If you visit here at DC then eventually you'll run into articulett (or she will run into you!). She is a High School teacher with a master's degree, and that's all I'll tell you. She is also an administrator here but doesn't exercise her powers much at all. She has never written one post. But she is a pit-bull when it comes to unevidenced supernatural magical beliefs. I admire her tenacity and her use of words. She helps me deal with the comments of believers, and like all of my posse, I appreciate this so very much! I actually met articulett in Vegas when I was at TAM in July (that's James Randi's, The Amazing Meeting). She is a very delightful person. We laughed a lot. She has become quite the advocate of the Outsider Test For Faith (OTF) too, and you know that's music to my ears. Here are some recent quotes of hers. Enjoy.
As announced earlier I’m planning on reviewing select chapters in the new evangelical anthology, In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture, edited by Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder.[To read other entries in this series as I write them, just click on the "Defending the Bible" tag below this post].
This time up is R. Douglas Geivett's chapter, "Can and Would God Speak to us?" (pp. 13-46). It's set as a dialogue much like some of the books written by Plato, Berkeley, Galileo, and Hume.
It isn't certain, but it's virtually certain that probability is all that matters when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe. It it isn't certain, but it's virtually certain that sufficient objective evidence is all that matters when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe. It it isn't certain, but it's virtually certain that evidence based reasoning is all that matters when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe. Since evidence based reasoning is science based reasoning, it's likewise true to say that it isn't certain, but it's virtually certain that science based reasoning is all that matters when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe. If anyone can provide a better method for understanding the nature of the universe then what is it? Faith has no method at all.
I find that people who disagree with a reasonable non-double standard test for religious faith cannot be reasoned with, for obvious reasons. How we test a truth claim has a great deal to do with the kind claim we're testing. Sometimes a poll can settle one type of claim. Other times we can settle a different claim by traveling somewhere. Counting spoons can test a certain type of claim, while sitting on a fluffy pillow can test a different one. Logic and/or math can test other types of truth claims. In testing some types of claims we rely heavily on one discipline of learning, while testing other claims we rely heavily on other disciplines of learning. Some claims demand testing from several different academic disciplines. It depends on the type of claim we're testing that determines how we test it.
“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?" Matthew 6:25-30 (ESV)
Really Jesus? Paris Hilton could have come up with something more sensible than that steaming pile! I mean, maybe you were doing that whole new-age guru, Deepak Chopra on Ecstacy thing… Pretty, birdies and flowers… bliss out baby! Sorry to harsh your buzz, but your words ring hollow in countries where sad-eyed children with arms like sticks, are starving to death. Try spouting your platitudes to a desperate mother who doesn’t have enough nutrition in her emaciated body to breast-feed her starving infant. “Life is more than food…”? Uh, no. If you go very long without food, life goes away. It’s called being dead. And clothes? Well, fashion isn’t important in the overall scheme of things, but a warm jacket can be helpful in not freezing to death in the winter.
I don't say much about politics but this issue deserves some commentary and condemnation. I blame the Republican idiots, including my own Congressman who recently said: "We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is." -- Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.)
The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is intuitively simple.The multitude of religions require explaining from a theistic point of view, and until an adequate answer is given, skeptical agnosticism is the most reasonable position. That is common-sense. Loftus takes this idea and thoroughly defends it in a fully convincing and very readable manner.
I wasn't expecting to like this book as much as I did because I though that the argument was simple and obvious, but the way Loftus drew in quotes and arguments from a plethora of different sources meant that this book packs a really hefty punch and left me thinking, on many, many pages, that I must remember this quote or that quote.
I am hoping to do a more in depth view on the content of the book to post on my blog. I think this book deserves to be very widely read as the argument seems not to have any significant counters.
As announced earlier I’m planning on reviewing select chapters in the new evangelical anthology, In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture, edited by Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder.[To read other entries in this series as I write them, just click on the "Defending the Bible" tag below this post].
