The saying at left is an example of ridicule, in case it isn't obvious. The same goes for this post of mine. The saying was submitted by a person named Chris to a committee of three seeking permission to use it on his Facebook page. The members of the committee include Victor Reppert, Jeff Lowder and John Loftus. Reppert demanded this committee should exist and wanted to be on it. He argued that a person who uses ridicule must be able to defend the basis of the ridicule before using it. Lowder cannot recognize some kinds of ridicule and argued it isn't as effective at changing minds as a reasoned debate. Loftus didn't want on this committee but in order to break any deadlock, he begrudgingly agreed under protest.
Let's listen in as they discuss this submitted piece of ridicule.
Vic complains about the commenters here at DC, saying they attack him. They most certainly attack his ideas. By contrast his commenters personally attack atheists and have little substance beyond that. So compare them to what sir_russ wrote below. There is some snark going on in it, but his reasoning and writing are very good.
Reppert still doesn't get it and it stuns me. Maybe he refuses to consider anything I say because I'm, well, an atheist, and he knows atheists are wrong about everything! ;-) He thinks one must come up with a argument and be able to defend it--on the Harvard Yard or something?--before being entitled to ridicule a belief. For one must be careful not to end up ridiculing a true belief. Of course, Reppert surely wants to be on the committee that decides which beliefs are false and deserving of ridicule, I'll bet.
Is he serious? I think he is.
If you have ever read Plato's Dialogues you know Socrates ridiculed his opponents. Anyone who has read the ending of the Euthyphro dilemma sees this plainly:
It would take an overwhelming amount of strong historical evidence to overcome our concrete personal experience that dead men stay dead, the kind of evidence that convinces reasonable people George Washington was the first President of the US. There's little doubt about Washington's Presidency. Why is there so much doubt about the resurrection of Jesus?
One thing about conservative Christians is that they seem to do a good job dealing with the social liberals, as far as I know. This program by David Wood is well-done and informative:
This story about Dr. David Wood, whom I recently debated on the resurrection, is shocking! [Debate to be posted soon]. David's testimony describing his life before he converted to Christ can be seen in the video below. He's describing himself even though at times he seems to be describing someone else. He descends into the subway as he tells his dark past. Then he emerges topside when describing his conversion. David tells me this video was all shot in one take. Again, his story is shocking. He once told me he could never reject Christ because he might return to his former way of life. Now I know what he means. [He sent me this link on December 11th last year, before we were set up to debate].
For anyone who thinks my deconversion story away from faith is a bit shocking (it isn't much at all) just compare David's conversion story towards faith, as seen in the video link below. If someone wants to discount my deconversion story due to my personal experiences, then how much more should they discount David's conversion story due to his personal experiences. After all, if personal experiences led us each to adopt different conclusions about God, then the personal experiences leading me to change my mind pale by comparison to his. If David adopted his faith due to the experiences he describes in the video--experiences which show him to be an irrational angry young man--then how rational could this irrational angry young man have been when he adopting his faith at that time?
It would seem David just could not stand looking at himself in the mirror any longer. His brain was in meltdown mode and needed to find some escape from the pain of it all. Usually this would lead to even more anger, but in David's case it was the anger that caused the meltdown in the first place. So another escape was needed. The escape of faith he adopted, without actually studying Christianity out first, was the one he was most familiar with, and that's it. Now he conducts an apologetics ministry to help Muslims become Christians. Had David been more familiar with Islam he would be a Muslim today. For when the brain is in meltdown mode any escape will do.
I'm starting to work on another anthology on Science and Christianity. I already have three submitted chapters and nearly ten authors who have agreed to write chapters for it. I'm looking for authors to write chapters on topics like cosmology, evolution, how evolution impacts Christianity, the scientific method, the Bethlehem star, biblical archeology, the genetics of the virgin birth, the shroud of Turin, science and miracles, the tasks of science and theology, the origins of the religious impulse, philology and the texts of the Bible, and other things like that. The late Victor Stenger left me one chapter I'll use describing religious views of the center of the earth. If you think of other areas where science comes into direct conflict with Christianity let me know. What topics are relevant and who should write them? Remember, I cannot get just anyone I want.
Here are three blurbs for my next book to be released in the Fall. It's provocatively titled, "How To Defend The Christian Faith: Advice From an Atheist."
The Hebrew Bible has achieved a remarkable feat; it has justified, in the minds of billions, what is seemingly unjustifiable—genocide. Much of the Old Testament is dedicated to defending the territorial rights of Israel, a right conferred by her deity.
"Religion is not what you believe. It's what you do."
One of the important Bible reading skills to hone is catching the Biblical writers when they are unwittingly revealing an important truth. Since these truths are generally embedded within polemics wrapped in a fabricated story to support that polemic, it is important to read cautiously.
I have eagerly awaited this book. Jerry tells me that he recommends my Outsider Test for Faith in it. Help make it a #1 book by ordering it now. You know you want it. Order it today!
It is a great pleasure to announce the publication of my new book, The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics, which, to my knowledge, is the most complete scholarly critique of the ethics of Jesus from an openly atheist biblical scholar (and just in time for Openly Secular Day!). It is available from the publisher, Sheffield Phoenix Press, and on Amazon.
historian Kevin M. Kruse reveals that the idea of “Christian America” is an invention—and a relatively recent one at that. 
The only thing more I had wished would have been his signature on it. He goes by the name Fellow Feather. He is an 87 year old "man with a mission" writes Robert M. Price in the Foreword. Price also tells us,
This one comes after the book he co-authored in 2013 with D. Brant Sandy that gained all kinds of acclaim, The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority.
To see what all the fuss is about you might just want to read this one: Four Views on the Historical Adam.
