We can keep this simple. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus was God incarnate. In John 17, Jesus prayed that his current and future followers would have the kind of unity that he and his heavenly father enjoyed. He requested this so that the world would have a basis to believe that God had sent him.
“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.” John 17:20-21 (NASB)
That was the prayer.What kind of results did the self-proclaimed Son of God get?
On April 2, 2013, Hemant Mehta published the following letter to the secular community. Let's all compare how we're doing after six months. If you've read my blog posts then you know that two of my biggest beefs are with divisive people within the secular community and atheists who embarrass the rest of us. That does not make me a divisive person or an embarrassment. I'm responding to them. I can only tolerate the tolerable and this isn't tolerable to me. I think I can tolerate a great deal more than most others though. I know there are reasonable people who disagree with me, who are not ignorant or irrational, simply because I have read widely and experienced a great deal in my life. So I support the following statement as well, with the caveat that I don't want the frustration and headache of moderating every comment. Shall we try again?
[Michael Shermer responds. Edited further on 8/25/13] What do you do when someone pulls the pin and hands you a grenade? I'm dyin’ here, people. It’s like people trust me or something. So I've decided to say what I think. There is a great deal of infighting going on between atheists and has been for some time. I could provide a fairly long list of issues that have divided us along with a number of people who have been trashed on both sides. There is one common denominator to this divisiveness, PZ Myers. I'm not saying he is the cause of it all. He's not. He has, however, conferred a measure of authority and power to other atheist bloggers by giving them a large audience, who would never have gained such an audience on their own. Many of them are divisive too, following in his steps. As far as I can tell, you either love PZ Myers or you hate him. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground among most atheists who are aware of him. PZ Myers is a polarizing figure, hands down, no ifs ands or buts about it. He is divisive whether people think he's usually right or usually wrong. When PZ Myers declared he was leaving the skeptic movement in May of this year, professor Massimo Pigliucci even rhetorically asked, "should we care?" Now this is some real divisiveness, apparently cutting ties with the large and influential James Randi Educational Foundation and like-minded skeptics around the world. Who does he think he is? So I got to wondering about the characteristics of a polarizing person and did some searching online. This is what I found:
"A 37-year-old diesel mechanic,
Yahle said he had no awareness of what happened until family members told him.
He said he did not have any afterlife experience that he can recall."
“I have no memory of anything. I
went to bed … woke up five days later in the hospital.”
LINK. What took them so long to admit this? I wonder why this is the case? Could it be that their arguments were lame and based on an ancient superstitious pre-modern book? ;-)
This is a must read. Look at the spin he puts on it. No matter what happens Christians always think it's good because they blindly believe God is in control. Spin doctors them all, and pathetic!
It's always amusing to read these synopses and critiques of the problems of fitting inconvenient aspects of reality with the nature of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent god. I find my patience wears thin after a short read and I want to scream at the authors, "can't you see? you've demonstrated the absurdity of your god, can't you understand that the simple and most reasonable resolution to all your problems is that Your God Does NOT Exist?"
Why does God not reveal himself more often? Simplest answer: because he does not exist. Why does God allow evil? Simplest answer: because he does not exist. Why does God allow believers to lose their faith (hi John!)? Simplest answer: because he does not exist. Why does God not heal the sick? Simplest answer: because he does not exist. Why is the Bible inconsistent? Simplest answer: because God didn't write it (because he does not exist), rather these are human fables and tales.
Yet apologists and religious philosophers prefer to construct rivers of fabulating argument to try to shore up their Fortress of Faith on the Island of Insanity that is the Crumbling Church of Christianity. Faith is their defense against reason.
Steve Wells has put out two books that look very good:
He probably doesn't know Hebrew and Greek. It would have been very helpful if he did. People may forget, or not know, that before The Skeptic's Annotated Bible there was Isaac Asimov's massive work, Asimov's Guide to the Bible: Two Volumes in One, the Old and New Testaments.Asimov was not a biblical scholar who knew Hebrew or Greek either. Nonetheless, these books are very helpful in highlighting why we are non-believers, atheists. Check them out.