So let me start by making some comments about the Introduction, co-written by editors Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder. While they introduce the chapters that follow, they also introduce how they view the Bible. Speaking for all the contributors to this book the authors claim the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
Folks, there is no more Hocus Pocus when
it comes to Salvation; no sir! We can KNOW we are saved simply by reading
seventeen verses cherry picked straight from of the Bible’s 31,103 verses followed by reciting a simple “Sinner’s
Prayer”. Salvation can then be suddenly achieved without any
doubts, questions and further study faster than Ernest Angley can say Jesus.
No more confusion; no more of that “lost”
feeling; and no more being on God’s shit list on a toboggan ride straight to an
eternal Hell fire. So amen and thank you
Jesus!
The tract tells me my next move is to contact the local Independent
Baptist Church and let the pastor share in the joy of my salvation. (You see, isn't Christian salvation so very
simple and sure? Not only that, but NOW I
KNOW I’m “Saved” . . . beyond a shadow of a doubt!)
So let’s say, after meeting and rejoicing in my new salvation with
Baptist Pastor Jim, I go home praising God only to find two Jehovah Witnesses
on my porch. I tell them that, without a
doubt, I know I’m saved. To my surprise,
they don’t rejoice with me, but tell me I’ve been tricked by Satan into a counterfeit
religion. OK, maybe there was a
misunderstanding here. Hey, as Pastor
Jim puts it, I’m just a babe in
Christ.
When I was a student at Columbia Theological Seminary, this was one church
(out of more than several dozen) where we could do our required Supervised Ministry. As I watched the news account of the fire, I was left wondering just how believers would explain the reason this church caught fire and burnt, which took one-hundred fire fighters to extinguish and remains unknown. As an atheist I’m sorry this historical church burnt, but for us non-believers; hey, shit happens. However, I do have four questions for Christians:
A. Did God cause the fire to test the congregation’s faith (a standard theological ploy often used as an excuse)?
B. Did God cause the fire to punish disobedience and sin (Based on the Bible, God hates sin and punishes unforgiven sin both in this life and the next)?
C. Did Satan attack and burn God’s house (In the New Testament, Satan is always at war with God)? D.Or does shit simply happened and Christians really don’t have any better explanation than atheists in spite of their Christian faith?
I have a friend who calls Christians “stupid people that believe in a fairytale, with whom one cannot have intelligent conversations.”
I have to disagree. I know many Christians who are quite intelligent.
Do Christians hold stupid beliefs? Absolutely. Are there Christians who are stupid? Undoubtedly. Just try and follow Pat Robertson’s rambling incoherencies, or pick a different clown from the televangelist freak parade. Are there certain groups or denominations within Christianity which tend to denigrate reason, and celebrate emotionalism and mindless belief? Most assuredly. But, haven’t we also encountered atheists who are uniformed about certain things and yet hold dogmatic assumptions nonetheless?
Beginning today I’m planning on reviewing select chapters in the new evangelical anthology, In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture, edited by Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder.[To read other entries in this series as I write them, just click on the "Defending the Bible" tag below this post].
In this first post I'm going to introduce the editors and make some general observations/criticisms about the book as a whole.
What if ten thousand people went up to a mountain top, saw something, and then they all disagreed with what they saw, even people who largely agreed with each other? Even with this best possible analogy to subjective religious experiences we would still have a reason to think the lack of oxygen caused them all to hallucinate.
"I'm increasingly convinced that the point of Christian apologetics is not to defend the faith, but to create the illusion that the faith is defensible."
Russell Blackford and Udo Shuklenk's excellent book, 50 Great Myths About Atheism, is now available in paperback. I've commented about it here, where in it they recommend my books. Get it. NOW!
I really like Kenton Sparks personally, and I enjoyed working with him a bit when he was at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Sparks was even gracious enough to thank me in one of his previous books (Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and their Expression in the Hebrew Bible [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998) for helping him get started on that work.I think that book still represents good scholarship.
