Oh Dear, I'm a "Union Buster"

I was told in response to this post regarding creation vs evolution debates:

We should be presenting a united front. I'm coming to see guys like you and Bill Nye as union-busters, the sort of people who will cross a picket line.

Well now, just because I have a different opinion doesn't make me a union buster. There are many atheists who agree with my arguments. Almost every atheist has a different opinion about an atheist consensus sometime, so we're all union busters, if there is a union in the first place. Apart from non-belief itself, and along with it the arguments against religion in general, name me one consensus among atheists and I could find some atheists who disagree with it. So? Majorities SHOULD listen to minorities to keep them honest. I do all of the time. But no one should adopt the position of the majority on any issue just because it's the majority. Moreover, as far as I can tell, scientists don't have any better expertise on what changes the religious landscape just because they are scientists than I do. That is a philosophical or strategic kind of question not based on science itself. It's a question about how we can best change the minds of believers, how to get them to trust science over their holy books, and I think I do have some expertise on that. It's my specialty.

On Evolutionists Debating Creationists, Wes McMichael Responds to PZ Myers

In the light of Bill Nye's routing of Ken Ham I had called for more creation vs evolution debates right here. <--- Read why I said that, please! Now along comes another creation vs evolution debate as I announced right here. PZ Myers offers a muted criticism of this debate saying:

Oh-oh. I hope these don’t become more popular. Debates are a great way to seduce a creationist audience into showing up to listen, but they’re awful for presenting a good analysis: you are publicly pitting a scientist up against a proven, expert liar, and committing to allowing lies to be told for half the time of the event. Sometimes they’ll pay off and you’ll get good exposure of the nonsense; sometimes you’ll find the slick fraud on the creation side getting more attention than he deserves.

Given that the debate will take place anyway, PZ offers a suggestion:

Just a hint, though. The title of this debate is “Creation vs. Evolution: A Debate on Origins and the Tree of Life,” which is hopelessly broad. Paul Nelson has carte blanche to babble on in a tuneless song of silliness trying to hit the one chord that will resonate with the audience, and that’s what you’re going to get, and it’s going to be really hard to pin him down on anything. Part of the art of doing these debates, I’ve learned, is to craft a decent structured framework for the discussion, so that you’ve got a clear question to answer and even an audience of biased Christian ninnies will notice when the creationist (or the evolutionist!) goes wandering off topic. I hope it’s not too late to refine the subject a bit.

I'll respond to the PZ's criticism against more debates like these, while Wes McMichael, the person putting this new debate together, responds to PZ's criticisms of this debate itself.

Another Creation vs Evolution Debate Coming Up

The creationist presenter, Dr. Paul Nelson, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute (the world’s leading organization promoting Intelligent Design/Creationism), was involved in the Dover Trials in Dover, PA was instrumental in creation of the infamous “Wedge Document”, has been featured in several films about creationism, and is a widely published author on the issue.

Our evolutionist presenter, Dr. Joel Velasco, is the protégé of the world’s foremost philosopher of biology (Elliott Sober), has completed post-doctoral studies at Stanford and Cal Tech, was a visiting professor at Cornell, is currently an assistant professor at Texas Tech, has published very widely in the field, and is considered one of the most promising young professionals in the philosophy of biology.

Even Someone As Conservative as Pat Robertson Says Ken Ham is a Joke

Earlier I had predicted that many Christians will see just how extreme Ken Ham's views are: "The debate will marginalize Ham to some extent among Christians themselves. I'm sure of this. So he will lose some respect among some Christians and perhaps even some supporters, even as he gains more respect from others along with their support. I suspect the net gain for Ham at best will be zero, and at worst it will be in the negative column." Link. I think with Robertson's comments Ham's net gain is going to be in the negative column, to say the least.



Since I've written so much on so many topics I'm finding all ideas are but footnotes to Loftus. ;-) So here are some links for Pat Robertson:

It's Possible God Exists Even Though All Life Has Evolved.

