the other way around. You are therefore an ignorant science denier. You could become informed. You could visit a lab. You could notice the consensus of scientists on a vast number of areas. But no, you'd rather stay in your ignorance in order to believe in talking asses and that a sun stopped and moved backward up the stairs. Science or faith it is, and you choose faith. I choose science. The divide could never be more clearer.
Now There's A Queen James Bible! A Gay Bible for Gays ;-)
This was first spotted by Beth Ann Erickson at Skeptic Ink Network. According to the editors,
The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.When I say there are all kinds of Christianities I mean it. *chortle chortle*
Look What Kind of Company I'm Keeping These Days!
Can you judge people by the company they keep? It depends. Sometimes you can and sometimes you can't.
Just the same I'm very grateful that someone thinks I'm to be included in this company. Now if Greg would include a picture of the revised WIBA then that would be perfect.
Thanks!
Christian Apologist David Marshall On Science
David Marshall opines, “Those who make wild claims about the scientific method often base their arguments not on good human evidence, but rumor, wild guesses, and extrapolations that would embarrass a shaman.” [From The Truth Behind the New Atheism, pp. 28-30] This sentence of his expresses a such very low view of science and its method that one wonders if he is Amish. People of faith must denigrate science in at least some areas, simply because science is the major threat to their faith. That’s the nature of faith. People of faith must deny science. To maintain their faith believers must remain ignorant of science. Yes, scientists have made mistakes in the distant past, but Marshall cannot possibly say this with a straight face about modern science. Yet he did.
An Excerpt From My Coming Book On the OTF
Dr. Randal Rauser objects to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) among other reasons, because he thinks it lacks one of the key intellectual virtues, that of being open-minded. As a refresher, the OTF is expressed in the following words: "The only way to rationally test one’s culturally adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider, with the same level of reasonable skepticism believers already use when examining the other religious faiths they reject." I'm working on the edits for a book on this test right now, which can be pre-ordered: The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True.
Below is an excerpt where I respond to him:
Below is an excerpt where I respond to him:What Kind of Atheist/Theist Are You?
Welcome to Eternity Christian: What Heaven is Really Going Be Like!
{My first post for DC in 2006 (now revised)}
As a Christian, I heard the Bible verse of John 3:16 run into the ground about how “God so loved the world that he gave His only Begotten Son” to die for us because He loved us so much.
As a Christian, I heard the Bible verse of John 3:16 run into the ground about how “God so loved the world that he gave His only Begotten Son” to die for us because He loved us so much.
Why Nothing Bothers Me About Unbelief
Randal Rauser is at it again. Maybe I should just go along by playing his game? After all, he's invited me to his seminary in May to help promote our book, God or Godless? It looks like he wants me to do this pretty badly. He wants us each to say the "top three biggest problems that we face with our worldview," only now, it's "the things that keep us up at night." If he wants me to say what keeps me up at night, then it's some sort of sickness, or worry, or deep thought about something. But worry about unbelief? No, never! I do wonder about a lot of things though. Let me play his game by suggesting the three things I wonder about and show why they don't bother me in the least. Ready. Set. Go!
The Wikipedia Article on Atheism
This Wikipedia article looks very well-written. In the "See Also" part of it just before the "Notes" there is a link to a "List of Atheists." When you click on it and then click on a "List of Atheist Authors" yours truly is not there. Oh, well, maybe next time. I keep hoping! ;-) Some people like Dr. James Lindsay think my contributions "are often-overlooked." He said:
John Loftus blogs for Debunking Christianity, one of the biggest blogs dedicated to the task of examining faith versus relinquishing it, and his posts are nearly always deep, insightful, and well worth reading. This blog, however, is a far cry from why I think John Loftus is perhaps the most underrated author in this entire field. In my opinion, Loftus holds the honor of having come up with the most sterling silver bullet in the discussion since David Hume, surpassing, if I might suggest it, even greats of the early twentieth century like Bertrand Russell and and those of the late nineteenth like Robert Ingersoll. Link.He's speaking of The Outsider Test for Faith, blurbs for my book on it can be found here. I'll have to await the judgment of history on these things (Hint: it'll be somewhere between 0 and 100 on that scale). For now I'll take whatever I can get. Perhaps one of the reasons I'm often overlooked is because I keep beating the evangelical horse that has been beat to death so many times before from all angles that most educated people don't care anymore. Until it completely morphs into liberalism as the New Orthodoxy evangelicalism has no chance of winning its case in the free marketplace of ideas.