Unfortunately, I cannot say the the same for his recent book, Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture (2012), though I give him credit for acknowledging that the ethical problems of the Bible are real.
Otherwise, you can read my full review recently published in the Review of Biblical Literature.
Flannagan said: "As to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) you'll see I have pointed out that argument is incoherent." Really? For a refresher on the OTF see this and the links to follow. Over three years ago I asked Flannagan to respond to five questions. So far he hasn't done so. Here they are again:
"British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins was catapulted to fame in 1976 with his first book, “The Selfish Gene.” It revolutionized Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution with the idea that genes are the keys to natural selection. Dawkins was the first professor for public understanding of science at Oxford University. And he is one of the world’s most outspoken atheists, author of “The God Delusion.” His latest book is the first volume of a two-part memoir titled An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist. It covers his childhood in Africa through his mid-30s."
I don't think there is a way to break through the thick skulls of many Christians on this, but let's try again. When it comes to morality, overwhelming numbers of people hold to basic ethics (as opposed to dilemma ethics), expressed even by C.S. Lewis in his book, The Abolition of Man (even though I disagree with his conclusions). What best accounts for this? Certainly not any given provincial deity. Otherwise everyone should embrace the rest of the moralities commanded by these deities. Yet they conflict with each other over a wide assortment of moral issues (theocracy, homosexuality, marriage and divorce, chauvinism, war), and religious issues as well (praying five times a day facing Mecca, genuflecting, washing in the river Ganges, wearing burkas, eating habits, fasts, hair length), since after all, they are also required by these same deities. Moreover, within the Christian tradition itself, the one I know the best, there are serious disagreements in justifying a specific kind of Christian morality that go beyond what most everyone accepts as basic morality. In order to become informed of this there is no better book to read than J. Philip Wogaman's Christian Ethics: A Historical Introduction. You see, Christians cannot come to an agreement about ethical theory much less the additional moral duties themselves.Come on, before you spout off the phrase "Christian morality" again, look at the facts. Stop your special pleading. Stop begging the question. There is no such thing as "Christian morality." Never has been. Probably never will be.
Do non-believers have a basis for saying some things cause harm? I think so. Just look at a burning child. We have a computer that computes the steps. Our brains. Such things cause harm. It's obvious. The basis for morality is empathy. The divine command theory has no room for it. If God is thought to command killing witches then empathy be damned. While there are two greatest commandments the only one that counts is the first one. Christians need not be concerned with the plight of human suffering, only loving the god in one's head.
In this video, we witness a host organism (the priest) whose infection with the God Virus has progressed to an extreme state. He is performing a wedding ceremony for two living, breathing, human beings, but all he can think about is how offended his Invisible Friend must be by the photographers who are documenting the wedding.
“This is not about the photography, this is about God.”
Uhhh, no Reverend Douchebag. This is about the couple getting married, and their happiness. They hired the photographers that you are trying to run off, to capture memories of what should have been one of the happiest moments of their lives.
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22: 6
Jesus said: Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Matthew 10: 34
Raised by his fundamentalist Bible believing grandmother who required him to attend church and read the Bible daily plus memorize Bible verses, as an adult, Charles Manson was captivated by the blood, gore and prophecies in the Book of Revelation and saw himself and The Family as true believers ordained by God who would arise to rule a new post-apocalyptic world.
In a new biography, author Jeff Guinn looks at the strict religious world Charles Manson grew up in and how the Bible along with popular culture of the 1960’s created a religious psychopath.
An NPR audio interview with author Jeff Guinn about his new biography can be heard HERE
I don't Twitter and I don't make YouTube videos. On Facebook I post links to this blog but sometimes I post some personal stuff too. Today's my 59th birthday. Join me on Facebook to see the shenanigans.
While I was still a believer, I found myself drawn to Greg Boyd’s books, in large part because he seemed willing to wrestle authentically with the tougher questions which challenge Christianity. In particular, I enjoyed his books Letters from a Skeptic, and God of the Possible.
