Thanks to John for allowing me to post this. So, the celebrations are upon us to commemorate good ole Jesus and his rather miraculous (and dare I say imaginary) birth. Well, he may have been born, but not like that. But enough of that. Or maybe not. I have two rather decent suggestions with which to fill your stockings (Christmas, not underwear).
In Matthew 28:16-17 we read: "Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." How is it possible for some of the eleven disciples to doubt after seeing the resurrected Jesus? Then too the Apostle Paul claimed in I Corinthians 15:6 that, "After that, he [Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time..." Of them, only 120 believed according to Acts 1:15: "In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)." Even by the testimony of the New Testament itself many of the earliest witnesses didn't believe. Why should we?
Isn't it interesting that the more someone becomes scientifically literate the less is believed? It's not just the conclusions reached, although that is clearly important, it's understanding the process of how science itself works. Believers love to focus on the demarcation line between science and non-science, on cutting edge science which is still as yet unsettled, and ask endless questions about the precise description of the scientific method. But only by truly understanding how science works can they see why faith is an utterly unreliable method for understanding the nature and workings of the universe. To understand this process I heartily recommend the following books. According to one of them, written by Dennis Trumble, "For many people of faith the issue isn't about determining which beliefs are true and which ones are false but, rather, deciding which beliefs are good and which are bad." (p. 30).
This debate took place in Dr. Rauser's home church in Edmonton, Canada, on June 5, 2013. Enjoy.
For religious people, the standard setting for the giving of thanks is entirely incidental to the meaning of the occasion. The family around the table, the turkey or ham, the football game — all of these are just props and ritual. None is essential to thanking God.
What for a religious person, though, is just the setting of Thanksgiving is for the atheist the entire celebration itself. Family and fun, and marking the change of the seasons, is its only meaning and significance.
I suppose that to a religious person an atheist Thanksgiving must appear a thin thing, lacking reverence and grandeur. But then, again, a person who reveres a grand God must feel diminished in her own eyes. Giving thanks to God must engender in the religious the sense that they are powerless supplicants to a higher reality. Another thing we atheists are happy about, then, is that nothing at all depends on the will of a spirit in the sky.
The quote above is from Mark Mercer, chairman of the Philosophy department at Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Submitted by J. M. Green
Today I am thankful for my life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness. I'm thankful for my health, my family and my friends. I'm thankful for the people who appreciate my work who recommend it and defend it against objections to the contrary. Today I am a very grateful person. I am usually this way though, so there isn't any change because it's Thanksgiving Day. It's the best way to live life if possible. Here's wishing the less fortunate among my friends can at least appreciate the simple things in life. When life seems frustrating or debilitating then just focus on breathing if nothing else.
This year I've tried to categorize them rather than list them in order of importance. Enjoy. Again, this listing might be changed slightly as the end of the year approaches.
The following interview was conducted by "The Promethean" which is the email newsletter of Prometheus Books. Enjoy.
In the powerful movie
Music Box, Jessica Lange plays Anne,
a lawyer defending her Hungarian-American father against charges of being a war
criminal who tortured Jews in the Holocaust.
Anne finds these charges to be unthinkable, given that she knows her
father to be a loving man. Tensions rise as the prosecuting lawyer claims that the
caring father she knows is a carefully-constructed persona which hides the true
nature of his past.
Anne manages to secure
evidence which results in the dismissal of the charges against her father, but
the prosecutor urges her to stop living in a fantasy world, and to dig deeper
into her father’s past, to find the truth.
Anne finds herself facing a difficult choice:
pursue the truth at great personal cost, or settle
for the easy answers and safe world of what she has always thought to be true
The movie serves as a powerful illustration of the mental
trauma which Christians face when they are first confronted with rumors of
unsavory secrets in their family history.
Could the loving Heavenly Father which they have known actually be a
brutal and heartless psychopath?
Do
they dare stir the dust of doubt by digging around in the ancient archives of
Yahweh, reading what was written about him in old diaries and tattered
documents?
A good friend sent me an ad he's placing in magazines and newspapers with this as a title. It's really good. See what you think:
As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. (John 9: 1 -3)
Here’s my commentary on these three verses in a nutshell:
In the comments here a Christian said, "you cannot use the scientific method to show you are most likely not a brain in a vat WITHOUT begging the question." Luiz Fernando Zadra responded nicely as follows:
The writer of Matthew had a prophecy fetish and seized every opportunity to declare that events in his version of the life of Jesus happened in order “that it might be fulfilled”. 
McCormick is developing an online Philosophy of Religion course. In one 33 minute video is a hard-hitting critique of Craig's view of the "Witness of the Holy Spirit." This is top notch stuff. 
Now what? Say he didn't mean what he said? Say it wasn't really a good endorsement after all? If it isn't that good of a book why would he write a blurb for it at all? Get it. See for yourself.
Rauser is also taken to task and he responds, right here. But given one of the charges against him, is he also a poor philosopher? You see, Rauser is accused of begging the question. In fact, he's even accused of not knowing what that means. I for one think Rauser does know what that means, but I'd have to agree with the reviewer that he does beg the question. Actually, to be more precise, he is special pleading his case. Don't all Christian apologists do that?
In what follows I want to write a brief review of it while making a few observations. I will probably write more about it from time to time, especially when one of these myths is brought up in our discussions here.
To read other posts in review of his brilliant book click on the tag below. In this last one I want to highlight how much of a crusader he is, a radical, and how much I like it. He is dead serious. We know this from his radical remedies for the present faith virus pandemic.
