New Book by Raphael Lataster and Richard Carrier: "Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists"

Back in April of 2012 I wrote a post titled, Did Jesus Exist? An All Out War Is Going On. It's not over but there is less rancor between atheists. The war was at it's worst just after the publication of Bart Ehrman's 2013 book, which was titled, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.With the publication of Richard Carrier's 2014 book, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, the intensity has subsided.There were other scholars involved of course, and the war might grow in intensity again if/when Robert Price and Bart Ehrman debate the issue. [I haven't heard for sure if they will]. The reason the war subsided is probably because all the available evidence and arguments have been put forth and discussed. My position is that at the very best, Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet, as I argued in chapter 12 for The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.Beyond this best case scenario, my claim is that The Jesus in the Gospels Never Existed! and that should be good enough for my purposes, letting bona fide historians tackle the question of his actual existence.

Now a new book by Raphael Lataster and Richard Carrier has come out, Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists.It's a whopping 420 pages long. The book seems to be a summation and exposition of the debate so far. You can look at its description on Amazon and see inside the book for more. It purports to be written for a lay audience. One thing noteworthy is that Raphael Lataster is agnostic on the question of the existence of Jesus (just like Hector Avalos), whereas Carrier thinks it's a 67% probability Jesus did not exist.

Now There is a Zombie Nativity!

Hey, there's a kick-starter for a Zombie Nativity. What will they think of next? Follow the link to see more, buy a set, and/or donate. LINK.

The Second Democratic Primary Debate

Here is the recent Democratic primary debate if you missed it. I'll confess all candidates did very well. But we need a political revolution and Bernie is the man!

{Edit: The debate is no longer available].

Adam Gopnik on Darwin’s Brilliant Strategy for Preempting Criticism

I've previously recommended Brainpickings before, where Maria Popova sums up books containing good lessons for the rest of us. Here's one lesson she wrote about, highlighting Darwin's mark of genius, as told in a book by Adam Gopnik. What is it? The habit of "sympathetic summary," what we now call the "principle of charity." Gopnik tells us the heart of Darwin's brilliance "illuminates the secret to all successful critical argument":

A counterargument to your own should first be summarized in its strongest form, with holes caulked as they appear, and minor inconsistencies or infelicities of phrasing looked past. Then, and only then, should a critique begin. This is charitable by name, selfishly constructive in intent: only by putting the best case forward can the refutation be definitive. The idea is to leave the least possible escape space for the “but you didn’t understand…” move. Wiggle room is reduced to a minimum.

Darwin’s special virtue in this enterprise is that he had to summarize, sympathetically, views contrary to his own that did not yet exist except in his own imagination. His special shrewdness lay in making as large an emotional meal of the objections in advance as could be made; he preempted his critics by introjecting their criticisms. He saw what people might say, turned it into what they ought to say, and then answered. LINK.

Over the years as I have engaged Christian intellectuals, I have found that even the best of them cannot do this when critiquing atheism. I have even recommended Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk's book, 50 Great Myths About Atheism, that would help them. But none of them have ever replied, "Yes, I got that book, thanks John, and I intend to read and digest it." I know they haven't got the book, since they keep on saying the same damn ignorant things.

Sean Carroll On Six Arguments Used by Science Denialists

Christians must deny or denigrate science at some point to believe, but that doesn't bother them a bit. It's because they feel free to deny or denigrate the science that shows them wrong. How do they do it? Sean Carroll described six arguments used by science denialists that are right on the money!

The six arguments used by science denialists aim to:
1) Cast doubt on science.
2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists.
3) Magnify disagreements between scientists, especially to cite gadflies as authorities.
4) Exaggerate the potential harm coming from science.
5) Appeal to the need and value of personal freedom.
6) Object that accepting science repudiates some key point of philosophy.

Carroll argued the last one is very important. Evidence only matters to people who haven't dug in on that last point.

An Open Letter to Kenneth

Kenneth is a Christian who comments here. After reading his stuff I'd like to challenge him with an open letter. It may seem harsh, but he's been here a while and he can handle it:

Read more »

You Can Now See Inside My New Book

You can now see inside my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.I think this is helpful for potential buyers. When I click on this feature I see the blurbs, Dedication, Contents, Foreword, Introduction and the first few pages of chapter one.

