On Lowder's Stupid Atheist Meme #4: “Let’s Put an End to the Philosophy of Religion!”

Jeff Lowder again, with another so-called "Stupid Atheist Meme." One of the reasons I have publicly exposed Jeff Lowder's dishonesty and hypocrisy is because he has successfully convinced people into thinking he's a philosopher when he is not, which I consider his biggest con. He has a college degree in computer science and is well-read in the area of philosophy of religion, okay. But I have found him to be ignorant many times. His biggest ignorances have to do with taking positions against those I have taken, so it does matter that people see who he really is. For if he's considered a full credentialed philosopher with a Ph.D., then what he says is taken more seriously than what I say. His all white male philosophy student cheerleaders defend him because he has successfully conned them. They say there have been many philosophers in the past who didn't have Ph.D.'s, like Socrates, Aristotle, Descartes and Aquinas, which I know all too well. That is irrelevant. I'm arguing Lowder lacks the depth and breadth necessary to have earned a Ph.D. in philosophy.

What I'm writing is helpful. One person wrote:

I have been using the Internet Infidels for about 15 years now. The essays therein has helped me in my philosophical path from "angry antitheism" to a more moderate nontheism. And in all those time I have thought JJ Lowder is a philosopher. I don't know why I had that impression, but I did. Maybe subtle hints in his online writings made me believe that he is one. If you had not exposed his actual academic background, I would still think he is a PhD-toting analytic philosopher. LINK.

Read more »

My Intervention With Christian Apologist John D. Ferrer

Ferrer seems young to me but he teaches at a community college, is respectful and fairly smart. He unfairly reviewed my book "The Outsider Test for Faith" though. On Facebook I wrote this teaser:

Yes, Christian apologists are lying. But no, I don't think they consciously realize it. The answer to this dilemma is in how the brain works. It lies to us. It didn't evolve to arrive at the truth in the first place. It evolved because of the value of survival. I describe this process in chapter 3 of "How To Defend The Christian Faith". What an amazing and fruitful study the brain must be!

Below you can read Ferrer's comments and my "intervention" as Peter Boghossian calls it. Or, you might be able to see it by following this link (the discussion is ongoing). I think my intervention is very effective even if it was very short. So far Ferrer has not responded.

Read more »

Why Do Tom Gilson and Tim McGrew Disagree With What Peter Boghossian Actually Does?

Here's a comment I left on Tom Gilson's blog Thinking Christian, where Tom expresses his and McGrew's disagreement with Boghossian's actual practice of using questions to get people to think deeper about what they believe. Do Tom and Tim represent the Thinking Christian or not? Do they advocate thinking? Or are thinking Christians not needed? Yes, I'm serious!

Tom, I don't think you should be disagreeing with the actual practice of what Boghossian does, regardless of his motivations. You mentioned Josh McDowell, who does this same thing. As a result Dustin Lawson, McDowell's former protege, left the faith. So? You should still do what Josh McDowell does if you think truth will win out. In my forthcoming book which you should read titled, "How To Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist", one of the most important chapters is "Become an Honest Life-Long Seeker of Truth." You should advocate the same thing. Here's a link to info about it.

The very fact that you disagree with what Boghossian actually does leaves me wondering if you think it's wrong to start the "hapless Christian" on an intellectual journey. If you represent the "party of true reason" you should be happy he does this because truth should win the day. In fact, he might be sending Christian people to read your book(s).

You should pick up more converts from Boghossian's efforts. You should pick up better informed Christians from his efforts. What am I missing?

Whether It’s an Apparition of The Virgin Mary or an Apparition of Bigfoot: What’s the Difference?

Bigfoot  Sighted in North Carolina

Reported in the Citizen-Times:

Tourist claims Bigfoot sighting in Henderson County

“A reader in Henderson County sent in this video showing what he believed to be Sasquatch. Spotted Thursday morning near Hendersonville. Aug. 6, 2015

HENDERSONVILLE – A Boone man vacationing in Henderson County says he spotted – and videoed – what he believes to be a Bigfoot.

You'll have to be the judge on this one. Eric Walters just asks that viewers keep an open mind.

Read more »

Hemant Mehta May Not Understand the Problem, But Here's A Solution

Earlier I had written a post where I expressed a reservation that atheists are largely talking to themselves about atheistic concerns, rather than trying to convince Christians to abandon their faith. While I didn't single Hemant Mehta out or anything, he kindly responded, explaining Why I Don’t Explicitly Debunk Religious Arguments. He agrees that counter-apologetics are important and should be done. However, in his response he says why this isn't his focus. Here are his six reasons with key explanatory quotes from him:

1) It’s been done in this medium.

There are no arguments Christians have that I can’t find strong rebuttals to via a Google search. People have been writing about things like Pascal’s Wager for a looooong time. So doing that on this site, when those explanations already exist to my satisfaction on other sites, seems unnecessary.

Yes, in a way Christian theism was dealt a death blow by Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), then fatally stabbed by Thomas Paine (1737-1809] and burned to ashes by Robert Ingersoll (1833–1899). The death of God was facilitated by others, including many Christian thinkers themselves, until he was declared dead in the 1960's. This all happened long before the so-called new atheists, who opened this debate up for discussion to the wider public. But if the arguments for Christianity have all been demolished--and I agree they have--why were the new atheists needed? For publicity? If so, I'd say even THAT is a good enough reason to never lose sight of the goal, to try to reach believers with solid counter-arguments they have never heard before. Yes, many Christians have never heard any good counter-argument to their faith, or if they have they didn't take it seriously. So Christians must be made to deal with them at every reasonable opportunity.

