Yesterday I was sitting on my gay friend's porch, drinking talking and laughing. Along comes a guy who asked if he could join us. We said okay and invited him to have a beer. He said he didn't drink. His shirt was a billboard for Christianity, you know the kind. So I asked him if he didn't drink because it was against his church teachings and he said yes. Okay, I said. When it got around to why he wanted to join us, he said he'd like to suck, er, have oral sex. When asked which one of us he would prefer he pointed to me. My friend was offended but laughed because he was off the hook. I merely told the guy I was not interested. Then I asked him if homosexuality was condemned by his church teachings and he said it was, but that he disagreed with them. Well, he left and we laughed. Nonetheless, is this Christianity? He agrees with his church when it comes to drinking but disagrees with it about homosexuality. And I'm equally sure his church would not approve of his wanton promiscuity. These are a few of the people who answer they believe in God and are Christians in those polls we've seen. This once again illustrates that Christianity is a pick and choose religion with a wide diversity among its adherents. Funny. We're still laughing.
Children Exposed to Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction
Researchers took 66 children between the ages of five and six and asked them questions about stories — some of which were drawn from fairy tales, others from the Old Testament — in order to determine whether the children believed the characters in them were real or fictional.
“Children with exposure to religion — via church attendance, parochial schooling, or both — judged [characters in religious stories] to be real,” the authors wrote. “By contrast, children with no such exposure judged them to be pretend,” just as they had the characters in fairy tales. But children with exposure to religion judged many characters in fantastical, but not explicitly religious stories, to also be real — the equivalent of being incapable of differentiating between Mark Twain’s character Tom Sawyer and an account of George Washington’s life. LINK.
More Liars for Jesus, This Time About Church Attendance
Two in five Americans say they regularly attend religious services. Upward of 90 percent of all Americans believe in God, pollsters report, and more than 70 percent have absolutely no doubt that God exists. There is only one conclusion to draw from these numbers: Americans are significantly more religious than the citizens of other industrialized nations.The fact is that Americans are leaving religion behind.
Except they are not.
Beyond the polls, social scientists have conducted more rigorous analyses of religious behavior. Rather than ask people how often they attend church, the better studies measure what people actually do. The results are surprising. Americans are hardly more religious than people living in other industrialized countries. Yet they consistently—and more or less uniquely—want others to believe they are more religious than they really are.
Even as pundits theorized about why Americans were so much more religious than Europeans, quiet voices on the ground asked how, if so many Americans were attending services, the pews of so many churches could be deserted. LINK.
Labels: Liars for Jesus
An Ad For My Book in the Free Inquiry Magazine
I was told that a full page advertisement for my book Why I Became an Atheist appeared in the current issue of the Free Inquiry magazine. It's pretty cool, see what you think:
So As An Atheist I'm Not Crazy After All? Cool! My 5 Star Review of Randal Rauser's Book, "You're Not As Crazy As I Think: Dialogue in a World of Loud Voices and Hardened Opinions"
Since Randal Rauser is reviewing my book, Why I Became an Atheist,
I thought readers should see how I reviewed one of his books on Amazon three and a half years ago. It's a fair, generous review, don't you think? This is the case even though I stand in opposition to his faith and even though it's very brief. So once again, as a reminder to him and anyone else who wants a place at the adult table, if you want to properly review an argumentative book, this is how to do it. Cheers.
"9 Sinister Things the Christian Right Does in the Name of God," by Valerie Tarico
Here's the money quote for my readers:
I realize that many Christians are not Bible believers, but rather people who glean through the Christian tradition to claim what seems timeless and wise. I also realize that most Bible believers aren’t trying to do harm—in fact the opposite. I know because I’ve been there. But, when you treat the words of our Iron Age ancestors as if they flowed straight from the mouth of God, you end up putting your life energy, whether you see it that way or not, into bringing back the Iron Age.
The Iron Age was a time of incredible brutality—tribalism, warfare, destitution, disease, murder, misogyny, sexual slavery and superstition of biblical proportions. Most of us would rather not go back, thank you very much. Christians who want a better future are welcome to join in the inquiry and teamwork it will take to get there, and many do. For the rest of you: please forgive the fact that your Iron Age fantasies trigger some of us to experience wry Iron Age fantasies of our own. LINK.
