Is there a God? CNN Special Report: Atheists: Inside the World of Non-Believers. Tonight Tuesday, March 24th at 9 ET/PT. Trailer found here. American Atheists will air the following commercial before and after the program:
Pickens County School Board decides to end 'Jesus' in all meeting prayers.(Pickens is about 20 miles from Bob Jones University, in the next county to the south.)
Where the Bible is proving to be an embarrassment.
Let’s quickly review Bob Jones University’s past as a God
fearing, Bible believing, Christ honoring institution:
A.The Bible is against race mixing. Thus, all black and dark skin students will
not be allowed to attend any of the BJU schools from kindergarten to graduate
school. Bob Jones, Sr. was an active
supporter of the Klu Klux Klan who viewed the Klan as Biblical. So, “If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Romans 8: 31)right?
Gerald Posner's new book, God's Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican is now a bestseller after being released a month ago. Well, who would have guessed that behind the Inquisitions, Crusades, Witch Hunts, wars, and child molestations that the Catholic Church was also financially corrupt?! Read this description for yourselves:
Michael Martin and Keith Augustine's massive book on the afterlife is now available. See it by clicking on it here: The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life After Death.Dr. Martin is the author of the book, The Case Against Christianity,and Augustine is executive director and scholarly paper editor of Internet Infidels. The description of their 708 page book can be read below:
Here. "Considering the catastrophic harm of the Catholic Church over the last half century, there is simply no justification for its continued existence." - Nathan Phelps, chapter 20 in Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails.
It surprises me the lengths Christians will go to mischaracterize an argument. It takes madness. I argue they should not trust their brain. It's lying to them. It didn't evolve to search for truth. The first step is to know this. The second step is to train it to think like a scientist. The brain seems to find truths inadvertently through trial and error. Science augments the truth finding capabilities already in our brain.
Plantinga's "Reformed Epistemology" is a specifically christian "epistemology." It isn't general. It won't work for everyone. If you want a "warrant for rationality" in believing in some other equally epistemically ludicrous set of metaphysical garbage, you'll have to reform epistemology for yourself, like so:
[Insert Religion] Epistemology shows that [Insert Believers] can be rational in having a "full-blooded [Insert Religion] belief" in the "the great truths of the [Insert Text]" ... because ... we [Insert Believers] have a sensus divinitatis within us, and a [Insert Religion] spirit guide who guides us to know "the great truths of the [Insert Text]."
But under this schema, there won't be just one "epistemology," like there's one "chemistry," or one "astronomy." We'll end up with a new "epistemology" for each shared delusion. So, then, that would beg the question, why doesn't each religion need it's own chemistry or astronomy too? By the rubrik that there is only one periodic table, and that we all gaze up at the same sky, likewise, as members of the same species we share essentially the same sensory and processing aparatus, so there can only be one epistemology, christian claims of a specifically christian "sixth sense" notwithstanding. Plantinga is basically saying, "You can't expect me to live in your oppressive reality, man." Is this supposed to be "rational"? Problem is, Plantinga needs another "warrant for rationality" for this. And then it's turtles all the way down
It is one thing to have a warranted belief that we are reading the Bible, so long as we’re reading it with cognitive faculties functioning properly in the right kind of cognitive environment. It is something entirely different to be reading the Bible and claim “God is speaking to me.” That additional claim is miles and miles away from what any rational person can conclude from the actual experience of reading the Bible itself. For that additional claim depends on the rationality of believing that all the ancient documents in the Bible are truly God’s word, that what they say about God, the nature of nature, and its workings are true, and that how one interprets them when reading them is correct. Since the rationality of claiming “God is speaking to me” depends on the rationality of accepting these other claims, it should be shown that it's rational to accept these other claims before one can rationally claim “God is speaking to me.” Until then the rational conclusion from reading the Bible is “I am reading the Bible,” not “God is speaking to me.”
I'm trying to meet a deadline for a new book I'm writing by the end of this month. I think I'll make it. Below are 2200 words out of a 10,000 word chapter on Christian apologetics. See what you think.
Let's have done with this nonsense shall we? The Shroud of Turin is a fake, okay? It's a fake.
To see this for what it really is just consider the many other supposed sacred relics. The Christianized medieval world was filled with them. Bones, heads, bodies, skin, and fingernails were produced, faked, bought and stolen because they were highly revered. Producing preserving promoting and presenting sacred relics to the populace was a cottage industry for the medieval Church. To climb up high on the religious prestige ladder was to have one. The more important the relic the more important the church who had it. Crowds came from around the known world to venerate these relics. They brought with them their donations. Why, you could build a cathedral with one of them! So you had to have one. A sacred relic meant a lot of power, prestige and paychecks.