There is now a second wave of atheist scholars who are following on the heels of the new atheists, some of whom have written chapters for my anthologies. Why are they needed? Answer that question and you'll see why we must always be diligent in the cause for doubt. The answer is because Christian scholars are extremely resilient. They are experts in obfuscating legalese who can find loopholes for the possibilities of faith no matter how small. And they are being heard by rank and file Christians who don't know any better. They have so fine-tuned their arguments to make it appear their faith is reasonable, despite the arguments of Hume, Paine, Ingersoll, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and some others.

I have written a book to be released soon detailing exactly what these Christian apologists are doing to maintain the fires of faith, called How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist. You cannot make a big impact into future Christianity if you don't understand what their scholars have been doing. Most atheists have basically fallen asleep at the wheel while driving toward a secular society. In my opinion most atheists think religion and Christianity have already been debunked such that there is no need to continue to man the fort, no need for watchmen at the gates, and no need to make sure our weapons have been upgraded to resist the next onslaught from the believing barbarians. {Good, eh?} That is our big mistake, and I'm not joking.

Now for the rest of Hemant's reasons, which have common themes to them.

Read more »

The Stupidity of Jeff Lowder: "Nontheists Should Stop Using 'Freethought' as an Umbrella Term"

Jeff Lowder again, with today's post: "Stupid Atheist Meme #3: Freethinker = Atheist." He may be baiting me so I won't continue dogging his every step, just a few of them as I see fit. Jeff Lowder smuggled his way into being known and respected as a philosopher without any relevant credentials. I aim to "out" him about this. Don't shoot me I'm just the messenger. If you're looking for a more accurate analysis of philosophical arguments then I bid you turn elsewhere. I am banned from commenting at the Secular Outpost because I have publicly exposed Jeff Lowder's dishonesty and hypocrisy, so in order to comment on a post of his I must do so here. Okay.

First let me point out more of his hypocrisy. A while back Dan Fincke, a former Freethought Blogger, issued a pledge to civility. Jeff Lowder endorsed it with his full support. Afterwards Greta Christina published her book, Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless.Lowder has yet to state for the record that he disproves of the tone and/or substance of that book since she is definitely not being civil to religionists. So his supporting the civility pledge doesn't mean much. I consider this more of his hypocrisy, as I wrote earlier. Now why is he a hypocrite? For one reason. To please important people. He will, on occasion, say what needs to be said to please them, hoping no one notices his hypocrisy. People call that being two-faced. [For my part I reserve the right to piss people off and I can like Greta Christina's book because I never signed that unbalanced pledge].

But to the point of today's lesson. Lowder once again is spouting ignorances. He calls himself a philosopher but he lacks both the knowledge and thinking skills to be awarded that accolade. See for yourselves. He claimed it is stupid to think of a Freethinker as an atheist. Not just wrong, mind you. Stupid. Let's see who the stupid one is, shall we, and why.

Read more »

Can Someone Deny That Philosophy Matters Without Also Affirming Its Importance?

This meme (as it's called) is making it's way around the web. The point is that  philosophy matters even to people who deny its importance. Now I don't deny the importance of philosophy, nor the value of the philosophy of religion if done correctly  [On this see tag below].

However, philosophy must not be considered equivalent to reasoning, otherwise there is no content to the discipline of philosophy. Scientists must reason to be scientists, but that isn't the same thing as discussing Aquinas. The mere use of logic and the avoidance of fallacies shouldn't be considered philosophical reasoning in and of themselves. Philosophy helps by discovering the rules we debate the issues with, but not everything discussed using these rules is to be considered philosophy.

Christian Apologists Dishonestly Discuss Peter Boghossian's Method

In Boghossian's book A Manual for Creating Atheists,he talks about being a Street Epistemologist, which is a person who uses the Socratic method of dialectically asking a series of questions to get people to realize they are pretending to know what they don't know. Pretending. That's Boghossian's definition of faith. Believers are pretending when they claim to know with 100% certainty that what they believe is true. The antidote for this faith virus, as he calls it, is the Socratic method. Below is a video of what Tom Gilson and Timothy McGrew claim he's doing compared with what he's actually doing. What they claim is false, and the evidence that it's false is just not found in his book, but also in several video clips. More liars for Jesus. When evangelicals feel threatened why do they need to lie for Jesus? But they do. I'm hoping that by highlighting these liars for Jesus that honest Christians will look elsewhere for honest discussions of their faith, rather than paid apologists serving in creedal affirming evangelical colleges.

IF LIBRARIANS WERE HONEST

IF LIBRARIANS WERE HONEST, by Joseph Mills.

If librarians were honest,
they wouldn’t smile, or act
welcoming. They would say,
You need to be careful. Here
be monsters. They would say,
These rooms house heathens
and heretics, murderers and
maniacs, the deluded, desperate,
and dissolute. They would say,
These books contain knowledge
of death, desire, and decay,
betrayal, blood, and more blood;
each is a Pandora’s box, so why
would you want to open one.
They would post danger
signs warning that contact
might result in mood swings,
severe changes in vision,
and mind-altering effects.
If librarians were honest
they would admit the stacks
can be more seductive and
shocking than porn. After all,
once you’ve seen a few
breasts, vaginas, and penises,
more is simply more,
a comforting banality,
but the shelves of a library
contain sensational novelties,
a scandalous, permissive mingling
of Malcolm X, Marx, Melville,
Merwin, Millay, Milton, Morrison,
and anyone can check them out,
taking them home or to some corner
where they can be debauched
and impregnated with ideas.
If librarians were honest,
they would say, No one
spends time here without being
changed. Maybe you should
go home. While you still can.