Why Creation Science is Pseudoscience With No Ifs Ands or Buts About It.

See also:

God and Evolution Don’t Mix, by Dr. John Shook.

Robert M. Price and Edwin Suominen's book, Evolving out of Eden.

Ken Ham’s ‘Creation Science’ Sham.

Ken Ham’s ‘creation science’ has nothing to do with actual science (which seeks a deeper understanding of the way our world and the universe works).

I mean, think about it.  What recent discoveries have been made by ‘creation scientists’?  

Medical breakthroughs in treating diseases and preventing human suffering?

Technological advances which better our lives?

A deeper understanding of the human mind enabling better treatments for mental illness? 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can’t think of any. 

Zero.  

Viewers Poll by Christian Today: Bill Nye Slaughtered Ken Ham

Link

Bill Nye Won His Debate Against Ken Ham: More Evolutionists Should Debate Creationists

After watching Bill Nye beat Ken Ham in his recent debate I would like to see more evolutionists debate creationists. Let's go to them. Most of these Christians live within cloistered cathedral walls within Christian communities. They only hear what their parents, preachers and Sunday School teachers tell them. They do not trust science. They do not trust scientists. They only trust the Bible. They are so indoctrinated they will never read a book on evolution. The only time they might consider thinking outside of the Christianity they were indoctrinated to believe is through a debate like this. The evidence is so overwhelming in favor of evolution it can only be a win for us. Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and PZ Myers are all wrong. I call upon them to change their minds. Yes, evolution is a fact. It is beyond dispute. But if we want to change the minds of deeply imbedded Christians within their communities, who will never consider evolution, then we need to go where they are found. And debates on creation are the perfect solution. We must do it for the children. We must do it for the youths in the grip of this religious indoctrination who can see for themselves when watching a debate. Consider it another way to educate the American youths of the future, so we can be a leading nation in the science of the future. If you still refuse to debate creationists then stop hindering other evolutionists like Bill Nye who buck the social pressure you provide. Stop discouraging evolutionists from debating creationists, please!

Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham in Their Debate! Wow!

This is the headline I want to write. But the debate hasn't taken place yet. It's going to take place tonight at 7 PM Eastern Standard Time and you can watch it live at debate.org. Then comment as it takes place in real time back here. If you're early you might want to read the all-time number 1 post at Debunking Christianity on the debate itself. Remember, this debate won't settle the issue. The issue has already been settled in the laboratories, peer-reviewed scientific journals, scholarly books and college classrooms. Evolution is a fact. So relax and enjoy. Watch the gerrymandering, the nonsense, the buffoonery, the idiocy of Ken Ham in action. You will learn something about the deluded mind. That's for sure. [Edit: Bill Nye did in fact beat Ken Ham. Read this for more.]

A Christian and an Atheist Discuss the Reality of God Here at DC

Simon Brown:

Dear Harry H. McCall please please stop blaspheming God. For your own sake. I was once told about two people who did a similar thing. one person kept blaspheming God and eventually died of throat cancer. Another person was also blaspheming God and laughing at his friends for believing in Jesus. He then got on his motor bike and had a head on collision with a lorry. He was decapitated from his head. Please for your own sake have some respect.

The Inconvenient Truth About Death

I know a friend who lost a loved one and her pastor came over to offer her some comfort, the same one who preaches the unsaved will be condemned to hell. It seems pastors can't get it straight. They condemn to hell the unsaved but comfort people with false hopes when it's convenient. They preach only a few will be saved but turn around and comfort their parishioners by telling them they will see all their loved ones again. Which is it?

Lighting the Fuse

At a recent atheist meetup, I was talking with a former Muslim, and asked him what had led to his deconversion. He said that he had come to the United States from Pakistan and was working as a taxi driver while attending college. One night, after his shift ended, he asked a fellow driver to give him a ride home. As they were talking, the other driver, in a passing remark, said:

“You know, all religions are man-made.”