More Evidence Christians Just Don't Think
They don't! Not most of them anyway. All they do is defend God not matter what. It's like they are defending themselves or something, and people always do that whenever threatened. We know people create their own religion, their own gospel, and their own God in their own image. We know this! Whatever they believe then God agrees with them about everything. Do you doubt it? Then read this study. So no matter what the problem is they will defend their God because they are defending themselves. Why? Because they are God. God is them. They are one with God anyway. They think the same things. They feel the same things. Argue against God and we are arguing against them. So they take it personally. And nothing we say can penetrate that 200 foot thick impenetrable castle wall around them to fend off attackers. Not even a bunker bomb. Want more proof? Here 'tis.
How do Believers Distinguish between Fact and Fiction?
Here are Four (among many) Christian miracles:
1. There was a talking snake in Eden that talked (in Hebrew) to Eve.
2. Joshua made the sun stand still.
3. Jesus arose from the dead.
4. St. Raymond of Penyafort had a Sailing Cloak.
1. There was a talking snake in Eden that talked (in Hebrew) to Eve.
2. Joshua made the sun stand still.
3. Jesus arose from the dead.
4. St. Raymond of Penyafort had a Sailing Cloak.
Heretic!
Commenting on my previous post, Professor Jaco Gericke said:
Most Christians today would be condemned by Luther and Calvin, who themselves would be condemned by Aquinas and Anselm, who would be condemned by Athanasius and Augustine, who would be condemned by Paul, who would be condemned by James, who would be condemned by the Christ of John's gospel, who would be condemned by the synoptic characterizations of Jesus, which would all be condemned by most versions of Yahweh in the Old Testament, who himself would be condemned by yet older versions of the deity.
Dr. James A. Lindsay's Definition of Faith
Faith, he argues, is "a form of cognitive bias that tends to overestimate the probabilities that the hypotheses in which faith is placed predict the evidence (of the world) while underestimating the probabilities that alternative hypotheses predict the evidence we have." Or, in other words he says:
The Case Against the Resurrection
Here is Richard Carrier's case against the resurrection. He comprehensively debunks the typical apologetics (based on the Pauline epistles) used by people like Gary Habermas and Mike Licona.
(More clips below)
Howard Mazzaferro's Defense of the Indefensible
Howard Mazzaferro is a Jehovah's Witness scholar of sorts who comments here at DC. Harry McCall puts his culturally adopted faith into perspective with what I consider required reading. What I find interesting is that evangelicals reject the JW's but would accept everything Mazzaferro writes in defense of faith, the reliability of the Bible and of the miracles we read in it. Why is it that people of faith cannot agree? It's because that's the nature of faith. When faith is the foundation for knowledge anything can be believed. As Dr. James Lindsay says, faith is "a form of cognitive bias that tends to overestimate the probabilities that the hypotheses in which faith is placed predict the evidence (of the world) while underestimating the probabilities that alternative hypotheses predict the evidence we have." In any case, Mazzaferro did a good job of defending the indefensible so let's take a look.