Another Example of Jeff Lowder's College Level Approach to the Philosophy of Religion

Jeff Lowder smuggled his way into being known and respected as a philosopher without any relevant credentials. I aim to "out" him about this. Don't shoot me I'm just the messenger. If you're looking for a more accurate analysis of philosophical arguments then I bid you turn elsewhere. I am banned from commenting at the Secular Outpost because I have publicly exposed Jeff Lowder's dishonesty and hypocrisy, so in order to comment on a post of his I must do so here. Okay.

I first want readers to notice how he dishonestly presents the impression that he is a philosopher. In a recent post on morality he writes as follows:

The concept of “objective morality” is notorious for its ambiguity. You might even say that people–or, at least, philosophers–have a moral obligation not to use that expression unless and until they first give a very nuanced definition of what it means! Because the concept is often misunderstood, I’m going to try to offer a “layman’s guide to moral objectivity” in this post.

Let’s start with “morality.” The average person who is not a philosopher probably thinks there is just the one ‘thing,’ morality, and that’s the end of it. In fact, the topic is a little bit more complicated than that. Non-philosophers might be surprised to learn that philosophers make a distinction between the good (values) and the right (duties). LINK.

If you don't see this for what it is, or object to his use of language then you should. In a post sometime back, Lowder talked about having written "a paper", which real philosophers know is a technical term for something one reads at a philosophical conference (just think of a "call for papers"), or it refers to something that will be published in a peer reviewed journal. What he wrote was neither of these things, just the dishonest use of language.

Read more »

When Will Apologist David Marshall Learn He's Out of His League? Never?

I've gone round and round with Marshall, almost always to no avail (with at least one exception below). Where has he been lately? He's decided to challenge some fella named Matthew Ferguson who said: "...it is clear to me that the Gospels are not historical writing. These texts instead read like ancient prose novels . . . the Gospels all fall short from the criteria that can be used to categorize a piece of historical prose." Marshall all too quickly responded as if Ferguson was some kind of duffas, claiming he was the expert, and that Ferguson had not seriously studied the Gospels. So what are Ferguson's credentials? He says,

I am a Classics Ph.D. student who also holds an M.A. in the subject with an emphasis in ancient history. Such experience has involved studying multiple Greek and Latin authors in the original language, in addition to doing genre criticism and understanding the history of 1st century CE literature. I have likewise taken graduate seminars on the New Testament and Christian Origins.

Big Oops! So when Marshall heard this he does the backstep dance routine we're so used to here, rather than apologizing for rashly jumping to a conclusion like he did. Ferguson:

After Marshall posted his first comment on my essay, in which he claimed that I had not seriously studied the Gospels, he did not like the fact that my reply emphasized my experience studying Classical languages. Marshall accused me of “waving around my credentials” when I stated that I had studied a wide array of literature from the 1st century CE (including the NT) in the original language.

Which is it Marshall? You blamed him for not being informed but when it was clear he was more informed than you, then you blamed him for telling you he was an expert. To read a serious take down of Marshall, his level of competence and his behavior when caught red-handed read through this.

There are a few additional items we've written on Marshall's style and substance here at DC. Notice the titles, if nothing else:

Read more »

Muslim, Orthodox Jews and Christian Sophisticated Theologians

When I see how the Muslims and Orthodox Jews justify treating women as second class citizens at best, and the male brutality at worst, I think of Christian justifications for their faith and morals. It's the same word salad intended to skirt around the fact that the evidence for their faith and morals is just not there.

National Geographic demonstrates what happens when you blindfold people using a ouija board.

This is what it means to think like a scientist, except that one shouldn't be afraid of stating the obvious conclusion at the end.

My New Inquisitive Minds Podcast

This is Part 2 of my interview (apx. 30 minutes) with Dr. André Gagné, Costa Babalis, and Calogero Miceli of the Inquisitive Minds podcasts. I discuss a wide array of questions regarding the Historical Jesus, health care and the rise of Christianity, scarce resource theory in relation to religion and violence, the role and responsibilities of biblical and scholars of religion in today's world, the end of biblical studies, and my future research projects. I recorded it in Montreal, Canada on June 15, 2015.  If you have not already done so, you also can also listen to  Part 1. 

Read more »

When Your Muslim Coach Prays

There is no one way to pray

I have written a column on the routine attempt to Christianize college sports teams.  The idea that student-athletes "need" spiritual guidance is itself a biased religionist assumption that is too often unchallenged. There is no single way to pray, and the idea that all Christians pray in the same way is also untrue.

Dr. Karl Gilberson's Open Letter to The New President of Northwest Nazarene University

Dear President Pearsall:

The time has come to fight back against the fundamentalists who are destroying the mind--not to mention the heart and soul--of American evangelical Christianity, including your university.