One of the arguments frequently used by apologists is that Christianity must be true because there is no other plausible explanation for the rise and rapid spread of the Jesus cult except for the resurrection. This argument is a favorite of William lane Craig. It is apparently so compelling that even Anne Rice found it an impetus for faith until the obvious malfeasance of the Catholic Church drove her away.[1]
With John posting about Bruce Gerencser's deconversion account the other day, I thought it would be opportune to mention that his full story is published in a great book I edited called Beyond An Absence Of Faith: Stories About the Loss of Faith and the Discovery of Self which documents some sixteen deconversion accounts from different religions and denominations. Let me tell you about a few of them.
When I was in undergraduate and graduate school, certain
facts about Christianity were totally glossed over. We students were led to believe the
scholarly opinions of most all Ph.Ds working in seminaries and universities
training mostly Christians on how to make a living in the religious profession were solidly founded on facts and not faith.
Looking back now, basically I paid tuition to professors
who were more interested in selling a religion than finding out if the Biblical
source was indeed true (That is, their faith theory that the
Gospels began to be written down about forty years after Jesus’ death (Mark) which
begs the question as to why it took so long, forty years for a major event in
history to get recorded?).
I think many believers denigrate science as coming from mad scientists who set out to destroy their faith, because they just don't understand how science works. Here bitches! ;-)
The evidence is in, your brain lies to you. LINK. What's the solution? Train your brain to think better. It can be done. Be willing to question everything. Make doubt a habit. Where there is scholarly disagreement between peers then suspend judgment. Accept only sufficient objective evidence concerning matters of fact. Think exclusively in terms of the probabilities. Think like a scientist.
As a former Pastor, Bruce mentioned some authors that helped him deconvert (as it's called). Just today Jerry Coyne wrote about his story and stressed the value of published books, which apparently is my specialty. We're making a difference!
The Grahams: Three Generations of Wealth and Greed
"Share Jesus with your friends." (Then have them share their wallets with us!)
I can’t count the number of times have I've heard stated (while
pointing out the rich life styles of big time evangelists such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Myers and Jesse Duplantis (to name but a few));that while there are some Televangelist who exploit their position for monetary gain, Billy Graham
has been the poster evangelist for truth and honesty . . . one of the truly great Christian preachers who is only here to
preach Christ.
There are two principal ways that Christian believers dodge legitimate questions about their deity’s inadequate management of the universe—In fact one Benedict Arnold strategy of throwing one’s fellow human under the bus. First, there is free will, which God is powerless to abrogate unless it’s to get that really cute guy on Christian Mingle to fall in love with you. God wants us to love him freely, and we prefer to love orgasms; therefore, tornadoes.
The average lifespan of a Drosophila fruit fly is about 30 days. Imagine what it observes from its perspective: young humans, old humans, middle-aged humans, wandering through the world. No single fruit fly observes a human of one sort turning into another. From its "pre-theoretic" point of view, it only sees "types" of humans that are more or less "fixed" across time (the 30 days of its life). There's no direct evidence of human aging in any single fruit fly generation. Then a particularly clever fruit fly comes along and claims that -- all intuitions to the contrary -- one type of human can actually turn into another: little children can get taller, become adults, and then become gray and wizened. I understand how this might be difficult for fruit flies to accept. And yet it's true: people do age! We're in the exact same position with respect not to development, but to evolution. I understand why evolution (speciation, transmutation) is hard to believe. But a lack of imagination and openness to the evidence is no excuse in 2015. ...
Tristan Vick is the Advocatus Atheist and has interacted with Randal Rauser for a few years. This past weekend Vick released a new book dealing with the rhetoric of Rauser, titled The Swedish Fish, Deflating the Scuba Diver and Working the Rabbit's Foot, which Edward Babinski and Robert M. Price helped him on.I've seen an advanced copy and I recommended it in these words:
Randal Rauser prides himself on reaching out to atheists. But if Tristan Vick’s book is any indication, he’s failing. He’s failing precisely because he’s not really interested in searching for truth but in defending what he already believes is truth. Although Vick doesn’t have the credentials Rauser has, it doesn’t take much to find fault with the rhetoric that Rauser substitutes in place of good arguments. Tristan Vick effectively demonstrates he will say just about anything in defense of his faith. Well done Tristan!
I'm going recap how Rauser has done so far, and give my predictions of upcoming projects.
August 15, 2012. A gun wielding man named Floyd Lee Corkins attacks the offices of the homophobic Christian group Family Research Council (FRC) in Washington, DC, intending to kill "as many people as possible", yet is stopped from killing anyone by a man who gets seriously injured in the process. Even though he later pleads guilty and is now serving a long prison sentence, in the opinion of FRC chair Tony Perkins, he is not the only one responsible for the attack.
The Des Moines Registerhas published my comments on The True Religion Trap, which is one of the most dangerous ideas permeating our society—from the average citizen to our world leaders.
