I know all too well how hard it is to get one's work out there. I was contacted by someone who just started a new blog and it looks good upon skimming it. Give it a look and report back with what you think. You can read about this person's goals right here.
Today at 1 PM EST I'm going to Skype with the students in Professor Peter Boghossian's "New Atheism" class at Portland State University. I'm grateful for this opportunity. It's going to be about my soon to be released book, The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF).
I'll probably be referring to the following links so they're numbered below for reference:
When I first went online I was repeatedly told by Christians that I was never a Christian. At first I got upset because it was personal with me. In my mind it was as if they were calling me a liar. I answered pretty much as former pastor's wife Theresa did right here, by trying to express my devotion to Christ and his church. Over the years I have developed better answers. Here are the five definitive answers to such drivel:
1) So what? What does this have to do with my arguments? If I was never a Christian how does that affect your judgment of them? If some atheists were never Christians does it mean you don't have to take their arguments seriously? If you must do so with them, why is this an issue when it comes to me?
2) If you think this then that's just one of the delusions you have. There are many others. ;-) You have to believe one interpretation of some ancient superstitious texts over the overwhelming number of testimonies from all ex-Christians, which highlights your delusion.
3) So let me get this straight, your God promised to save me if I believed, and I did, and he didn't keep his promise? What does that say about your God?
4) I actually don't think any Christian has real faith, so at least I honestly admit I'm a non-believer. As I said before in a letter to Christians who claim I still really believe deep down :
John Loftus of Debunking Christianity made it clear that one of the worst things he could take up in his efforts to debunk Christianity was to argue Jesus did not exist. In one of his more recent statements to this effect he wrote: "Christians will be more likely to listen to me than someone who claims Jesus probably didn’t exist at all." He follows with this: "I am a focused, passionate man, who is single mindedly intent on debunking Christianity. This issue [mythicism] will not do the job for the simple fact of what evangelicals like David Marshall think of such a claim. It’s too far removed from what they will consider a possibility. I’d like to hear of the vast numbers of Christians who abandoned their faith because they were convinced Jesus didn’t exist. I just don’t see that happening at all. Christians will not see their faith is a delusion until they first see that the Bible is unreliable and untrustworthy, and that the doctrines they believe are indefensible, which is my focus. Now it might be that Christians could come to the conclusion the Bible is unreliable upon reading arguments that Jesus never existed, but they will be much less likely to read those very arguments because that thesis is too far removed from what they can consider a possibility."
Exactly. I agree 100% with what John Loftus writes here about the value of the Christ Myth idea for debunking Christianity. LINK.
Hell yes! Or, do you live in a cave? Valerie Tarico tells us of six kinds of web content that are like, well, electrolysis on religion’s hairy toes, or more like Kryptonite to the Superman of religion.
In inductive reasoning, scientists make a series of observations and then infer something based on these observations, or they predict that the next observation under the same exact test conditions will produce the same results. It’s argued there are two problems with this process. The first problem is that regardless of the number of observations it is never certain the next observation of the same exact phenomena under the same exact test conditions will produce the same exact results. For scientists to inductively infer something from previous results or predict what future observations will be like, it’s claimed they must have faith that nature operates by a uniform set of laws. Why? Because they cannot know nature is lawful from their observations alone. The second problem is that the observations of scientists in and of themselves cannot establish with certainty the validity of inductive reasoning.
There is a great deal of literature on the problem of induction, and I cannot solve it here...But if all we ever do is think exclusively in terms of the probabilities, as I’ll argue later (in chapters 7 and 10), then this problem is pretty much solved.
I recently read the horrifying news story of a 20-year-old mother who was tortured with a branding iron, doused with fuel, and then burned alive in Papua New Guinea on the accusation that she was a sorceress. Police and firefighters were unable to intervene because of the angry crowd. Ironically, the news story also contained this:
Local Christian bishop David Piso told the National that sorcery-related killings were a growing problem, and urged the government "to come up with a law to stop such practice".