You have just assumed the presidency of Northwest Nazarene University (NNU) under a dark cloud. Your predecessor, David Alexander, resigned in disgrace amidst a scandal that seems to be growing, and you unexpectedly found yourself in an office that you did not seek, confronted with problems that you did not create. The greatest of these problems was your predecessor's termination of Tom Oord, a popular professor and your school's leading scholar.

In terminating Oord, Alexander caved in to pressure from Christian fundamentalists who wanted Oord's ideas--like evolution--removed from the classrooms of NNU. And this happened despite longstanding commitments to intellectual diversity and openness in colleges and universities. As you begin your presidency, you will find yourself surrounded by these same fundamentalists. Oord may leave but they will remain. And they will pressure you to remove other scholars who promote ideas they don't like. Please don't listen to them.

Read more »

On Atheist Irrelevancy and Myopia: "I have found only two blogs that focus on debunking Christianity"

Robert Miller wrote me saying,

The Internet has more Christian apologists than a horse has hairs and many blogs by atheists or skeptics, but I have found only two blogs that focus on debunking Christianity or Christian apologetics. Yours and Cross-Examined. Do you know of any other blogs or websites that look at New Testament issues from a skeptical point of view?

I'm assuming Miller is speaking of sites that focus exclusively on debunking Christian apologetics. I am happy Miller found this site, that's always good to know. However, I find his question both interesting and provocative. I ask my readers to comment on other blogs that seek to do this exact same thing. I'm sure there are others. But I'm not sure there are others more popular than the two blogs he mentioned. And between us, only one has multiple authors with advanced degrees writing for it.

But, if Miller's observation is largely true, we have a serious problem. It means atheists are largely talking to themselves about atheistic concerns.

Read more »

Two More Blurbs For My Book, "How to Defend the Christian Faith"

My next book, to be published by Pitchstone Publishing in November, is provocatively titled: How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.Here are two more blurbs for it:

Read more »

Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Just think of the Outsider Test for Faith here! Funny stuff!

Evidence Without Reason is Lame, Reason Without Evidence is Blind

Earlier I issued a challenge to creationists right here. It has generated quite a storm of controversy. For some reason whenever we argue against creationism or faith itself, this happens. At issue this time is whether philosophy is considered to be evidence, or even helpful at all. Creationists are arguing that it is. Others disagree vehemently. To help answer this issue let's consider for comparison the well-known aphorism, "Science without philosophy is lame, philosophy without science is blind." [Most people substitute the word "religion" for "philosophy" as quoted originally by Einstein]. If we take this aphorism and correctly unpack it, the point being made is this:

Evidence without reason is lame, reason without evidence is blind.

For if by philosophy we mean the use of good critical thinking skills, then evidence can be "hamstrung" by people with poor critical thinking skills. Creationists fit the first part of this aphorism perfectly. They don't really know what constitutes as evidence, even while dealing with the evidence. For the lack of evidence is not evidence for creation. The lack of evidence is merely the lack of evidence, get it?! Moreover, just as the tools for digging up treasures in the ground are not themselves the treasures found, so also the rules of logic that help us reason correctly are not themselves the evidence found either. So creationists also fit the second half of this aphorism perfectly. They are using reason to skirt or ignore the evidence because they are blind to it. Have you ever heard of the phrase "He's too smart for his own good"? That describes a person who can justify almost anything. Christians have had some really smart pseudo-intellectuals down through the centuries who can fool anyone who wants to be fooled. Faith causes people to want to be fooled, while faith causes the brain of the pseudo-intellectual to lie to its host. Blind is a perfect metaphor for creationists.

My Challenge to Intelligent Design Creationists

I received a message that essentially said: "As a scientist I believe God used evolution to bring life forms into existence." My response is short but sweet:

Where is the evidence that evolution is being guided by a god? Asking for this evidence is a reasonable request. But it doesn't exist. No one ever observes a god doing anything. Since this evidence doesn't exist, the god hypothesis is an unnecessary one. An unnecessary hypothesis is one we can do without. To accept some other reason apart from science to believe that a god guides evolution, is accepting that which lies outside the parameters of science. Since science is the only way to know the nature of nature and its workings, a god probably isn't guiding evolution.

John Schneider On the Accreditation of Bethel College and Calvin College

Previously I've argued that College Accreditation Should Be Denied To All Evangelical Institutions That Require Professors To Sign Doctrinal Statements. Recently in response to professor Jim Stump's forced resignation from Bethel College over the issue of evolution, John Schneider, a professor who was forced to resign from Calvin College, wrote on Facebook:

Bethel is apparently circling the wagons and eliminating a hundred questions that create intellectual ambiguity of a sort that would sink their financial ship. I understand why they are doing so, but I also wish that the accrediting agencies would sink the accreditation ship for such schools. IMO they do not offer bona fide academic educations in key areas.

I never thought I'd hear a Christian professor say that. Kudos!

DR. ROBERT MYLES AND THE BAD JESUS: AN ANDROCENTRIC DEFENSE OF FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD ABANDONMENT?

Dr. Robert Myles of the University of Auckland (New Zealand) has reviewed The Bad Jesus in two parts available here and here. 

Dr. Robert Myles

He is the first biblical scholar to perform such a review of The Bad Jesus on the blogosphere. I was especially interested in his comments because he specializes in New Testament and Christian origins, as well as in Marxism and critical theory. 

Myles is also the author of The Homeless Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), which treats a few of the subjects I do.