As a graduate student at Columbia Theological Seminary in
the mid 1970’s, I had the honor of being involved with two seminaries that shared
faculties on a regular basis. The other
school was Candler School of Theology at Emory University and this is where I
first got to know John Hayes.
Thus, when John Hayes and Maxwell Miller came out with a new history of ancient Israel and Judah , I bought
a copy and made sure I was there when they introduced it at the 1986 SBL
meeting in Atlanta, Ga.
(While both Hayes
and Miller answered questions on their new book, I noticed there was a
professor from the University of Sheffieldchallenging them on their
information; Philip
R. Davies. I remember Hayes was
trying to answer one of Davies criticisms of their book with “Well, maybe it
happen like this . . . “, to which Davies quipped, “Well, maybe it didn't. So what have you really said? Nothing!” That really made an impression on me.)
The god of the Bible sure has a lot of self-appointed press agents.
In the Old Testament, Moses and the prophets spent a lot of time talking about what their god hated and loved. They detailed what behavior he expected, the loyalty and sacrifices that he demanded, and the ways he would retaliate if not obeyed. They revealed who god wanted killed, and under what circumstances. Whenever God was upset, feeling betrayed, or benevolent, his spokesmen let be known, as if they were divine mood rings.
That's the thing about fundamentalists; they are the least introspective people on the planet. Try to explain that their version of God is a projection of their own fractured psyches, and they'll either look at you like a deer caught in the headlights or launch into a tirade about carnal mind, inherent depravity and not wanting to be held "accountable".
As I keep saying, arguing with these people is a complete waste of time. Manage them, marginalize them, vote them into irrelevance - but don't try to change their minds. The ones who want out of that world will come to you with questions. The ones who only know how to repeat what their pastors tell them are a lost cause.
This is a pretty bleak assessment isn't it? But even if Cipher is partially correct, and he is, this is the power of a delusion on an indoctrinated mind, a brainwashed mind. Just yesterday I offered a copy of my book God or Godless?to a good friend. He said he was not interested, even though I told him that his side was represented in the book by Dr. Randal Rauser, an evangelical Christian apologist. His mind is closed.
I finished God or Godless?I have a hard time believing that I used to be like this Randal guy, so often avoiding answering his critics tough questions even though he thinks he is answering them. It was like he was in the ring getting beaten up but he didn't realize it. It is hard to believe I used to be like him, but I know I was.
Joshua: Can you prove that there's not a god, cheers
John W. Loftus: Why should you require this in the first place? Such a demand is utterly unreasonable and should be the first sign you are blinded by faith. Can you prove Tom is your father? Can you prove anything? I can show your faith in the God of the Bible has an extremely low probability to it. So here's a challenge. If you are really interested in reading why I think your particular faith is probably false then read my book, God or Godless?If you are unwilling to do that then you are not really interested in my answer. The unwillingness to read that book should also be a sign you are not open-minded and thus blinded by faith.
I thought I would repost this since it centres around John's excellent book.
Whilst on holiday I finished reading John Loftus’ The Outsider Test for Faith which I greatly enjoyed and will be reviewing in a short while. There is much to talk about within the pages, not least some of the excellent quotes he has gathered from other writers which he uses to defend his own positions on various topics.
We cannot allow the divine or the supernatural because it is not observable, measurable, quantifiable, repeatable, or objectively verifiable. We can't test it, study it, or falsify it. It is for all intents and purposes MAGIC, which is precisely NOT SCIENCE.
But let's say we ignore all of that and allow 'magic'. Why should we allow the 'magic' of Yahweh or trust in the 'magic' of the story of Genesis, over the creation myths of any other god in human history? How can you tell which 'magic' explanation is more accurate, if you can never measure, observe, or verify magic ever? Because then we're back at square one, in an unending game of he-said-she-said, and with no way to determine who is right. It's all a push.
Or, we can accept that science has a proven history of working and figuring shit out, unlike magical explanations. Science, it works bitches. LINK.