Now Greg has a new book out: Benefit of the Doubt: Breaking the Idol of Certainty and Rebecca Held Evans has interviewed him, regarding it. Partway through the interview, she asks him about the violent portraits of God found in the Bible, and how he would recommend that believers deal with these.
Greg answers that since Jesus is the ‘supreme revelation’ of God, then:
“…whether we can explain the violent portraits of God in the OT or not, it would be unfaithful for us to ever allow anything we find in the OT to compromise what we learn about God in him. “
This of course, is a very convenient hermeneutic tool which allows Christians to distance themselves from, and override, distasteful content in the Old Testament. The writers of the New Testament shamelessly used their ‘new revelation’ to recycle, reinterpret and supersede the Jewish scriptures - as the occasion requires.
Greg basically pats the troubled Christian on the head, and says, “There, there. Don’t worry about those nasty Old Testament scriptures. Just keep your eyes on Jesus. He’s all that matters. He’s what God is really like.”
There isn't any difference at all between people who are deceived by psychics and theistic believers in the pew. The common denominator is that they have a need to believe. They don't really want to know the truth. Yet they deceive themselves into thinking that they do.
My book, The Outsider Test for Faith, came out in March where I responded to all of the criticisms coming from Christian apologists Matthew Flannagan, Norman Geisler, Mark Hanna, Steve Lovell, David Marshall, Rados Miksa, Randal Rauser, Victor Reppert, David Reuben Stone, and Thomas Talbott. Here it is, six months later, and no response has been forthcoming from them or their supporters, with the exception of Marshall's ignorant non-response in a review on Amazon. It's hard not to conclude I have silenced them.
“He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female” (Genesis 5: 1c – 2a)
"The child was born with intersex condition --
sexual anatomy that fits the definition of a male or female."
"Court records indicate that at birth, M.C.
was identified as a male. During a reflux surgery, female organs were
discovered. Doctors at the Greenville Hospital System concluded the baby was a 'true hermaphrodite.'" State Sued Over Hermaphrodite Child Sex Surgery
This is a very very thorough explanation of a huge amount of research into why Loftus chose to become an atheist. I was expecting a much more personal account but this is extremely academic. Very very lengthy, only for the very studious mind. Lots of great info, but too much. This covers philosophy, history, anthropology, biblical studies, you name it, this book is the mega thesis.
---------
When I say it's my magnum opus I really mean it. Randal Rauser didn't read it before inviting me to co-write "God or Godless" with him, and he has still not read it. Is it just too big of a book for him, too academic, outside his expertise, or what? ;-)
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3
Well Jesus, this was silly because you revealed too much (kind of like a magician telling how he does his tricks). A childlike mentality, and childhood conversions are the fuel on which Christianity runs.
Kids are trusting, uninformed about life, and unskilled in the art of reason. The line between fantasy and reality is blurred for children. It’s not unusual for them to have invisible friends, which makes them perfect victims for spiritual salesmen!
Most readers of Debunking Christianity have been deep enough into Christian theology at one point or another to appreciate a nuance to the evolution vs. Christianity conflict that is significant but little discussed: How could the half-human, half-divine nature of Jesus possibly be rationalized scientifically? As this excerpt from Robert and Edwin's book Evolving out of Edenmakes clear, the whole idea of a virgin birth is utterly foreign to modern science, based on ancient, paternalistic ideas about fertilization. The book goes on to explain what a theological mess believers are left with, even if they can make that impossible leap of faith: Jesus would’ve had all the supposedly sinful natural inclinations that Christianity gives humans so much grief about—lust, anger, etc.—because he carried Mary’s human DNA and a supposedly divine portion that would have needed to be defective by design in order to match up with it.
Looks like I've joined a great cast of growing interviews here. I haven't listened to it yet. I'm interviewed about my new book, "The Outsider Test for Faith." Check it out. Now I'm off to a bicycle beer run. Seriously!