I found myself wondering if bishop Piso is aware his Bible contains this verse:
You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
Exodus 22:18 (ESV)
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's not use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." -Alice in Wonderland
Here’s how astronomers breakout the visible universe within 14 billion light years:
Superclusters in the visible universe = 10 million
Galaxy groups in the visible universe = 25 billion
Large galaxies in the visible universe = 350 billion
Dwarf galaxies in the visible universe = 7 trillion
Stars in the visible universe = 30 billion trillion (3×10²²)
A new study suggests that 90% of the most distant (and therefore oldest) galaxies in the universe could be unseen, hidden by clouds of dust. That would mean that – assuming the same number of stars in each galaxy, and that older galaxies don’t deviate from this rule – that the number of stars in the visible universe would be 270 billion trillion or 2.7 x 10 to the power of 24).
With this as a backdrop I want to discuss Jeff Lowder's criticisms of my argument that the size of the universe leads to atheism. I have looked in vain to see if Lowder has any educational credentials at all, so I look forward to him sharing them with us if he responds.
The Great Infidel, as he was known everywhere in the last half of the 19th century, was often called upon to speak at funerals – no better occasion to reflect on the greatest mysteries of life. And no one could do it better. He said no one knew or could know whether there was a life after death; but he was absolutely certain that if there were, the notion of eternal punishment for anyone was an ghastly priest-made libel upon a “loving and merciful” God. In some of these tributes he shows signs of hope for an afterlife -- the source being a longing to one day be reunited with those we have loved and who have loved us. -- Compiled by Julian W. Haydon.
In October a good Hispanic friend of mine named Juana learned I was an atheist. She is the captain of our pool league team in Ft. Wayne. I told her I couldn't play the following week because I was going on a speaking tour of four Colorado Universities. She asked why, so I told her I was speaking about my books. She asked about them and learned for the first time I was an atheist. Then she said, "I can't believe you're an atheist." She went on and on about it as if this was an extremely bad thing. She went to a few other people and asked them if they believed in God, almost as if to determine by majority vote whether God existed or not. I don't think she ever met someone she liked so much who was an atheist. You see, we have known each other for over six years and the subject never came up. I do not force my views on people I personally know and I do not get in anyone's face about what I think. I'm not afraid in the least to tell people I'm an atheist if the subject arises. But when it doesn't then there is nothing to say.
Today I'm going to hang out with my brother-in-law Kim (his name), who is a right-wing Obama-hater and Rush Limbaugh fan. Our wives are getting together for a girl's day out. Usually when Kim and I are together the girls forbid us from talking religion or politics. But whenever we're out by ourselves we do, and we have a great time of it. Over a beer or two we'll shout out, "Hey girls, we're talking about religion and loving it." It's sort of a passive aggressive rebellion I suppose. But he's a great guy even though we disagree quite vehemently. And he likes getting together with me just as much as I like being with him. Almost all of my personal friends are Christians, just in case anyone wants to know. Online people paint me with broad strokes as if I don't care about Christians. If I didn't care about them then I wouldn't have any personal friends at all.
I'm tired of getting hit with, "Hey, that doesn't describe me." Okay, I get it. Nonetheless, I have a good Seventh Day Adventist friend whose vehicle wouldn't start. So yesterday we tried to get it running. I'm not much of a mechanic but we did figure out it was his fuel pump located in the gas tank. He's a painter so he decided to finish a job over the weekend in order to get the needed money to fix it. I deviously suggested his vehicle broke down because God was punishing him in advance for working on Saturday (which is forbidden by his sect). The funny thing is that he seriously considered this. I had a good laugh with him about it. Maybe so, I said, who knows? ;-)
We all grant for the sake of argument a few things from time to time. The reason we do so is to reach across the great divide between Christians and ourselves. But we should not grant too much, depending on the argument. How do we know if we have? I have a five-fold answer.
I started to write something and realized I had already done so. There are over 4000 posts in the archives with a really good search engine in the sidebar. Try it. Do a search for "The Accommodation Theory of the Bible." See, that was easy. Now do another one for "The New Evangelical Orthodoxy." Do other searches. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat again.
As the ages march on, it is a delight to find fewer attending churches and more making time to sit around doing other, more enjoyable things come Sunday. But even while classes full of growing students are satiated in going to their professors for answers instead of their priests, the age-old debate on the existence of God / validity of [insert religion here] somehow still rages on. The question should by now be settled, but those states where the collective IQ hasn’t exceeded 57 still have people who are clinging tightly to mom and dad’s hard-shell faith to define us.