How To Properly Review a Book: A Guide for Bloggers
[Written by John W. Loftus on 4/27/2010] Let me offer some advice on how to properly review an argumentative type book on your blogs and/or on Amazon. It's annoying that so many people don't know how to do it right.
I have read several reviews of my book now. Most all of them aren't written very well at all. Two of them proceeded to argue with it chapter by chapter. A couple others went hodgepodge through it, pointing out things they liked and didn't like. Several others nitpick at it without dealing with the over-all thrust of the cumulative case I present in it. But good reviews will first summarize the book, tell what the author is attempting to do, tell who would benefit the most from reading the book, compare it with other books on the same topic, and offer a generalized statement about how effective the book is in attaining those stated goals. Are there any comparable books? If so, was this one better or worse than the others? As a reviewer you might even want to mention why you read the book in the first place. Then at that point you can write about some specifics in the book as examples that support your generalized statement. This is High School stuff here.
I have read several reviews of my book now. Most all of them aren't written very well at all. Two of them proceeded to argue with it chapter by chapter. A couple others went hodgepodge through it, pointing out things they liked and didn't like. Several others nitpick at it without dealing with the over-all thrust of the cumulative case I present in it. But good reviews will first summarize the book, tell what the author is attempting to do, tell who would benefit the most from reading the book, compare it with other books on the same topic, and offer a generalized statement about how effective the book is in attaining those stated goals. Are there any comparable books? If so, was this one better or worse than the others? As a reviewer you might even want to mention why you read the book in the first place. Then at that point you can write about some specifics in the book as examples that support your generalized statement. This is High School stuff here.
Who Are Atheist Fundamentalists?
If I am an atheist fundamentalist because I criticize Christian fundamentalists, then are liberal Christians fundamentalists when they do the same thing?
Instantly Turn Any Object into God with a Simple Formula
Now you can
choose your own God. Simply pick any
ancient object; then substitute this object everywhere in the Bible you find either
the words Lord or God. Next, support your
substitution apologetically and, voila! You’ll have a deified God Object no atheist
can debunk. Try it . . . it works! Here’s the formula you’ll need to create your own personal God Object:
Skeptic Ink Network's New Book, "13 Reasons to Doubt"
This is a very good book, edited by Edward Clint, Jonathan Pearce and Beth Ann Erickson, 13 Reasons To Doubt: Essays from the Writers of Skeptic Ink.
My chapter is called "Science is Predicated on the Non-Magical Natural World Order."
The Tales About Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Paul Show They Had Psychotic Disorders
Evan D. Murray, M.D.; Miles G. Cunningham, M.D., Ph.D.; and Bruce H. Price, M.D. in the The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences "analyzed the religious figures Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul from a behavioral, neurologic, and neuropsychiatric perspective to determine whether new insights can be achieved about the nature of their revelations. Analysis reveals that these individuals had experiences that resemble those now defined as psychotic symptoms, suggesting that their experiences may have been manifestations of primary or mood disorder-associated psychotic disorders." LINK.
Putting Godly Fear Into a Child: Taken From a Christian School Discipline Manual
![]() |
Click on pictures to enlarge |
"He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently." Proverbs 13: 24
"Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die." Proverbs 23: 13 (This You Tube video will prove God is a liar!)
"Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die." Proverbs 23: 13 (This You Tube video will prove God is a liar!)
Yep, Jesus Feeds the Birds!
Jesus reportedly said: "Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?" (Matthew 6:26)
Quote of the Day, By D Rizdek
Whether Christianity was particular in its mistreatment of women, it never overcame the culture and showed where the culture was wrong...in this or any other regard. The same goes for all religions. Their gods never seemed to be able to break out of the culture. If slavery was the "thing," the gods and holy men told 'em how to do slaves. If dominating women was the thing, god and the holy men told 'em how to do women. If the culture hated homosexuality, then their god hated it too. If they were ignorant about science, their God didn't know science either. If the culture superstitiously thought blood had some special magical powers, then god used blood to mark doorways and wash away sins. If the culture thought diseases and mental illness was due to sin's curse or demons, then their god acted like that was true too. Why do their gods never tell them anything they don't already know?