That book offers many provocative observations, and I recommend it to anyone interested in issues of poverty and homelessness in the Bible. His book came to my attention too far into the editing process of my book, and I did not include it in my discussions. I did read it by the time I wrote this post.

Although Myles’ review raises some interesting questions, it ultimately does not represent my arguments very accurately or address them very effectively.  I will demonstrate that his review actually is, in part, an androcentric defense of the abandonment of families by Jesus’ disciples. I will address the objections he raises against my methodology and my discussion of Jesus’ view of abandoning families, especially in the case of the men he called to be his disciples in Mark 1:16-20 because that is one main example Myles chose from my book.

Read more »

Richard Carrier Announces A Special Auction of Elegant Bound Hardcover Editions of His Most Popular Books

Dr. Carrier is auctioning off three of his books. Making a living as an independent scholar cannot be easy. So if you're interested in helping him by supporting his work and activism then bid on these books, and spread the word. LINK.

Why Academic Biblical Scholars MUST Fight Creationism

I have written an essay discussing why debates between academic biblical scholars and creationists can be effective in combating creationism. In fact, academic biblical scholars are the best persons to debate creationists. The reason is simple. The Achilles’ Heel of creationism is its biblical illiteracy, and not just its scientific illiteracy. I address many of the common objections to public debating, including the objection that it legitimizes creationists and does not change any minds. The essay appears in Bible & Interpretation, an on-line magazine devoted to biblical studies.  Photo credit: Iowa State Daily, which took the photo at the debate between myself and Rev. Juan Valdes, a young earth creationist, in Indianola, Iowa on February 16, 2014.

Is Faith To Be Defined As Trust?

Some Christians claim faith is something like 'trusting, holding to and acting on what one has good reason to believe is true in the face of difficulties', or 'trust or confidence in something or someone.'

This is not correct. From the New Testament down through centuries of church theology and even today, Christians have produced a multiple number of mutually discordant definitions of faith. David Eller says: “the concept of belief in Western civilization and Christianity has evolved, from a kind of “trust” in god(s) to specific propositions about God and Christ to the notion of “grace” based on the personal experience of and commitment to God…The evolutionary trajectory of belief in Christianity is, then…culturally and religiously relative.” (Quoted in Loftus, The Outsider Test for Faith, p. 33)]

Read more »

The Bad Jesus Podcast

The first first podcast (apx. 30 minutes) of two I recorded in Montreal is now available. Among other things, I discuss my journey from Pentecostal preacher to atheist biblical scholar, and why Jesus cannot be viewed as a peaceful, gender egalitarian, and eco-friendly paragon of virtue. My thanks to Dr. André Gagné, Costa Babalis, and Calogero Miceli of Concordia University in Montreal for their work on this.

Read more »

"The Evolution Wars Are Here to Stay and Heads Will Continue to Roll."

Jim Stump, a professor at Bethel College in Indiana, resigned over the issue of evolution. As reported by Karl W. Gilberson (who is quoted in the headline),

"the Bethel Board of Trustees on June 9 of this year approved a new policy specifying that college faculty must affirm the same position on Adam and Eve as the Missionary Church, namely that Adam “was created by an immediate act of God and not by a process of evolution.” The new policy further specifies that Bethel faculty should advocate this as the “official, meritorious, and theologically responsible position of the College, without disparagement" LINK.

This reminds me once again of John Schneider's comment on my post titled, "Honest Evangelical Scholarship is a Ruse. There is No Such Thing!" Schneider said, "I agree with John W. Loftus to that extent. There is no such thing. Like Islam, evangelical Christianity cannot survive intellectual honesty and freedom." LINK. This is taking place along with the debate evangelicals are presently having over homosexuality. Must be fun being an evangelical these days. Not!

Nonetheless, evolutionary science and the acceptance of gays and of gay marriages will be the wave of the future. Evangelicals will learn to embrace those views while still claiming to be evangelicals. It will become the new evangelical orthodoxy in the future, as I have predicted. Then amnesia will set in, and future evangelicals will claim that true evangelicals always stood for these things! Their amnesia will provide quite the laugh to the rest of us, because we have already seen it with regard to other views of theirs, such as believing in an eternal conscious torment in hell and an exclusivistic salvation, and standing against both higher biblical criticism and women in leadership roles.

John Loftus Takes On Christian Apologists Norman Geisler, Frank Turek, William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, Dave Hunt, Ben Witherington III, Victor Reppert, Gregory Ganssel, Craig Evans, Stewart Goetz, Daniel Wallace, Plus Others for the Win, and Guess Who Won?

I did! Here's the story.

A former Christian named ToonForever described why he no longer believes:

I decided that in order to avoid prejudicing myself toward my doubts, something I always accused T of doing when she left the faith, I would find a well-recommended apologetics book and give God the first and best chance of answering my questions and calming my fears.

For the Pro side of the argument, I downloaded to my Kindle Norman Geisler’s [and Frank Turek's] I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.

I already knew what book I would choose for the Con side of the conversation. I wanted to read the book that made me the most afraid, because that would be the greatest challenge. If I could get through that with my faith intact, I could set aside my doubts and at least approach the meditation question with the confidence that would come from overcoming what to me was the sternest challenge I could find. So I downloaded Loftus’ Why I Became an Atheist (Revised & Expanded).

I got a blank steno pad and started reading Geisler.