However, it is a breath of fresh air to know that the seeds of doubt are first planted, not by scholarship or by secular parenting, but by common sense questions and healthy brains at work. Below are 5 biblical mentions that are in that camp known as “It don’t take no gosh-darn edjamucations to see this ain’t right.” Some things in God’s holy book are wrong simply because they defy any real level of sense. We begin the countdown with...
Previously I argued there isn't a bad personal reason to reject the Christian faith. Christian apologist Dr. Vincent Torley understood my argument fairly well so I'll use what he wrote to describe it (edited for brevity without the digressions). Then I'll comment on it.
MEA MAXIMA CULPA: SILENCE IN THE HOUSE OF GOD
Oscar winning filmmaker Alex Gibney examines the abuse of power in the Catholic Church through the story of four courageous deaf men, who in the first known case of public protest, set out to expose the priest who abused them. Through their case the film follows a cover-up that winds its way from the row houses of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, through the bare ruined choirs of Ireland's churches, all the way to the highest office of the Vatican.
He asks us to consider two scholars, Chris the Christian philosopher and Alan the atheist philosopher.
Alan writes a new paper in which he argues that God does not exist based on the problem of evil. He sends a draft to his friend Chris and asks Chris for feedback. Chris reads through the paper and identifies a serious problem. Chris writes a critique in which he identifies the problem and identifies a way to make the argument much stronger. As a result Chris has a reasonable ground to believe that many people may read the revised paper and come to the conviction that God doesn’t exist based in part on the alterations suggested by Chris. However, Chris still believes God does exist and that anybody who concludes that God doesn’t exist will have adopted a false belief about a very important issue. And so Chris must accept that based on arguments he has fine-tuned many people will adopt false beliefs about a very important issue. Has Chris done anything wrong by offering that critique to Alan?
Hundreds showed up at the Pickens County school board meeting Monday night begging the board to keep its routine invocation despite a Wisconsin-based organization asking them to refrain from prayer.
To see what I've been arguing recently read Part 1, and if so desired read Part 2. Now for Part 3 where I'll attempt to deal with another objection, this time coming from Matt DeStefano, an atheist who is a philosophy student in a master's level program. I remember those days myself a long long time ago in a far away galaxy. I hope you're enjoying this period in your life Matt, because you will probably look back on it as the best time in your life, as I do. DeStefano presents a scenario that is supposed to be the exception to my blanket claim that there isn't a bad personal reason to reject Christianity. If an exception can be found then my blanket claim is false. So let me say first of all that if DeStefano's counter-example works then it doesn't undercut anything else I said, only that there is an exception or two or three. I can live with this if so. Nonetheless, I don't think his scenario works.
As I continue to gather more facts for my forth coming post on the Canonization of the Bible, I became aware that this post on the Bible (like many of my others) will draw negative critics from supposed friendly fire.
Previously I argued there isn't a bad personal reason to reject the Christian faith. This argument is aimed at Christians who believe in the following Doctrinal Statement (DS): An omniscient, omnibenelovent, omnipotent God exists who sent Jesus to atone for the sins of all who believe in him and desires that everyone should be saved with no one lost (See 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). Other believers need not apply. Other beliefs that people have are not specifically relevant to my argument except as they illustrate how bad human beings generally reason about things. In the next few posts I'm going to answer some criticisms of what I had written. Be sure to read my original post to understand what follows.
I've found that the more well-known an atheist becomes then the more often atheists criticize him or her for this, that, or the other. I don't like it but it comes with the territory. It's a sign of some kind of success, believe it or not. Atheists disagree with each other quite a bit anyway, but in my case I have put out thousands of words over the last seven years, so atheists who want to nitpick at this, that, or the other, can find plenty of nits to pick, especially since I like being a provocateur from time to time. One atheist critic of my argument is Jeff Lowder, who has recently been dogging my steps for reasons that totally baffle me.
Anyone who has written a book critical of Christianity sees exactly what Timothy Larsen is doing in reviewing Susan Jacoby's new book, The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Freethought. It's what most Christians do when reviewing such a book. They claim the infidel is ignorant or a second class intellectual. As many of you know, Julian Haydon has been sending me essays by Ingersoll over the last few months in order to keep his memory alive. Julian responds to Larsen as follows:
I was asked a few questions for an article by Diana Bridgett on the rise of atheist churches. You can read the result here. Below are the questions and my full answers. I just don't want to waste 'em.