A comment here from Stephen argues that "At the beginning of every mythology, every cult, every religion in history, is a con-artist who figured out how to sell a racket so that he could get rich while doing "god's work.'" [Full Text below] I think this can be shown with regard to L. Ron Hubbard and the rise of Scientology, as well with Joseph Smith and the rise of Mormonism. In my book WIBA, I argued that the empty tomb story probably started with the Gospel of Mark, who was a liar for Jesus. Don't think so? Think again. In fact, liars for Jesus abound.
This YouTube clip is at the end of one in which Lawrence Krauss exposes William Lane Craig for misrepresenting him at best. Look at the clip (from 7:50 to 8:23) and comment on whether Christian believers really think they will see their dead loved ones again. Link.
Answers in Genesis is not defending the Christian faith, it is turning it into something that can be easily ridiculed and dismissed. The real enemies of the Christian faith in our time are not atheists who respond by offering such well-deserved ridicule, but those who distort Christianity into belief in dragons, substituting that in the place of self-sacrificial love, humility, and service to others.
Now Ken Ham has responded in a post of his own (which I'll link to at the end, unlike him). He claims I was unethical and visited under false pretenses, saying:
When I was a student at Bob Jones University in 1971, I took the American Red Cross’Senior Lifesaving course. One major factor that we were immediately made aware of that could cost a Life Guard his or her life was that a panicked drowning person would grab hold of anything on the surface to save their own life, even if it meant forcing under and drowning an untrained rescuer as the victim attempted to safe their own life.
This is an older post I'm updating [from 7/31/11]. I was made to realize I haven't said much about this important book when on Facebook Luiz Claudio Weiss recently wrote: "John Loftus's chapter called 'Christianity is Wildly Improbable' in The End of Christianityis a classic in my opinion." That's pretty cool. There are several chapters in it that alone are worth the price of the book. Richard Carrier wrote:
"The Christian Delusion was an awesome book. The End of Christianityis even better. Indeed, I think the two volumes together amount to a decisive refutation of Christianity. A bona fide litmus test. No rational person can read both volumes and not walk away a skeptic." Link
I often eat at our local restaurants in the Greenville areas
such as Cracker Barrel, Applebee’s, Ruby Tuesday, K&W Cafeteria and others several
times a week where, as time permits, I usually have a book on Biblical textual
criticism, ancient Near Eastern studies or, when I get tired that genre of
study, I’m reading electronics.
Yesterday I walked through Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky. Without a doubt he is fitting the data into the grid of the Bible. I saw a 5 minute video where he takes the literal view that the earth existed before the stars. That is an extreme case of what I see other Christian apologists doing. It's the same thing though. They say whatever it takes to maintain their faith. Just like Ham fits the data into the grid of Genesis so do they with regard to the Bible as a whole. Ham would at least be honest about what he's doing. Others don't, or more likely, they are too blinded by faith to know they're doing the same thing. All it takes to believe is to ignore the objective facts, the facts of science. The power of the delusion is that strong. It requires Christians to deny science in favor of what some pre-scientific people wrote in an ancient set of canonized books, even though they accept the results of science in every other area except when it conflicts with their pre-scientific book!
Orange is the New Black is an original comedy/drama series produced by Netflix, and based on the real-life experiences of Piper Kerman. Kerman spent 13 months in a women’s prison because of her involvement, years earlier, with a heroin dealer.
What is of special interest to readers of the DC blog, is this gem of a scene in which the lead character declares her atheism:
Christians who accept the Bible (especially the New Testament) as an inspired text will have to deal with the fact that there are some major problems between St. Paul’s view of history and the Gospel of Matthew’s view of historical events.Ironically, the dogmatic historical certainly of Paul and that of the First Gospel puts yet another nail into the coffin of Christian absolute truth and its holy theology.
The book "God or Godless" isn't doing too well right now, even after the free promotion on July 1st and subsequent reduction of price through the month of July. The paperback on Amazon is ranked almost 600,00th, whereas the Kindle version is ranked 150,000th. In Canada it's doing better but not that well. I think it's because of the reviews. For the life of me I cannot understand why potential buyers place more weight on reviews by no-names over the blurbs written by credentialed scholars, but they do. Here are two humiliating reviews of the book on Amazon:
A new book is available where atheists are given a voice against Christian apologists. Debating Christian Theism looks very good.It's edited by J. P. Moreland, Khaldoun A. Sweis, and Chad V. Meister. Check it out for yourselves. I've added it to my Amazon wish list.