Read more »

Aren't Abusive Relationships Basically Cut From the Same Cloth?

Chapter Titles for My Next Proposed Anthology

Below you can see the chapter titles and subjects I have. The anthology centers around science and Christianity. I've lined up 15 chapters. Some important topics have already been covered in my previous anthologies, so I don't need to duplicate them. What is missing? Who should write it?

[Edit on December 17,2015. This is the finalized list below. Unfortunately I was not able to write a chapter myself due to unforeseen circumstances. I did however, write a challenging Introduction. Hell yeah!]

Read more »

Jim West and White Privilege in the Society of Biblical Literature

"Doctor" Jim West

Jim West, who is known to many readers here, is causing a heated discussion among some members of the Society of Biblical Literature, the largest professional organization of biblical scholars in the world.

The latest uproar was precipitated by a blog post where West complains about academia today. In particular, West claims that:

 “Minorities and women have a better chance of getting an academic position than white males. It’s reverse discrimination, but they don’t mind. The gay asian woman can write her own ticket.”

West does not supply any data for this or his other claims, and a simple visit to the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature shows that it is overwhelmingly composed of Euroamerican biblical scholars. I am one of the very few Mexican Americans in the Society of Biblical Literature.

But more importantly, West fails to see how it is he who has benefited from privileges that minorities might not receive.

Read more »

As Christianity Dies, Church and Clergy Should be Replaced with Rent-A-Friend

Christianity is losing members and churches are closing their doors forever, so I propose that parish clergy be replaced with what I coined as  Rent-A-Friend or simply a striped down version of Pastoral Care without the dogmatic supernatural mythology.

Read more »

Divine Hate - He Who Does Not Believe Will Be Condemned

This is an Ad for a book I've recommended. Click on the link below to buy it on Amazon.

Read more »

We Are All Atheists! Some Of Us Are More Consistent Than Others

Christian, you are already an atheist, a narrow atheist, who rejects all of the same religions I do for the same reasons I do, except for yours. I simply reject them all, as a wide atheist, for the same reasons you reject all of them but yours.

Follow-ups:

Why is it so difficult for you to show me and billions of others your faith is correct?

Why is it people who were raised in a particular faith end up defending it as the true one later in life?

Why is it you never seriously considered Hinduism or Judaism or Buddhism or Islam or Polytheism?

What best explains why religions are geographically located into specific regions on the earth?

Do you realize that Muslims have the same exact excuses you use to excuse your God's inaction? Allah is hidden. Infidels don't believe because Allah predestined this, or because they are rebellious, or because devil's have deceived them.

Blair Mullins (On Facebook): Imagine if belief in the cause of dinosaur extinction worked the way religion does.

-Scientists who were born and raised in the south believe asteroids killed them off.
-Scientists born in the north believe it was a gigantic volcano eruption.
-Scientists born in Asia believe it was a plague.
-Scientists born in Europe believe it was an ice age that wiped them out.

We would all immediately recognize the absurdness of this… But for some reason change the topic from dinosaur extinction to religion and somehow people deem it reasonable… Go figure!

Dr. Brandon Withrow Abandons His Faith and His Faculty Position

Brandon G. Withrow was an assistant professor of the history of Christianity and religious studies at Winebrenner Theological Seminary. He recently wrote a coming out essay, titled Losing Faith in Religious Higher Education, for the Chronicle of Higher Education. I find what he wrote very insightful.

Like many of the unaffiliated in America, my problems with religion included biblical, social, personal, and scientific issues, the fine details of which are beyond this short article.

Read more »

Dr. John Schneider Comments On Evangelical Scholarship

I have made the argument, in a post I keep updating, that Honest Evangelical Scholarship is a Ruse. There is No Such Thing! John Schneider, former professor emeritus of theology at Calvin College, said of it on Facebook: "I agree with John W. Loftus to that extent. There is no such thing. Like Islam, evangelical Christianity cannot survive intellectual honesty and freedom." Schneider, just like several other professors in various evangelical colleges before him, was forced to quit teaching at Calvin College due to his honest admission that the Adam and Eve story is myth. See also this story, this one, and this one. The Adam and Eve controversy is presently wreaking havoc within evangelical colleges like Bryan College, which lost nearly 25% of its faculty.

Karl Gilberson, in his newly released book Saving the Original Sinner: How Christians Have Used the Bible's First Man to Oppress, Inspire, and Make Sense of the World, makes the case against Adam and Eve and shows why evangelicalism isn't the direction of the future.You can look inside the book on Amazon where Gilberson highlights Schneider's story in the Introduction. Evangelical scholarship is indeed a ruse. There is no such thing! It is pseudo-scholarship. Period.

Jewish Professor Uri Yosef's Counter-Christian Essays

Previously I highly recommended Michael Alter's encyclopedic book on the resurrection. I noted Alter didn't discuss the Suffering Servant in his book, so he sent me a link to someone who did, Professor Uri Yosef.

Professor Uri Yosef was born, raised, and educated in Israel, and completed his higher education (Ph.D. and M.B.A.) in the US. A researcher, scholar, and former tenured professor, Uri speaks at various Jewish venues about the efforts to counter Christian missionary groups. Uri's background in languages includes: Hebrew (native tongue), English, German, and Yiddish on a fluent level.