There was no discussion on the topic, just that simple statement, but it stuck with him, nagging at his thinking. Approximately two years later, he rejected religion and became an atheist.

Are You An Honest Christian?

A church member where I preached when I was a believer is trying to convince me to believe again, but will not read any of my books. So I said: "You really should crack open one of my books if you really are an honest person and really want to know the truth. It might not convince you but when shopping for cars don't you want another opinion? That you don't shop for gods like you do for cars is very telling. 95% of Christians will never do this." --Two choices: Am I right or am I right? ;-)

Quote of the Day, by Dr. Victor Reppert, and My Response

You can't have miracles unless you have an order of nature for them to stand out from. A Presidential pardon is only possible because there is a stable system of laws that require punishments for certain crimes, yet our system of laws allows the President to alter the penalty and release someone from those penalties. There is no inconsistency in a system of laws that permits Presidential discretionary pardons.

My response:

Exactly Vic! That's one of the reasons I do not believe ancient testimony about miracles. It's precisely because they had no understanding that there were natural laws. Without that understanding everything was a miracle. From the rising of the sun to a bumper harvest to the birth of a baby boy it was all miraculous. Since miracles happened everywhere they were seen everywhere and it was quite literally impossible to properly evaluate miracle claims. They were a dime a dozen.

With the advent of scientific understanding that would allow for miracles we've learned how to test miracle claims based on natural law. It raises the bar for what we can accept. So while I have no reason to believe ancient testimony, now I must judge them from the standard of natural law. I no longer can believe the miracles in the ancient world twice-over. LINK.

Humanity Is Becoming Increasingly Less Violent, with One Exception -- Religious Violence

This is due to recent findings from the Pew Research Center. Check it out.

Victor Reppert Again, On What Would Convince Us God Exists

Many of the things that it is supposed that God could have done to make his existence perfectly evident could be passed off as the work of powerful (but evolved) aliens. And no matter how much evidence God provides, there is some additional piece of evidence that an atheist could say God didn't provide, and if God really cared for us, he would have provided. The amount of evidence God could have provided has no intrinsic maximum.

Vic made this comment in this discussion. Like other apologists who have an invested stake in being apologists he won't be convinced otherwise, but since there are Christians who want to be honest with their faith I'll respond.

A Serious Question From a New Deconvert

How does someone know that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, absolute truth, perfect word of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent, perfect God?

Stephen Law On Playing the Mystery Card (from his book, Believing Bullshit)

This seems pertinent from recent discussions with Victor Reppert. Enjoy.

Victor Reppert On What It Would Take To Convince Me Christianity Was True

Vic links to my original 2007 post so you can see what I said for yourselves. He asks if I'm arguing for the god of the gaps right here: "Isn't [Loftus] just saying here 'Gosh, I wish the gaps were bigger?'" It's an interesting question I'll admit. But we need to see what's going on. In my original post I had said:

But let’s say the Christian faith is true and Jesus did arise from the dead. Let’s say that even though Christianity must punt to mystery and retreat into the realm of mere possibilities to explain itself that it is still true, contrary to what my (God given?) mind leads me to believe. Then what would it take to convince me?

I would need sufficient reasons to overcome my objections, and I would need sufficient evidence to lead me to believe. By “sufficient” here, I mean reasons and evidence that would overcome my skepticism.

What Is So Bad About Christianity?

I'm getting some of the chapters from contributors for my new anthology Christianity is Not Great as I write. They are really good too. We're writing on the harms of Christianity. Imagine my surprise to find that James McDonald has an excellent website dealing with many of the same issues we're dealing with, seen here. I hadn't noticed it before. From what I read it looks really good. We're told: "Many Christians and non-Christians remain largely unaware of the history of Christianity. This website lays out the facts as clearly as possible," and it looks like he delivers the goods. He has also written a large book, Beyond Belief: Two thousand years of bad faith in the Christian Church.From my investigation I highly recommend it.

Roger Penrose On "Before the Big Bang"

Dr. Matt McCormick On Talking Believers Out of God

This is good!