An Incredible Test Derived From Phil Torres That Can Tell Beyond a Shadow Doubt Whether Believers are Honest People

Phil Torres kindly reviewed my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith, which in my opinion deserves your up-vote. I want you to read again his most substantive complaint about my new book. His complaint is that "it was written 15 years too late!" That's right! He complains my book wasn't available much earlier in his life, when it could have helped him leave his faith. Let me quote him in full and then show we can derive a test to determine whether believers are honest people about their faith. I'll say it this way: Upon reading his challenge and the test derived from it, you can know beyond a shadow of doubt whether you're an honest person about your faith. Now I must come up with a catchy title for this test. Hmmmm, Rumspringa is a rite of passage for the Amish youth, which literally means "to run around." I like Rum, and I like the spring season, along with the letter "a". So I hereby declare this test to be named, the "Coming of Age Test for Faith" or CATF. [Don't ask me how that follows! ;-)]

Read more »

A Good Review of My New Book, "How to Defend the Christian Faith"

Another review! This time by the "Book Shark." When I post links to reviews, if you think any of them are helpful to potential readers, ones that explain why readers should buy them, then click on the "Yes" button. I did. So far as it comes to explaining the contents along with the positives and negatives, this review may be the best one yet. LINK.

A New Kind of Ontological Argument

At least I haven't seen something like this before.

What to Understand about the "Infamous Loftus Ego" and How to Deal With That Rascal ;-)

I think the most often repeated complaint against me is that I'm thin-skinned, that I don't respond to criticism very well. Whew! That's a relief. At least I'm not being accused of jaywalking too! Jaywalking? Ahhh yes, I think I have done that on occasion. The undeniable fact is that we all have personality flaws. What's yours? No, really, WHAT'S YOURS? Biblical advice might be useful here: "How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" And this: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." It would seem as though my critics want me to be more like them. But if I were more like them then I would have their faults rather then mine, since we all have faults. Sorry, I like my faults better than theirs, thank you very much! Despite mine I'm a really good person. Still, let me tell you how to deal with that so-called "infamous Loftus ego." ;-)

Read more »

Lance Laven's Brilliantly Stated Deconversion Testimony

Lance Laven is a former minister and Clergy Project member. Using a limited number of words he rationally describes his deconversion. What I like best is that he's being honest in his conception of God. This conception led him to subsequently question the amount of people who would end up in hell, which in turn led him away from his faith. Christians who believe that the Ontological Argument leads to God's existence are in dishonest delusional denial. They should conceive of God in the same way Laven did if they are honest. Instead, they sneak in their own theology when conceiving their God, a theology they could never entertain independently of all sense perceptions, or before experiencing this particular world, or a priori. The God they conceive is a different God than what they are rationally entitled to conceive, if they used the ontological argument correctly. Enough from me. His words are eminently simple and brilliant. Simple is good!

Read more »

Phil Torres Wrote a Brief Review Of My New Book, "How To Defend the Christian Faith"

On Facebook Phil Torres posted a link to a review he wrote for my book on Amazon. He introduced it with these words: "I found it to be a genuinely fascinating read, and I would strongly recommend it to both atheists and Christians alike. Loftus' approach is idiosyncratic but innovative, and the book is full of yummy little insights." LINK.

Dr. Abby Hafer's New Book Is Almost Out!

I was honored to be asked to write a blurb for this brilliant book of hers, titled The Not-So-Intelligent Designer: Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not. I wrote a longer blurb but settled on this one: "Hafer’s ingenious strategy for dealing with creationists/Intelligent Design proponents has them by the balls!" You'll know why I said that if you read her book. Get it now and you'll have it very soon! She has also agreed to write a chapter for my next book, so look for that next July. From the book description:

Why do men's testicles hang outside the body? Why does our appendix sometimes explode and kill us? And who does the Designer like better, anyway--us or squid? These and other questions are addressed in The Not-So-Intelligent Designer: Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not.

Dr. Abby Hafer argues that the human body has many faulty design features that would never have been the choice of an intelligent creator.

She also points out that there are other animals that got better body parts, which makes the Designer look a bit strange; discusses the history and politics of Intelligent Design and creationism; reveals animals that shouldn't exist according to Intelligent Design; and disposes of the idea of irreducible complexity.

Her points are illustrated with pictures, wit, and erudition.