Quote of the Day, by Articulett
To me, being a naturalist means that you don't believe in anything supernatural... the arguments against Randal [Rauser'] supernatural beliefs are identical to his own disbelief in myths past and other superstitious or far-fetched ideals. Not knowing a natural answer is not a good reason for plugging in a magical answer!-- And all religions plug in magical answers. They feel like answers to the believer, but they don't really explain anything. And there's no way to tell a true supernatural answer from the infinity of competing supernatural answers that would be false if ANY supernatural answer was true. So even if naturalism wasn't correct-- there is no method for distinguishing a true supernatural answer from a false one... no way to tell a true prophet from a false one-- or a real god from a demon or advanced space alien or tricky fairy or a myth! People who believe in these sorts of things tend to be people who were indoctrinated to believe such things --people who have a vested interest in believing those things-- and people who are afraid they might be punished if they don't believe such things. If there was actual evidence for any of these things than scientists would be testing, refining, and honing that evidence for their own benefit... especially if there was actual evidence that there was life after death. But how can one be alive or conscious without a brain? It makes no more sense than concluding a rock is conscious! Can one have a debate or discussion as to the problems with not believing that rocks are conscious? How is Randall's suggesting any more coherent than his being asked to demonstrate the problems with his non-belief in rock consciousness?
Jehovah Witness: A Made in America Religion
Christianity is one of the major religions of man a washed in a history of contradictions and confusion. Like cancer cells, Christianity not only mutates over time, but reinvents itself to deal with its new context both socially and theologically. This often entails receiving new revelations from God to make one flavor of a Christian faith appear as God very own favorite in a sea of competing Bible truths. Since God can’t be contacted for direction and the fact that Jesus is said to have gone back to where he had come from two-thousand years ago, believers are left to being creative with the Bible and often must receive new revelations form God.
Dr. Randal Rauser's Ideologue Barometer Test
I like new tests for faith, and I have written about three of them before. Randal introduces a new one as far as I can tell, the Ideologue Barometer Test, and guess what? After taking the test I am one. No, not a barometer silly, an ideologue. So?
Randal has graciously invited me up to his Seminary in May of 2013 to Edmonton, Canada, in order to help promote the release of our co-written book God or Godless. I'm pretty excited about this too. So, being the creative person that he is (after all, he creatively defends the indefensible), he suggested we do something new and different rather than the normal "he said she said" type of debate. What he suggested is this:
Randal has graciously invited me up to his Seminary in May of 2013 to Edmonton, Canada, in order to help promote the release of our co-written book God or Godless. I'm pretty excited about this too. So, being the creative person that he is (after all, he creatively defends the indefensible), he suggested we do something new and different rather than the normal "he said she said" type of debate. What he suggested is this:
each of us talk on the top three biggest problems that we face with our worldview. I’d explain the top three conceptual or evidential problems with being a Christian and John would talk about the top three problems with being an atheist.He's mentioned this to several people and the response has been "overwhelmingly positive" he reports. But he's not happy that I objected to it. So now he's taking his case to the streets, er, the blog world. He said we'd try to work things out. I didn't know this is how he wants to do it. Okay, I guess.
Dr. Doug Geivett Strongly Recommends Against My Book Proposal.
Previously I made a book proposal:
Let's have a four -five -six views book with this as a question: "Why are there so many ways to interpret the Bible?" A proposed title might be this: "Five Views on Why Christians Disagree," or something like that. Then invite me as a contributor. I've written on this issue, calling it The Problem of Divine Miscommunication. See here.Doug Geivett, a Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology strongly recommends against it. Now isn't that interesting? Why would he do so? He doesn't explain. He refuses to explain. Here's the story:
The Talmagian Catechism, Ingersoll Winds Up His Great Satire
The Reverend De Witt Talmage, head of the Presbyterian Church in America, was so incensed by Ingersoll, that he devoted six sermons denouncing him as "The Great Blasphemer." Robert Ingersoll answered these seriously; and then followed up by satirizing the teachings of the Reverend in what he called The Talmagian Catechism. Here is the Final Part, sent by Julian Haydon.