"God or Godless" Named Among the Top Ten Religion Books of 2013

The Dubious Disciple, a self-described "agnostic Christian" (there's such a thing?), named my co-authored book with Randal Rauser as one of the top ten religion books in 2013. Here is his list which isn't a bad one at all for a believer. If you click on the book cover it will take you to his review of it. Someone likes it! Wooooo Hooooo! ;-)

Using the Bible to Prove Jesus Was a Sinner

I have pointed out over the years here at DC (and elsewhere) that the religious system of reasoning called theology is one of the most flawed and defective so-called logic systems ever devised in human history; bar none! For me, people who are immersed in this pseudo-logic system are similar to an alcoholic or drug addict who, although he or she can’t hold a job, has lost both family and friends, still dogmatically maintains they don’t have any problem at all.

Further Discussion On the Hallquist vs Rauser Debate

Previously I had argued that Chris Hallquist lost his debate with Randal Rauser. Here is our further discussion, below for learning and comment.

Jesus Behaving Badly: The Smoke of Their Torment

When it comes to dealing with the violent, angry, bi-polar god of the Old Testament, many Christians use Jesus as their get-out-of-jail-free card.

If we atheists bring up some of the many examples of the despicable actions and character of Yahweh, as described in the Bible, we hear: “But… Jesus… grace… New Covenant...” 

It’s as if sometime during the inter-testamental period, their god attended anger management sessions or got in touch with his kinder, gentler side.  Perhaps an image consultant advised him that all the smiting and killing was starting to give him a bad reputation? God 2.0 (aka Jesus) is supposed to magically override the trail of carnage that the Bible tells us that Yahweh left in his wake.

Christopher Hitchens On Minority Opinions

“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.” ― Christopher Hitchens. I quote him in reference to this opinion of mine. Cheers.

What Kind of Atheist Are You?

Not a Good Year for Dinesh D'Souza

...writes Jerry Coyne.

We are Nonbelievers, We Don't Believe, Period.

I used to think the position I now hold to was philosophically naive at best, and I have taught university level philosophy classes. Tell me this, do you know the sun will rise this morning, or do you believe it will rise? I know it will rise. Could I be wrong? Yes, but I don't need certainty in order to know something. If a truth proposition has that degree of probability to it then the fact I could conceivably be wrong means nothing. I know it. What does saying "I believe" the sun will rise do? It allows Christians to claim all knowledge is based on faith. Then they slip their Trinitarian incarnational god into that same crack. If the odds for a truth claim are calculated to be 70% then what does faith add to them? 50%? 15%? If we go exclusively by the probabilities there is no room for faith, no reason to believe anything at all. The problem is that we don't have separate words to describe the various probabilities. We only have one word, the word "belief." It covers the whole range of probabilities when we should be using different words to describe them. Other words better describe what we mean, like hope, trust, accept, think, know, conclude, and so on. The word "belief" is a Christian one supporting the Christian faith in the western world. We need a new nomenclature. We are nonbelievers. We don't believe. Let's use language commensurate with what we know.

"Is Belief in God Irrational?" Chris Hallquist Loses This Debate to Randal Rauser Who Wins a Pyrrhic Victory

I wouldn't want to debate a professional Christian philosopher on the topic of this debate. But Chris Hallquist did. He made some good arguments against Christianity but in terms of the question itself, debate judges would unanimously proclaim Rauser the winner, by a landslide. For Rauser it is nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory though. He won the battle but suffered serious loses in doing so. I judge Chris to be out of his league here, but he did manage to raise some issues Rauser didn't have good answers for, so Kudos to him. The problem of evil was his best argument. Rauser hammered Hallquist on the word "irrational" and won the debate because of it. However, unbelievably, given someone's ignorance about science then a Flat Earther would be considered rational too. Big crapping deal. What we want to know is if one's belief in God is true and Plantinga, Rauser's guru, never addresses that question. Hallquist did, but we all hold some conclusions that are false and we're not irrational in doing so.