Dr. Daphne Hampson Says Christianity is a Harmful Myth Which Could Not Possibly Be True
Dr. Hampson knows what she's talking about. At the least one cannot say she is ignorant given her credentials. She abandoned the "harmful myth" of Christianity in 1981. In her book After Christianity (1997), she argued that "Christianity cannot be true, for it requires a particular revelation which we can no longer think possible. Moreover its situatedness in past history makes Christianity necessarily sexist." In a 1997 interview we read that, "She came to see that the notions of incarnation - God made flesh in the person of Christ - and resurrection - Christ rising from the dead after the crucifixion - could not possibly be true. How could we believe, she asks, this side of the Enlightenment, that God could create such a unique break in the natural order of things as the resurrection?" Furthermore, she tells us, "I began to see that the very raison d'etre of the Christian myth was to support men as superior over women, that it served to legitimise how men see themselves in the world." LINK. I just discovered her today. There are probably many others I have not heard about yet. Higher education, the right kind of education, can and does lead to the rejection of Christianity.
I'll Be Speaking at the Pennsylvania State Atheist and Humanist Conference
I’ll be speaking on my book The Outsider Test for Faith at the Pennsylvania State Atheist and Humanist Conference, Labor Day weekend, August 29-31. In my talk I'll be dealing with some of the ridiculous responses to the outsider test. This should be fun. My talk is set for Saturday morning.
The list of speakers doesn't include just the usual lineup of suspects. If you would like to meet me and chat then come on out. Registration is $130, which is a great price for all that you get, including some great entertainment. My books will be on sale and I'll be signing them. Unfortunately my latest book, Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails, won't be out yet.
I’m looking forward to this very much!
The list of speakers doesn't include just the usual lineup of suspects. If you would like to meet me and chat then come on out. Registration is $130, which is a great price for all that you get, including some great entertainment. My books will be on sale and I'll be signing them. Unfortunately my latest book, Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails, won't be out yet.
Christian Apologist Norman Geisler Still Does Not Understand Atheism
Norman L. Geisler and Daniel J. McCoy's most recent book is titled, The Atheist's Fatal Flaw: Exposing Conflicting Beliefs.
If you search inside the book for "Loftus" you'll see them interacting with my work. The central thesis of their book is found in the Introduction (pp. 9-10):
"Council votes to display "In God We Trust" in chambers"
![]() |
Picture from the national organization for "In God We Trust" |
So what can one can expect once believers get control? (Consider just three of the comments.)
“The city council finally seems to be heading in the right direction. But why doesn't it wholly embrace The Word and start running the deviants out of the county? Otherwise, this is just lip service.”
Could the First Pope (Peter) Swim? How The Gospels Use Lies to Teach Faith and Trust
The
Gospels accounts of John and Matthew present two different Apostle Peters with both being supported by two different miracle accounts when dealing with swimming.
Freedom of Mind

Labels: freedom of mind, j. m. green
Quote of the Day, By Jeffery Jay Lowder (With Rebuttal)
[T]he philosophy of religion is not “dead,” but it is in serious condition, if not on life support. This can be shown by counting the number of philosophy departments at secular colleges and universities which have faculty lines for philosophy of religion. (They are very rare.) Why is this? I think that one contributing factor to this state of affairs is the blatant partisanship which is very much the norm in the philosophy of religion. Many philosophers of religion, including both atheists and theists, function as natural theologians (if theists) or natural atheologians (if atheists). In other words, they act as if their job description says, “If you’re a theist, defend theism; if you’re an atheist, defend atheism.” It’s rare for philosophers of religion to engage in genuine inquiry and to spend equal amounts of time defending theism and defending atheism. But, if a philosopher of religion is going to act like a philosopher, not an apologist, they should be engaging in inquiry. LINK.Below is my response, which I guarantee will be worth a click of your time. ;-)
Labels: Lowder, Philosophy of Religion
Exposing Kalam's Hidden Premises
Apologists like William Lane Craig often use intentionally ambiguous language to hide problematic aspects of their arguments. This video unpacks some of the hidden assumptions behind the Kalam argument to make clear what it's proponents are actually arguing for (and how much more difficult it would be for them if they were honest about it.) Watching full screen is recommended.
A Few More Reviews of Richard Carrier's New Book
A few more reviews of Richard Carrier's book, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt,
can be found on Amazon, where you can get the best deal on buying it.