I have been thinking about Christianity for over forty years. I believed it. I preached it. I earned several master's degrees in it. I taught it. I learned to reject it. Then for over seven years on a daily basis I have sought to argue against it. I have written, co-written and/or edited five published books in five years containing the results of everything I have learned, which should lead thinking people to reject it. But I have to confess here and now, up front and center, that there isn't a bad reason to reject the Christian faith. I don't expect people to agree. It's a conclusion I have come to from everything I have learned. Again, there isn't a bad reason to reject the Christian faith. Since there might be one I'll leave it up to someone to suggest it. Otherwise, my claim stands.
So let me merely introduce what appears to be an overly simplistic claim and see what happens from here. As I said, I'm only introducing this line of thought. Christian people have said of me that, "Of the many atheist and theist blogs that I follow I would have to say that you are the best at consistently coming up with interesting topics and arguments even though I disagree with almost everything you say." Okay then, here goes. I want to defend the claim of the title to this post. Let's see if I can by taking an absurdly ignorant argument against Christianity and show why it's still a good reason for rejecting the Christian faith.
Recently, (on SIN) I ran a couple of posts sharing some of the utterly awesome work of Canadian science rapper Baba Brinkman. He is a fascinating guy who has kindly agreed to an interview which I am sharing with you here. Before I get down to the interview, let me share with / remind you of his truly great work:
"A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention – could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them...Would he not be a cruel god if he possessed the truth and could behold mankind miserably tormenting itself over the truth? – But perhaps he is a god of goodness notwithstanding – and merely could not express himself more clearly! Did he perhaps lack intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence?...Must he not then...be able to help and counsel [his creatures], except in the manner of a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to befall on his child or dog?”
I just got an email that said: "Your blog is great. And for some strange reason, the comments are great too." But there is nothing strange about this at all. Here at DC is where educated people on both sides of the religion question meet to debate. We like it this way. And I am grateful for the people who comment. They are the best around.
Much of Loftus’s revised Why I Became an Atheist book is devoted to refuting the arguments of Christian apologists...Someone had to rebut the apologists, and Loftus has written a definitive refutation that only incurables could dispute—as they no doubt will continue to do. Fortunately the arguments of the “new atheists” are reaching the masses, and religion’s days are accordingly numbered. Without Loftus to pull the rug out from under the incurables, that might have taken longer.
My last major post dealt with one solid fact; the reality that is there is no book or even a verse of the entire Bible older than 250 BCE. Even though I offered $30.00 as a reward to anyone who could prove me wrong, my challenge still stands as it did was four months ago . . . totally unanswered.
Randal Rauser has a celebratory post about Harry Blamires where writes:
Back in the early 1960s many people considered Harry Blamires, a budding Anglican theologian and literary critic, to be a younger C.S. Lewis. In his incisive book The Christian Mind: How should a Christian think?(1963) Blamires explores the question of how one’s Christian convictions ought to change the way one thinks. Like all great books, The Christian Mind has aged gracefully and its analysis continues to provide novel insight into the world around us.
Yes, indeed. I agree, but not in the way Rauser does. I think Blamires's book is an indictment on Rauser's ever changing chameleon approach to theology, something I'm sure Blamires would vehemently reject.
I haven't found another blog like DC where intelligent Christians and atheists meet to debate the issues. I like it. Perhaps one of the reasons is because of comments like the one from a Keith R.:
Hi, John, I’m a long time reader and sometime commenter on DC. Of the many atheist and theist blogs that I follow I would have to say that you are the best at consistently coming up with interesting topics and arguments even though I disagree with almost everything you say.
I've heard this from others several times before. There aren't too many people out there who understand the mind of the believer and who blog on a daily basis like the writers here at DC (including Hector Avalos, Harry McCall, Jonathan Pearce, Phil Torres, and the articulate articulett). Just the same, Keith R. disagreed with my recent post, Enough of This Utter Nonsense, On Knowing the Supernatural. He wants us to think of science as a metal detector, and as such, it cannot detect anything that isn't metal. Hence, there are things that science cannot detect, supernatural things. *POOF* Therefore a trinitarian incarnational atoning resurrecting ascending and soon to be returning God exists. Get this? Neither do I.