If I were to debate Rauser on this question I would focus on the word "belief." Belief is always irrational. We should think exclusively in terms of the probabilities when it comes to the nature of the universe and it's workings. Hallquist didn't even do this. He thought if he could just show that believing in God was improbable then this is all he had to do. For anyone who continues believing despite Hallquist's arguments is irrational. Yet based on this standard of Hallquist's it is only irrational to continue believing in God once someone grants the arguments to God's existence fail, and these types of judgments are person related. Rauser thinks Hallquist's arguments fail instead. So until Rauser thinks those arguments succeed and continues believing anyway, his belief in God is not irrational. Check the debate out and see for yourselves.

Hallquist's position is just too extreme to be taken seriously. He thinks the arguments against the existence of God are so devastating that when it comes to William Lane Craig, and some other Christian apologists, they are intellectually dishonest. What Hallquist simply fails to understand is that there are many cognitive biases that keep honest people believing despite the strongest evidence to the contrary. There are many Christian apologists who think the opposite, that the arguments for God's existence are so strong that non-believers are being intellectually dishonest. If I were a Christian apologist I would hold up Hallquist as exhibit "A" in showing non-believers are intellectually dishonest, for surely he isn't ignorant about the effects of these cognitive biases. So they could conclude he is being intellectually dishonest when claiming William Lane Craig and others are intellectually dishonest. Because of this I must distance myself from him, even though I wish him well.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science, Religion and the Universe

Since the multiverse is mentioned here is the evidence for it.

Sodom and Gomorrah

Jesus Christ visits Sarah Silverman to discuss women's reproductive rights.

Open Thread for Comment

Yes, I've been silent lately. I'm working on a new book and dealing with other exciting things in my life. So give it to me. What's up? Anything new?

If Religious Faith Isn't The Problem Then What Is It?

A Screwed Up Book From the Beginning: Does the Bible Ever Know What It’s Talking About?

Left: The Jarvik 7 Artificial Heart (Could Jesus Live Here?)
Over a decade ago I debated a Christian apologist over the fact that the Biblical writers had no idea of what the human brain was.

My point was that, if the Bible was literally correct, than both the first artificial heart recipients Barney Clark and Robert Schrader (who died while on these machines) would have been totally  "unable to have asked Jesus into their hearts" since they had in fact had no hearts for Jesus to live in and thus ended up in Hell. This Christian apologist said this was "ridiculous" and was very adamant that the term "heart" in the Bible was used as a purely symbolic term being that the Biblical authors knew full well that the muscle we call the heart was not really the place emotions and thought.  By contrast, I strongly disagreed and reaffirmed the fact that what the Bible said about the heart (Greek: Kardia, from which we get Cardiac) is exactly what is meant. (You see, we atheists are basically Bible Believers!)

Why Didn't Jesus Tell Us About Germs?

This is a nice little argument from Richard Carrier. His debate with David Marshall can be seen here.

What's the Difference Between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism?

[First published on October 2, 2013, now updated]: Fundamentalist Christianity represents yesterday's conservative faith whereas Evangelical Christianity represents today's conservative faith...and the goal posts keep being moved. Evangelical Christianity therefore is the liberal faith that conservatives of yesterday rejected, while the Evangelical Christianity of the future will reject the theology of today's Evangelicals. Liberalism is the trend into the future. It's palpably obvious too.

Evangelicals in the eighties rejected Karl Barth, inclusivism, Hell as annihilation, the mythical interpretation of the Genesis creation stories, the late dating of 2nd Isaiah and Daniel, and they especially rejected evolution. These former Evangelical views are now being rejected by today's Evangelicals. The goal posts have simply been moved! For more read these posts of mine:

1) The New Evangelical Orthodoxy, Relativism, and the Amnesia of It All

2) The More Conservative The Church, The Less Likely It's True

Two New Bible Movies Hit the Theaters for 2014

Tonight I decided to see Lone Survivor which is an excellent movie about an ill-fated mission by Navy SEALs in Afghanistan (Highly Violent). As usual before the main movie, our sold out theater watched about six movie trailers for forth coming titles in 2014. Among the secular titles; I was intrigued to see two trailers for upcoming Biblical movies.