Scroll down this page to the Suffering Servant link and see for yourselves:

My Forthcoming Book Is Now Available For Pre-Order On Amazon

My book is provocatively titled How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.You love it, don't you? Go ahead, say you do! It's introduced by my publisher (not me) as follows:

The first book on Christian apologetics written by a leading atheist figure that teaches Christians the best and worst arguments for defending their faith against attack.

The Christian faith has been vigorously defended with a variety of philosophical, historical, and theological arguments, but many of the arguments that worked in an earlier age no longer resonate in today’s educated West. Where has apologetics gone wrong? What is the best response to the growing challenge presented by scientific discovery and naturalistic thought? Unlike every work on Christian apologetics that has come before, How to Defend the Christian Faith is the first one written by an atheist for Christians. As a former Christian defender who is now a leading atheist thinker, John Loftus answers these questions and more. He shows readers why Christian apologists have failed to reach the intelligent nonbeliever and offers practical advice for Christians, whether they want to better defend their faith against atheist arguments, or actively convert more individuals to Christianity.

To see a few blurbs (so far) and the Contents click here.

Marriage in 2040

I and my wife, Cindy Avalos, look forward to 2040

I have written a newspaper column about what marriage will look like in 2040. I speculate that marriage will be defined as  a committed consensual relationship of two or more adults who love each other irrespective of gender.

Read more »

Dr. Hector Avalos On Giving Christianity Credit for Charity

A Catholic Christian named kenneth asked a question:

What would the documentary "a day without a christian" be like? Or "a day without religion". Certainly the bombings and violence in the middle east would come to a halt. But who would feed the world's poor, care for the sick, educate the children, and care for the orphans? People would like to say "the state", but the state does an overall aweful job at accomplishing these goals. The lionshare of the world's charitable contributions are made by christians. The Roman Catholic Church feeds more hungry, cares for more sick, educates more children, and cares for more orphans than any other institution on the planet. The secular world simply doesn't carry it's own weight. Where are the great infidel soup kitchens? Why aren't the debunkers caring for the sick in africa? Simply put, the violence may come to end but far more lives would be lost the moment the religious left the planet.

The following is Dr. Avalos's most excellent and unique reply.

Read more »

A Response to Professor Paul Allen: The Supposed Myth of Religious Violence and Religionism in Secular Academia

Prof. Paul Allen of Concordia University

Religionists are those who see religion as beneficial or necessary for human existence and, therefore, something that should be preserved and protected. I recently visited Montreal, Canada, where the divide between secularists and religionists in academia is very much alive, at least in some institutions.  

                   

Some of these religionists are theologians or professors trained in theology who occupy positions in secular universities. When some of them feel religion is threatened, they respond more as part of an ecclesial-academic complex than as secular analysts of religion. One example is Professor Paul Allen, an associate professor in the Department of Theological Studies at Concordia University in Montreal. His response to religious violence offers an excellent case study of how Christian and religionist apologetics represents itself as scholarship.

Read more »

Dr. J. R. Daniel Kirk at Fuller Theological Seminary Forced to Resign Over Integrity and Homosexuality

Today Dr. Kirk wrote:

As a New Testament scholar, I see my job as always listening first and foremost to the text in its historical context, and allowing its theology to be the first voice to which we respond. In the end, I will affirm creeds or confessions, if I do, because I believe they contain the right things to say at a given moment in time in which they were written, in light of what scriptures says. In this, I thought I was just being a normal biblical scholar. And Protestant. And Evangelical.

However, a couple of my senior Bible colleagues found this disturbing. It was not enough to affirm that some confessions were correct. One had to start with the confessions and use them as hermeneutical guides in the strong sense. One had to like the idea that we define Christianity by what we believe.

Integrity is crucial for both of us. I define integrity as being true to the historical critical scholarship and bringing that into theological dialogue with the church. They define integrity as being true to the “Grand Tradition of the Church” and allowing that to guide what we see in and say about history.

So when I say, “The Synoptic Gospels show Jesus as an idealized human figure,” I have not said enough. If I cannot say, “And it also shows the divine Jesus, as we learn in the creeds,” I have articulated a theology that “is on a trajectory” away from our shared statement of faith. My senior colleagues and I give different answers to the question, How do we relate the Bible to the theology of the church? And this is one major reason why next year will be my last at Fuller. LINK.

This is typical of a conservative creedal requiring institution, which leads me to say once again that Honest Evangelical Scholarship is a Ruse. There is No Such Thing!

Conservative Witch Hunt Buttressed by Lies at Northwest Nazarene University Claims a Scalp

Dr. Tom Oord, tenured professor of theology, was recently from fired from Northwest Nazarene University. NNU President David Alexander lied by saying "he was being terminated for economic reasons having to do with enrollment declines in the graduate division where Oord taught some of his classes." However, this last year NNU was "enjoying record enrollment and had been issuing press releases celebrating the overall financial health of the institution." Karl Giberson tells us the real reason he was fired:

Oord was the university’s leading scholar, with 20 books on his CV; by most measures he was also the denomination’s leading scholar and one of a tiny number of Nazarene theologians whose reputations reached beyond evangelicalism. Oord had won multiple teaching awards and was wildly popular with students and respected by his colleagues. He had brought over a million dollars of grant money to the university—a remarkable accomplishment for a professor at a small, unsung liberal arts college. Oord, however, was controversial. He strongly supported evolution and had long been a target of creationists in the denomination. He embraced “open theism,” the view that God does not know the future but responds in love—rather than coercive control—to events as they occur, rather than foreordaining everything. Fundamentalist critics called him a heretic and had been vying for his termination for years.