British atheist and Freethinker George William Foote (1850-1915) wrote:
Goldsmith said there are two classes of people who dread ridicule–priests and fools. They cry out that it is no argument, but they know it is. It has been found the most potent form of argument. Euclid used it in his immortal Geometry; for what else is the reductio ad absurdum which he sometimes employs? Elijah used it against the priests of Baal. The Christian fathers found it effective against the Pagan superstitions, and in turn it was adopted as the best weapon of attack on them by Lucian and Celsus. Ridicule has been used by Bruno, Erasmus, Luther, Rabelais, Swift, and Voltaire, by nearly all the great emancipators of the human mind. ["On Ridicule" Seasons of Freethought, 2013, page 260. See the tag "Ridicule" below for others who embrace it.]
Sometimes I think people are using my material without giving me credit. Nonetheless, this is a very good video and I'm happy my ideas are getting out there. I may have linked to it before. Keep in mind I don't endorse every specific thing said. The only person I agree with 100% is me, but even then there are times I disagree later. ;-)
On Facebook I listed a few criteria for accepting friend requests. One person quoted one of them (in yellow) and responded in a comment. This will be my standard response to such efforts. Since belief springs from a blinded ignorance and since as a non-believer I have read extensively, then I have much more to teach most believers than they could possibly teach me.
While many conservative Christian schools require a
affirmation of faith in the Bible, Bob Jones University carries this process one step further by having
two of their science professors offer an apologetic defense of the Bible . . . something one
would expect of their mentally programmed Bible Faculty (one cannot teach religion at
BJU with a degree in Christian studies from another institution. If you want proof, then checkout their Faculty – Division of Bibleand Seminary and Graduate School of Religion.) In
order to teach in the Science Department at BJU,
all professors are required to sign
a yearly statement of faith which includes affirming the following dogmas. An Affirmation of Biblical Creation at Bob Jones University
Who says ridicule, and now shaming, doesn't work? No one, probably, but it does, most emphatically, as I've written in several posts to date. Now there is a call to ridicule and shame the anti-vaccine movement, just as we do to the KKK. Now, let's consider the impact of ridicule and shame on religions like Christianity and Islam. No wonder Muslims don't like being ridiculed. They know where it can lead.
"The God of Thunder is making a triumphant return
to Iceland. After 1,000 years without a temple of worship to the Norse gods,
Iceland is resurrecting its pagan roots."
Now the dust has settled on the Charlie Hebdo affair (though, of course, there is no respite in the Middle East, or in Nigeria or Somalia), I thought it might be a good time to post this article here (it was originally at my blog here). The idea is not to demonise Islam unnecessarily - that helps no one - but to give credit (!) where credit is due. I am interested in truth. I want to look, with this piece, at whether Islam has causal responsibility in some important part, in its core ideals and motifs, for such violence. Buckle up.
The problem with theism is not only that it is false, but encourages cosmic myopia. In the face of countless competing claims, the believer insists that it is his story that answers the world's important questions.
Someone named Bryan on Twitter said this to me: "Your chapter in your new anthology on slavery is a faith-destroyer. Well done." Music to my ears of course, since, well, I agree. ;-) Go get it, now! Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails.
Here is Part 2 of my discussion/debate with David Marshall on the Unbelievable? podcast. LINK. Part 1 can be found here. Since Part 1 was aired last week I've written a three part review of David Marshall's book to be read here, seen in reverse chronological order. There the listener can see exactly why my last comment in Part 2 of this program was that Marshall's book is "entirely irrelevant to the evidence demanded for testing one's faith. And I find that even though Randal Rauser has switched sides apparently, by recommending this book...Marshall doesn't even understand the problem." Now aside from what I've written earlier about Marshall's book, there are three more important things to say about it.
Why? I'll tell you why. Because theists gravitate to that field, that's why. In fact, given that they do gravitate to that field, the fact that there aren't MORE theists working in it tells us something interesting about the philosophy of religion (PoR) itself. I've been arguing that the PoR should end in the secular universities. A new study confirms what I'm saying since the discipline isn't even able to keep those believers who enter it! That's the take away from a recent study of the figures.
Christian intellectuals chide me when I say faith is irrational. "No it's not" they say. "You're so ignorant Loftus." Really? Seriously? Okay then, please explain why I saw this picture on Facebook just now. Anyone else find some good ones on faith for the faithful? And the new definition of mine?
"Faith is trusting in a god whom we know is trustworthy because we have faith that he's trustworthy." --You can quote me on this! ;-)
Well, who would have guessed that behind the Inquisitions, Crusades, Witch Hunts, wars, and child molestations that the Catholic Church was also financially corrupt?! Read this description for yourselves:
Dr. Martin is the author of the book, The Case Against Christianity,
and Augustine is executive director and scholarly paper editor of Internet Infidels. The description of their 708 page book can be read below:
As I said yesterday, "It surprises me the lengths Christians will go to mischaracterize an argument. It takes madness." This describes David Marshall's book. I wrote a review of his book on Amazon titled, Marshall's Book Is Completely Irrelevant To The Truth of Christianity and He Doesn't Even Realize It. If you like what I wrote any upvotes would be very appreciated.
I've seen an advanced copy and I recommended it in these words: 
He tells me that he highly recommends my book The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True
in it.