It's Okay That Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

The Science Guy Bill Nye is going to debate Ken Ham at the Creation Museum in Kentucky on February 4th. Ham believes the universe is not more than 6,000 years old and that there was a world-wide flood that took place about 4,500 years ago. He believes the animals saved by a guy named Noah in his ark can explain biological diversity. Ham also believes dinosaurs co-existed with humans. Ham, in other words, is a crack pot. He represents the absolute worst kind of creationist there is, although they are all wrong. Scientists from Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and a whole host of atheist bloggers are saying Bill Nye shouldn't debate Ham. Here are some reasons why:

The DOs and DON'Ts of Prayer

Here is Andrew Lamprecht's Deconversion Story

Andrew Lamprecht is a former Christian living in Adrian, Michigan, who is an aspiring author. Enjoy. See if his story resonates with you.

Does God Exist? A Debate Between Dan Barker and John Mark Reynolds

Satanists Unveil Design for Okla. Capitol Monument

"The Satanic Temple says Oklahoma's decision to put a Ten Commandments monument at the Capitol opened the door for its statute."

"Oklahoma City — A satanic group unveiled designs Monday for a 7-foot-tall statue of Satan it wants to put at the Oklahoma state Capitol, where a Ten Commandments monument was placed in 2012."

See link:  The Associated Press

Also of interest: The Satanic Temple website

Dr. Matt McCormick On Immortality

Here's An Interview I Did With Red Tani of the Filipino Freethinkers

Get Peter Boghossian's Audio Book, "A Manual For Creating Atheists" for Free

Seth from the Thinking Atheist podcast has a link to get a free audiobook and to get 30 days free access. You can hear Dr. Boghossian talking about his new book right here, then you can go to this link to get it free. Just search for the title "A Manual for Creating Atheists," and listen to the free, unabridged version of the book as read by the author, Peter Boghossian himself. Plus, you're helping support TTA I'm told.

Anyone Want to Improve On This Quote of the Day?

Give it a try, I want you to:

Not only is fundamentalist Christianity the greatest threat in the United States to science, tolerance, and social progress, but it is also the most prevalent form of Protestant Christianity to be found in our nation, whether you like it or not. It is the fundamentalist religious right that holds the reigns of the Republican party (which currently controls the nation, in case you didn't realize), and it is this same fundamentalist religious right that lobbies for the teaching of lies in public school and fights against funding for embryonic research that could potentially save the lives of millions. Whether you like it or not, it is this flavor of Christianity that makes the loudest, most obnoxious, most dangerous impact on the world today, giving us plenty of good reason to direct the brunt of our attacks in its vicinity.

Russell Blackford Comments On the Book, "God or Godless"

Russell Blackford is a philosopher with numerous books to his name. On Facebook he said this:

I'm currently reading God or Godless?by John W. Loftus and Randal Rauser. From my perspective, the former is intellectually demolishing the latter. You may think I'm biased, but it's not that simple. I suspect that I would (to my dismay) have had the same response even in my Christian days. Loftus is very good in this debate, but even that is not the problem for Rauser. So much Christian apologetics may be internally consistent... but still looks bizarre and implausible the moment you try to look at it from the outside. There's not much Rauser can do about this.

Biblical scholar Robert Price said the same thing. Dustin Lawson, Josh McDowell's infidel disciple, agreed wholeheartedly.

This is all gratifying to me personally. For anyone who has not seen it, co-author Randal Rauser and I debated each other in Edmonton, Canada, on June 5, 2013. Enjoy it below:

The Science Guy Bill Nye to Debate Ken Ham

Bill Nye to Visit Creation Museum for Debate

"Bill Nye "The Science Guy" is set to visit Kentucky to debate evolution and biblical creation with the founder of the Creation Museum."