John’s Top 25 Substantive Posts in 2012
Keep in mind these are chosen from what I wrote, not from what others wrote. In some of them are links to other things I've written on the same topic. For now I’ll just list them in order of appearance.
Bayes's Theorem and the Outsider Test for Faith
Dr. James A. Lindsay clarifies the OTF using Bayes's Theorem. This is his first post on it. His second post offers a a bit more clarity.
Richard Carrier on Miracles and the Historical Method
Carrier provides more evidence that Christians are liars and have lost all credibility. Wonderful talk!
The New Evangelical Orthodoxy, Relativism, and the Amnesia of It All
where he made some predictions at that time which have proved to be true.Does Any Christian Ministry Want to Buy This Blog?
Let's say you believe that because of our "deceptive misinformation" and influence we're leading people to hell, and you either cannot argue us down or you want to silence us. Well, then, buy this blog and do with it what you want. Can you raise the funds? Are there any serious takers? Then look at the price calculated by Worth of the Web which "estimates the traffic of a given website or blog by calculating the cost of advertisement." Guess how much you'd have to pay to get DC?
Dr. James A. Lindsay's Bayesian Analysis of the Outsider Test for Faith
I find his analysis very helpful. He summarizes his post in the following words:
Hey, I Found a Picture of God, No Really!
Let's say you're making a YouTube video about God. Aren't you tired of all those other cheesy pictures to choose from? I haven't seen one yet that truly represents God. So let me introduce you to God. Here's a snapshot of him I took the other day. Want to know what God looks like? This.
The United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament; the Book of Mormon and BYU’s Prof. Stephen E. Robinson, PhD
[Note: In light of my post tomorrow night dealing with the Jehovah Witness’s New World Translation and one of the Witness’ leading apologist, Howard Mazzalerro,
I am reposting my December 2008 topic of four years ago on the Book of Mormon.
This section was a part of a longer paper I delivered to the South Carolina Academy of Religion at Clemson University around 1989 entitled Translating and Revelating The Word of God: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.]
More Fun With Robert Ingersoll, The Talmagian Catechism
The Reverend De Witt Talmage, head of the Presbyterian Church in America, was so incensed by Ingersoll, that he devoted six sermons denouncing him as "The Great Blasphemer". Ingersoll answered these seriously; and then followed up by satirizing the teachings of the Reverend in what he called The Talmagian Catechism. Here is Part 2 of 3. Part 1 can be read here. Thanks to Julian Haydon for these excerpts!
I Don't Mind Criticism So Long As It's Unmitigated Praise ;-)
People have said my work is pretty damn good. But not even I would say some of the things said of it, and I like me best! Dr. James A. Lindsay, author of a book you should get, God Doesn't; We Do: Only Humans Can Solve Human Challenges,
recently blew me away with some very high praise for which I'm extremely humbled:
recently blew me away with some very high praise for which I'm extremely humbled:John Loftus blogs for Debunking Christianity, one of the biggest blogs dedicated to the task of examining faith versus relinquishing it, and his posts are nearly always deep, insightful, and well worth reading. This blog, however, is a far cry from why I think John Loftus is perhaps the most underrated author in this entire field. In my opinion, Loftus holds the honor of having come up with the most sterling silver bullet in the discussion since David Hume, surpassing, if I might suggest it, even greats of the early twentieth century like Bertrand Russell and and those of the late nineteenth like Robert Ingersoll.
I came to know John Loftus's mind through his extremely clear and effective writing in Why I Became an Atheist... I literally cannot recommend this book highly enough for anyone that is interested in the discussion about faith and whether or not it should be left behind, particularly the Christian faith. The book is a true resource, spanning hundreds of densely packed, well-researched pages that truly demonstrate that Loftus is intimately familiar with the foundations of the Christian religion, its scripture, its philosophical defense, what it means to be a serious Christian, and why there is no reason whatsoever to accept or believe the Christian (or any) religion. It is truly incredible...Link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)