Whenever you see posts titled like this one always consider the source and the intended target audience. How widely read is the person recommending these books? Is he or she a former believer? Which type of Christianity do the recommended books target? On what level of scholarship do the books deal with? Are the recommended books philosophically oriented, biblically oriented or scientifically oriented, or general ones? Take for instance the recommendation to read the Bible itself. A fundamentalist won't deconvert upon reading it. A Catholic like Julia Sweeney did. Remember, Isaac Asimov's famous quote is this: "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." The question is which books help which readers properly understand the Bible? That's my focus, my specialty. My target audience are educated evangelicals in the pews and colleges. So with that let me whittle down my list of recommended books to just five (excluding my own):
Raphael Lataster is bright young scholar from Australia. In 2012, he submitted a Master's Thesis on Jesus Mythicism that was approved by the University of Sydney. As such, he may be among the first to have a thesis sympathetic to Jesus Mythicism approved by a world-class university. Now, Lataster has used that thesis as the basis of a new book, There Was No Jesus, There is No God, to be available shortly on Amazon (Kindle version already available).
Although I am not a Jesus mythicist, I do think that Lataster makes a good case that one cannot simply dismiss all versions or all aspects of Jesus mythicism. His work addresses the work of Bart Ehrman and W. L. Craig, among many others. See Book Description. Here is also another link that may be more useful: Alternative link.
I have a confession to make. Over a decade ago, I took my family to a Ken Ham creationism event. My kids were taught that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, a few thousand years ago, and they also learned a magic phrase – one guaranteed to stop evolutionists in their tracks. More on that later.
In a presentation for the adults, Ken talked about how evolution attacks the very foundation of Christianity – the book of Genesis. After all, if Genesis is not literally true, then there was no Adam and Eve, no Fall of mankind through eating a forbidden fruit. No Original Sin. No need for a savior. This is something which I actually agree with Ken on.
As my readers know, I recently visited Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky and wrote about it here. Ken Ham responded with a post of his own, to which I responded, and I'm sticking to my story despite his claims otherwise. Now I want to dispel a couple of other things he said. He wrote:
I recently posted a Facebook comment about this man (me), with the title, “Atheist debunking—or an advertisement for the Creation Museum?” Like most atheists who write negatively about their museum experience, he simply described some of the exhibits and, with lots of hand-waving, just said we were wrong. His lengthy piece really offered no real rebuttals of the scientific displays. He mocked the exhibits more than anything.
First off, I went to Ken Ham's Facebook page and posted a link to my first response. Guess what? It was deleted within a couple of hours. Looks like he won't stand for a free debate and/or discussion. So much for him having the evidence on his side such that he can allow it to win in the marketplace of ideas. He can do what he wants there, of course. But that should be the first clue he is not being intellectually honest. Secondly, I want to show why his views are ignorant and delusional, not just tell what I saw at the museum. So here goes.
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!
[To read other entries in this series as I write them, just click on the "Defending the Bible" tag below this post].
The multitude of religions require explaining from a theistic point of view, and until an adequate answer is given, skeptical agnosticism is the most reasonable position. That is common-sense. Loftus takes this idea and thoroughly defends it in a fully convincing and very readable manner. 
These five myths about Jesus are largely accepted in the scholarly literature:
I've commented about it 
Come on, before you spout off the phrase "Christian morality" again, look at the facts. Stop your special pleading. Stop begging the question. There is no such thing as "Christian morality." Never has been. Probably never will be.
makes clear, the whole idea of a virgin birth is utterly foreign to modern science, based on ancient, paternalistic ideas about fertilization. The book goes on to explain what a theological mess believers are left with, even if they can make that impossible leap of faith: Jesus would’ve had all the supposedly sinful natural inclinations that Christianity gives humans so much grief about—lust, anger, etc.—because he carried Mary’s human DNA and a supposedly divine portion that would have needed to be defective by design in order to match up with it.