Reviews of Carrier's New Book "On The Historicity of Jesus" and His Responses
Richard's book has been reviewed by a few people already. The reviews have come from Nicholas Covington, Chris Hallquist, Raphael Lataster, and Loren Rosson. Carrier has responded to them here. It's an interesting discussion. I have a free review copy coming but don't have it yet. I hope it arrives before most of what has been said has been said. ;-)
Quote of the Day, by borin43
There is not a method that exists that can find something that's not there, plain and simple.
So What if Methodological Naturalism Cannot Detect God!
If it's reasonable to adopt methodological naturalism when desiring knowledge about the nature of nature, and if this means scientists must suspend judgment when science doesn't solve a problem--rather than conclude "god did it"--then bite the bullet. Believers like Victor Reppert should just admit that science cannot find god. Whose fault would this be, if so? It would be God's fault for setting up the universe such that in order to gain objective knowledge about the nature of nature scientists must adopt methodological naturalism. It would be God's fault for not doing enough miracles to convince us he exists. It would be God's fault for not alleviating the most horrendous kinds of suffering in the world. It would be God's fault for providing an incompetent revelation in the superstitious past that lacks sufficient evidence to convert outsiders, a revelation that got so many things wrong in the first place.
What a Delusion Does To an Otherwise Intelligent Mind: Vic Reppert On Methodological Naturalism
I had initially written about Methodological Naturalism (MN) here. Unpersuaded, Vic wrote:
Methodological naturalism would rule out a supernatural explanation in any event.Now if you want to see what a delusion can do to an otherwise intelligent mind you must read this! I asked if he really read what I wrote and he commented as follows:
The Philosophy of Religion Is Under Attack, This Time via Argument Not Tweet
Jerry Coyne wrote:
I have to agree with Peter Boghossian that the bulk of work in that field (indeed, nearly all of it) is worthless. I am a fan of philosophy as a whole, or at least branches of it (especially the philosophy of science and ethical philosophy), and don’t think it’s worthless by any means, but I have no use for the philosophy of religion. Look at the above: the author is telling us that it’s likely that God, had he created the Universe, would have created a multiverse (that’s what Draper means by “many worlds”)! If you want a real laugh, go see why God would have been likely to create many universes. It’s garbage: pure mental masturbation. But such is the philosophy of religion, for it’s the philosophy of a nonexistent construct. It’s like a field called “the philosophy of fairies.” LINKI have said that atheist philosophy of religion exists because there is bad Christian philosophy of religion that must be answered. And yet I don't think there is anything that atheists haven't already answered. My judgment is that atheists working in that field have trounced their opponents so badly there is nothing left to say. We can therefore dispense with it as an academic discipline in our universities as unworthy of serious attention. Let's replace it with the various sciences, like geology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, psychology and neurology. Until Christians can come up with sufficient evidence to believe we should no longer have to deal with their rationalizations, gerrymanderings, non-sequiturs and baseless assertions masquerading as a reasonable discussion. I hereby declare the philosophy of religion dead. All we have to do from now on is quote what has already been written. Please move along. There is nothing here to see.
Labels: Philosophy of Religion
Quote of the Day, by Articulett to Victor Reppert
If there was a god...
And that god wanted people to believe certain things...
Then that god would communicate clearly to ensure that the beliefs passed the Outsider Test for Faith (or faith would not be a necessary requirement as the evidence would suffice). This would at least necessarily be true of any god worthy of worship. So, there is either a god that doesn't care what people believe... a god that cares and is incompetent (and thus not worthy of worship) --or no god at all. The most likely scenarios is no god at all because we know that humans invent gods and other beings to explain that which they don't understand, --but we have no evidence that consciousness of any sort can exist without a brain.
Two More Blurbs For My Forthcoming Anthology, "Christianity is Not Great"
We're getting a few good blurbs for Christianity is Not Great: How Faith Fails. One is from a Christian professor.
Understanding the Mind of a Deluded Intellectual: Lessons from Victor Reppert
Dr. Victor Reppert responded to my post On Priors, Biases and Probabilities. It's just a comment but there are lessons to be learned from it that help us get inside the mind of a deluded intellectual like him.
Quote of the Day, by Primenumbers
You're right. Extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence. They require no evidence at all. All they require is a little faith....