In the introduction to his new book, Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief, Lawrence Wright writes, "Scientology plays an outsize role in the cast of new religions that have arisen in the 20th century and survived into the 21st."
The book is a look inside the world of Scientology and the life of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, who died in 1986. A recent ad for Scientology claims to welcome 4.4 million new converts each year.
Listen to an interview with Lawrence Wright on NPRHERE
A Christian commented on a recent post having to do with how science could know the supernatural:
Let's posit for a moment that the supernatural does exist. It then follows that science, which by definition focuses on the natural, would have absolutely no means to measure it or detect it. It could thus never serve as a method and no scientific protocol could ever be established to rule it out, regardless of how real the supernatural would be.
Oh my gosh, believers have just pawned us god-hating atheists now, haven't they? *Throws in the towel in defeat.* Wait, on second thought, this is utter hogwash and it should be easily seen. So here goes.
If you want to know why I think William Lane Craig is deluded rather than dishonest, as atheists who lack a basic understanding of the deluded mind claim, it's because of this video:
To hear what might be considered a response to Craig, although not intended as such, watch Peter Boghossian's talk at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) National Convention:
This book offers a passionate and erudite set of important challenges to people of faith, complete with a nice touch of humor and a sense of urgency that we don’t see often in similar books by intellectuals. In it most readers will find some fresh arguments that provoke thought and deserve our attention. Unlike the four "New Atheists" Lindsay, who holds degrees in physics and a Ph.D. in mathematics, understands Christian theology much better than they do. In the end, Lindsay is correct; God doesn’t do anything because he doesn’t exist. Only we can solve our problems.
Dr. David Heddle, an associate professor of physics and the Chair of the Mathematics Department at Christopher Newport University, has recently been dogging my steps. He's a Christian. As far as I know he has not read any of my books. He seems to like me better than some other critics, saying, "John Loftus is a much easier to take (I mean that as a genuine compliment) critic of Christianity (and, by leaps and bounds, a far better writer) than the detestable Richard Carrier." That's nice, I guess, even though for every person who might say this, another would say it's the exact reverse. Oh well, you can't piss off everyone after all, even though I try at times. Let's see what he thinks of me when I'm done here. I just cannot let Richard have all the glory. ;-)
What brings Heddle to say "shit happens" has to do with my comment regarding last month's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where I wrote:
In a godless universe shit happens without rhyme nor reason. Life is predatory from the ground up. Creatures eat one another by trapping unsuspecting victims in unusual ways, launching surprise attacks out of the blue, and hunting in packs by overpowering prey with brute force and numbers. Sometimes a creature just goes wacko for no reason at all. Humans are not exempt. Sometimes the wiring in our brains goes haywire and we snap. We too are violent and we inherited this trait from our animal predecessors. We also show care and concern to our kith and kin but we can lash out in horrific ways at what we consider an uncaring world.
I've heard many times, especially from scientists, that scientists don't "believe" evolution, they "know" it. I think this involves a bit of terminological confusion, and I think this confusion is bad for the overall discussion about evolution in the public arena. In this article, I'll briefly discuss why scientists do indeed believe in evolution and, in the process, say a few things about the nature of (religious) faith and its relation to knowledge.
When I first went online I was repeatedly told by Christians that I was never a Christian. At first I got upset because it was personal with me. In my mind it was as if they were calling me a liar. I answered pretty much as former pastor's wife Theresa did right here, by trying to express my devotion to Christ and his church. Over the years I have developed better answers. Here are the five definitive answers to such drivel:
I basically solve the problem of induction. Well, I point the way anyway. What is this problem?
and the one I reviewed on Amazon and liked the best, The Religious Condition: Answering And Explaining Christian Reasoning.
On Amazon.com Jason just reviewed my revised book, Why I Became an Atheist,
saying,(1963) Blamires explores the question of how one’s Christian convictions ought to change the way one thinks. Like all great books, The Christian Mind has aged gracefully and its analysis continues to provide novel insight into the world around us.
it would be, 