This is typical of a conservative creedal requiring institution, which leads me to say once again that Honest Evangelical Scholarship is a Ruse. There is No Such Thing!

Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions, by Mark Oppenheimer

LINK. I agree.

Quote of the Day, By Kel

"The sooner we realise that 'I don't know' is an acceptable answer in the face of a lack of definitive information, the better." True dat!

Homosexual Marriages Declared by Supreme Court to Be Legal in Every State of the Nation, Spelling the Death of Evangelicalism

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Friday that it is legal for all Americans, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, to marry the people they love.

The decision is a historic victory for gay rights activists who have fought for years in the lower courts. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia already recognize marriage equality. The remaining 13 states ban these unions, even as public support has reached record levels nationwide.

The justices found that under the 14th Amendment, states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex unions that were legally performed in other states. LINK.

Robert Price in his essay, Changing Morals and the Fate of Evangelicalism, predicted that the issue of sexuality, all by itself, could be the death of evangelicalism. If so, with this Supreme Court decision the death of evangelicalism has arrived. It's been long overdue

Bart Ehrman Agrees to Debate Robert Price On Whether Jesus Existed

Ehrman will debate this issue to raise funds for his pet charities. It looks like $13,000 is required for the debate to take place. You can donate to make it happen right here, where you'll see a video from the two participants describing their views, along with an itemized list of the money required. Although agreeing to this debate, Ehrman says:

The question is not really a matter of dispute among experts, even though mythicists as a rule would like it to be and sometimes even insist it is. But the reality is this: if you were to look at the program of the annual meeting of (the many thousands of English-speaking) professors of Biblical Studies, the Society of Biblical Literature meeting (this year in Atlanta), you will not find a session (out of thousands) devoted to arguing both sides of this issue. That’s because there is no debate. LINK.

There are some signs this is not as rock solid of a consensus as Ehrman makes it out to be. For Richard Carrier has defended Jesus mythicism in a book published by Sheffield Phoenix Press, the most prestigious Christian scholarly publisher around, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. His massive book is a magisterial treasure trove of research and information. There is a minor difficulty in using Bayesian math to establish something in the past, which seems quite fashionable right now in some circles. For my part I don't have a stake in who wins this debate, so long as both sides agree that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels never existed.

Did a Historical Gospel Jesus Exist? Two Christian Apologist, Kenneth and honeymonster, Say He Did But on What Evidence?

Kenneth

honeymonster

In a number of my posts I have stood firm that the New Testament, Jesus (Christ), never existed.  I’ve already addressed the evident in several posts:  A.  We Know From Hard Evidence Dinosaurs Existed 66 Million Years Ago Yet We Have No Objective Evidence Jesus Existed Just 2 Thousands Years Ago Here  and  B. Even if the Entire Testimony of Josephus on Jesus is Authentic, It’s Apologetically Worthless  Here  and C. As based on the 4^th ed of The Oxford Classical Dictionary which has no entry for either Jesus or any of his Apostles (especially for Peter who Catholics contend was their first Pope) as historical:  For the Fourth Time Jesus Fails to Qualify as a Historical Entry In The Oxford Classical Dictionary Here  

Read more »

The Power and Effectiveness of Good Ridicule

Since believing scholars are really good at defending the indefensible with their pseudo-scholarship, honest uncommitted seekers who read our debates might go away thinking each side has some good points, or that they're a wash. That being said, can anyone imagine a Christian scholar ever abandoning the Christian faith? Can you imagine that happening to William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, J.P. Moreland, Chad Meister, Norman Geisler, Douglas Groothuis, Craig Bloomberg, Michael Licona, David Wood, Mary Jo Sharp, Daniel Wallace, Ben Witherington, Matthew Flannagan, Steven B. Cowan, William Dembski, Scott Sullivan, Ravi Zacharias, Gary Habermas, Josh McDowell, H. Wayne House, Dennis W. Jowers, Gregory Ganssle, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Stewart Goetz, Richard Swinburne, R. Douglas Gevett, N.T. Wright, Craig Evans, Francis Beckwith, Dinesh D'Souza, Craig Hazen, Peter Kreeft, David Marshall, Vic Reppert, Thomas Howe, Richard Howe, Craig Blaising, Randal Rauser, Greg Koukl, David Beck, David K. Clark, James Sennett, Thomas Talbott, Paul K. Moser, Abdu Murray, Timothy Keller and many others? I honestly can't. They will all die in their faith no matter what we throw at them. They are impervious to reason, so politely discussing/debating them will not change their minds, ever. We argue with them mainly to reach honest uncommitted seekers, and that's it. They are the goal, the prize.

The power and effectiveness of good ridicule is that it by-passes this perceived stalemate between us. Christian scholars are the last ones to give up their faith because they're the most indoctrinated. They have the most to lose if they abandon it. So we need not gain their approval before we turn to ridicule. We need not reason with them because they cannot be reasoned with. We know they're delusional. So ridicule helps honest uncommitted seekers to understand what non-believers really think. Taking Christian pseudo-scholarly arguments seriously (while needed) does not convey how abysmal we think their arguments really are. To be sure, I don't ridicule Christian scholars very often. But I do seek to justify the use of ridicule for those who do it well. [See tag "Ridicule" for more].