[Edit: This debate book gives me the idea for a similar one on the historical evidence for Christianity. I'm going to think seriously about it. I need a Christian scholar to co-edit it with me. What topics would you like to see debated? Who would you recommend to write chapters for it on both sides?]
This is a follow-up post to the BBC Documentary When God Was A Girl, which showed many ancient cultures believed in goddesses and thought of the divine as female. It was no different with the Israelite religion.
Historian Bettany Hughes visits a world where goddesses ruled the heavens and earth, and reveals why our ancestors thought of the divine as female. Traveling across the Mediterranean and the Near East, Bettany goes to remote places, where she encounters fearsome goddesses who controlled life and death. And she ends up in modern-day India, where the goddess is still a powerful force for thousands of Hindus. Immersing herself in the excitement of the Durga Puja festival, Bettany experiences goddess worship first-hand, and finds out what the goddess means to her devotees.
To listen to this hour and forty-five minute debate see Justin's Reasonable Doubts podcast. To read a transcript of the debate see Max Andrews's site, where he says, "I was actually expecting much stronger arguments from Mr. Schieber." Max is intelligent, I'll grant him that. However, he reminds me once again of what Dr. Stephen Law wrote: “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: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole.](p. 75). If I were debating Max I would relentlessly attack the source of his faith in the Bible, which he treasures so much. I've written about this before. The reader can see how I actually do this in God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions.This method of disabusing Christians of their faith is known as applying Hume's Stopper. It is a direct frontal attack against any possibility of deriving a natural theology from the unsolved mysteries of the universe. You can also see how I do it in my recent debate with Randal Rauser based on our book. [Here is the transcript of my opening statement]. Other than that, Justin did a good enough job with the arguments he chose to use. I just think there are more powerful arguments, that's all. Kudos to Justin are deserved nonetheless. Max was a strong opponent in bullshit. ;-)
Do you ever wonder, seriously wonder, why it takes so many Christian apologists to defend their faith with a multitude of books, essays, lectures and debates? It's as if God has left the one true faith into their hands such that, without them, people would believe differently. C.S. Lewis said good philosophy must exist because bad philosophy needs to be answered. Okay. But why did the Christian God make it so hard to defend his one true faith against so many thoughtful and serious objections to the contrary? No, really. It's as if God shot himself in the foot and these apologists are called upon to heal his self-inflicted wound. This makes no sense at all, none.
Robert Price recently put out the Kindle book, The Historical Bejeezus.It looks really good. Despite the title it's a serious work of scholarship. Richard Carrier has written a comprehensive work to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies, Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK). Read what he says about it right here. Major kudos to Richard for this wonderful accomplishment! I heard him give the following talk and say that if this book documents his claims it'll convince many people Jesus probably didn't exist:
This five minute YouTube video is but one of a number of "courses" presented to refute atheists and to educate social and religious conservatives by one of the newest leaders in Conservative Talk Radio; Dennis Prager. Prager has started his free online PragerUniversityto counter liberal views especially those of his alma mater; Columbia University.
Neuroscience is making it extremely difficult for believers to still claim that by freely choosing to believe we are saved (or condemned), that we freely choose to sin, or that there is a wrathful God who will judge us on the last day. Case in point, girls and boys, are the following two essays, the last of which I will quote from. The first is Grandma’s Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes. Now for the second one, "The Brain on Trial." [Be sure to read this essay at least as far as the highlighted money quote in red!].
Reza Aslan, a religious scholar with a Ph.D. in the sociology of religion from the University of California, and author of the #1 ranked Amazon book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,went on Fox News to promote it only to asked ignorant questions by Lauren Green.