The Arizona Atheist Defends the Outsider Test for Faith Against David Marshall
Previously I had written something brief in response to Marshall's chapter on the Outsider Test in the book True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism. I was thankful that at a minimum he embraces it (with caveats) against Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, Matthew Flannagan, Norman Geisler, Mark Hanna, Thomas Talbot and some others. LINK I was planning on writing a longer response but didn't get around to it. Now I don't need to, for the Arizona Atheist has done so as he's reviewing each chapter in that book. He says:
Each of David Marshall’s arguments against the OTF fail. His next tactic, regardless of how illogical it may be, is to argue that Christianity has passed the OTF “billions of times.” (59) If an argument is by its nature “flawed,” as Marshall contends, how then, can he possibly believe arguing that “billions” allegedly passing this flawed test is proof that Christians have come to their faith in a rational manner? See more here.
Faith Acts Like An Anesthetic Which Deadens the Pain Felt For Others
If you were a naked slave with your family on the auction block under the threat of the blood soaked cowskin, where your family members were bought by different masters, wouldn't YOU wish your God had clearly condemned slavery? It's as if Christians refuse to feel their pain. Feel it. The problem is that your faith acts like an anesthetic in order to believe, by deadening the pain from stepping into other people's shoes. Faith is the opiate of the masses in this sense too.
Dear Christian, Doubt is not Your Enemy (Part 2)
In this installment, dear Christian, let’s look at the role of doubt, with regard to religion and truth. Most religions have sacred books or traditions. These books make claims about all sorts of things – the origins of the world, prescriptions for daily living, and promises and threats about a supposed afterlife. The more fundamentalist the religion, the more demands it places on the believer’s mind and life. Often, fundamentalist faiths seek to impose these view by force of law, for example the Taliban and Sharia law, or religious conservatives in the U.S. who want to impose legal penalties for those who violate their beliefs or ‘offend’ their god.
Victor Reppert On Priors, Biases and Probabilities
Victor Reppert recently said:
It all depends on your priors. I think an argument can be good even when it isn't strong enough such that it ought to convince any unbiased person. An argument might provide some evidence for its conclusion, which might be sufficient or insufficient given someone's personal prior probabilities....The trouble with "unbiased persons" is that you have to go through town with a lantern in broad daylight to find one. Unless, of course, you find the ones who agree with me! :) LINK.In one sense I agree with Vic. We all have priors, that is, background knowledge, the information we have accumulated prior to encountering a new argument. We also have biases. We are prone to so many cognitive biases it's astounding. We don't reason that well because of them. When facing the fact of biases most people will even say they are not affected by them it's so bad. So I agree there are arguments that are good ones even though they cannot convince others. The problem is what Vic thinks this proves. The real problem unaddressed by him is how we can best solve this problem when it comes to debates about his evangelical faith.
On Tweets, Blogs and Books, Oh My
The mere brevity of twitter feeds doesn't allow for better clarity, explanations and argumentation, which I'll label CEA. It's the lowest level of what an author can provide given its brevity. From what I've seen, Facebook is where many authors test ideas and provoke thought, so here again isn't the best place for a great deal CEA. Blogs and videos on YouTube are much better means for providing CEA. But sometimes they too are used to test ideas and/or provoke thought. Journal articles and book length treatments of ideas, especially written by scholars and especially when peer reviewed, are the highest means to provide CEA. Now let's say a scholar tweets. Is it reasonable to pick apart the tweet rather than his peer reviewed work? Surely not. The means of a tweet prohibits CEA. Therefore one must approach a tweet by a scholar with the utmost attention to the principle of charity. Furthermore, one must pay more attention to journal articles and peer reviewed books by scholars than any undergraduate student who has an audience.
Labels: Philosophy of Religion
A Highly Recommended New Book by Victor Stenger on the Multiverse
Another book is about to be released by the prolific and very informative Victor Stenger, God and the Multiverse: Humanity's Expanding View of the Cosmos.
Given the high recommendations my suggestion is not to miss it. As a primer while you wait, you can watch NOVA The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse? Go ahead. See what you think.
A Good Reading of Ingersoll's Mistakes of Moses
The other 5 parts can be found on YouTube.
Labels: Ingersoll
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)