While I think Reza Aslan went overboard in stressing his credentials and scholarship, this was an ignorant Fox News interview by an ignorant person who asked several ignorant questions, and who quoted from ignorant reviewers. Just once I'd like Fox News to interview William Lane Craig in the same antagonistic way by questioning his credentials, by saying his books are controversial, by asking how his books could be accurate since he's biased for Jesus, and by quoting from a scholar who said his claims have been abandoned and refuted a long time ago (which is true). While I think Aslan was allowed to get the message of his book out, this interview was surrounded by way too much irrelevant noise. Aslan said it best: "I do think it's perhaps a little bit strange that rather than debate the arguments of the book we are debating the right of the scholar to actually write it." I just wish Aslan would be consistent by examining his own Muslim faith-based claims with the same level of skepticism he now applies to the Christian faith he rejects. LINK.
I no longer call you slaves, because a master doesn’t confide in his slaves. Now you are my friends, since I have told you everything the Father told me. John 15:15 (NLT)
Okay Jesus. So at first glance, this sounds kind of cool. You were telling your disciples that they got a status upgrade - promoted from your slaves, to your friends! Now I’m sure that being your slave was pretty cool and all, but seriously, who wouldn’t want to be in the Friend Zone with Jesus? Instead of slaving away to fulfill your whims and orders, they could hang out and be buddies instead. And, you're telling them the top-secret communications which you receive from your Sky Daddy!
Unfortunately, you kind of killed the moment, by saying this, just before you made the big announcement:
You are my friends if you do what I command.
John 15:14 (NLT)
"In an 80-minute press conference
onboard his flight home from Brazil, Pope Francis told reporters, "If
someone is gay and he seeks the Lord and he has a good will, who am I to
judge?" The Church has always held that homosexual acts are a sin, so what
does this mean for gay Catholics?" CBS News
At TAM I met a guy who runs an online store that uses some really cool sayings on merchandise. You can see a three of them below. I have the last one on a shirt and wear it quite a bit. I know they are a bit expensive but I think they are worth it. Check this site out for yourself. Which sayings do you like the best?
Dan Courtney makes a very good case against believing in the resurrection. He also has some great anti-presuppositionalism videos on his channel so be sure to check it out.
I had a delightful day with Frank Zindler and Dustin Lawson (Dustin is pictured in the middle). Frank is awesome. I know a little about a lot of things whereas he knows a lot about a lot of things, it seems to me. He is the past president of American Atheists and editor of the American Atheist Press. They drove 3 1/2 hours to visit little ole' me. What an honor it was! I counted it a rare pleasure to hear him dramatically read the last chapter of his new book, Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?He is one of the few people I think bested William Lane Craig in a debate, which can be viewed right here. Dustin Lawson is awesome as well. He was Josh McDowell's protege. McDowell goes around to churches telling them to try to disprove Christianity. Well, Dustin listened to him and followed his advice! Guess what happened? ;-) Dustin is the author of Christian Agnostic: The Doubt Jesus Requires his Followers to Have.McDowell will probably never mention Dustin unless asked. So ask him. See what he says. Frank brought together two former proteges of the two most famous evangelical Christian apologists. I liked it.
We can keep this simple. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus was God incarnate. In John 17, Jesus prayed that his current and future followers would have the kind of unity that he and his heavenly father enjoyed. He requested this so that the world would have a basis to believe that God had sent him. 
Asimov was not a biblical scholar who knew Hebrew or Greek either. Nonetheless, these books are very helpful in highlighting why we are non-believers, atheists. Check them out.
to a good friend. He said he was not interested, even though I told him that his side was represented in the book by Dr. Randal Rauser, an evangelical Christian apologist. His mind is closed.
is a classic in my opinion." That's pretty cool. There are several chapters in it that alone are worth the price of the book. Richard Carrier wrote:
was an awesome book. 
It's edited by J. P. Moreland, Khaldoun A. Sweis, and Chad V. Meister. Check it out for yourselves. I've added it to 
(p. 75). If I were debating Max I would relentlessly attack the source of his faith in the Bible, which he treasures so much. I've 
It looks really good. Despite the title it's a serious work of scholarship. Richard Carrier has written a comprehensive work to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies, Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK). Read what he says about it 
went on Fox News to promote it only to asked ignorant questions by Lauren Green.
He is one of the few people I think bested William Lane Craig in a debate, which can be viewed 
McDowell will probably never mention Dustin unless asked. So ask him. See what he says. Frank brought together two former proteges of the two most famous evangelical Christian apologists. I liked it.