What if Christians Went On Strike?

Thanks to EricD for making this.

"EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS" by Dr. Stephen Law

Written three years ago this piece by Dr. Law provides for a good amount of discussion. Enjoy.

Censorship at Amazon!

Amazon is censoring my comments. People know that I argue my case but don't say anything that would require censorship on Amazon. I know the rules so I don't violate them. But Amazon is deleting my comments for reasons I can only guess. I suspect it's because I'm an atheist author. If you're as concerned as I am click here. Read on to the end of page two where I demand an explanation, and like that comment. Or, you can jump to it and like it. Anyone concerned about free speech should look into this.

Trump's Thanksgiving Plate

My latest column is about how Native Americans might see Donald Trump’s demand to deport all illegal immigrants. My essay also addresses the myth, most recently voiced by presidential candidate Bobby Jindal, that religious freedom made this country great.

Edited: Responding to the "Great Silence" On Amazon

The "Great Silence" edited his Amazon review. Now it begins with something false:

Edited to add : if you ever consider writing a review of one of Loftus' books, even a reasonable one like below, first read what Loftus and his cronies will regard as fair comment on such review. See the insecure smear "article" on Loftus' blog in response to this review. So, before you comment on anything Loftus writes, know that not all these paragons of rationality allow criticism or fair comment. I really have no idea why his publisher would allow him to conduct himself like this.

You know what? This is one thing that really grates on me. He is anonymous. Get it, anonymous. We don't know how old he is, where he lives, or if he's really a "he". I am a real person. This is my name. You can find out about me if you want to. But look at him, defending his honor and his name by smearing mine. This post below is the only thing I wrote about his review. It's still unchanged. How in the hell can I smear someone if he doesn't have a name? So tell you what, my faithful cronies, one and all, far and wide, vote his review down.. ;-) It's not true. It's the "Great Silence(r)" who wants to silence me from commenting on his review. It was that way from the start. I'm dogged by so many stupid people that sometimes it just makes me ill.

In an attempt to censor me from commenting on Amazon reviews, the "Great Silence" (an anonymous confessing Catholic) showed up. He(?) says it's unprofessional for me to comment on Amazon reviews of my books. Nice try but I'm not biting. Some people actually like discussing a book with the author, and I oblige them sometimes. It offers a chance to learn more by doing so, good or bad. It produces one or two more rounds of counter-argument and counter-counter-argument, which can better help people in their search for the truth. He prefers the professionalism of other authors who don't respond to reviews on Amazon. However, they could be seen in a different light than one of praiseworthy professionalism. They just might view themselves as too good to lower themselves to the rank-in-file commenters on Amazon. Who knows?

Read more »

Armin Navabi: Ex-Muslim Turned Global Atheist Activist

Armin Navabi has quite the powerful story. When he was just 12 years old he tried to commit suicide by leaping off the top floor of his middle school. He was not successful. Instead he broke several bones in his body and was put into a wheelchair for 7 months. He did it to avoid suffering forever in hell. For as a Muslim he believed that if he died before the age of 15 he would not go to hell. He calculated his risk and acted on it. Navabi says, “So that means that if you die before age 15, you die pure and you go to heaven...Why would anybody stick around and gamble potentially burning for eternity? The most logical decision is to quit this game that I never chose to play, early, and just go directly to heaven.” Who has the balls to act that logically at his age? Armin Navabi, that's who.

In a recent post about Navabi, Kristen Hovet tells of his painful deconversion:

A few years went by and Navabi’s faith began to flounder, regardless of the strong influence of religious teachers at his school. He felt ashamed for doubting Islam, but trusted that his god was a god of reason and would surely deliver. “But it didn’t go that way,” he says. “I went to hunt for evidence, and I didn’t find anything.” He read voraciously, concentrating on his own religion, other religions, and history, and came to the conclusion that all religions are manmade. But he did not arrive at this conclusion painlessly.

“It got to the point where I was begging God for evidence. I cried. I was like, ‘God, I’m going to lose faith in you. So, if you’re out there, show me something! Anything!’” By the age of 18, Navabi had given up. He knew he was an atheist and that there would be no going back.

Hovet writes, "Now, at the age of 31, a lot has changed from his experiences in Iran to his current life in Canada. He is the founder of the Atheist Republic website and the Atheist Republic Facebook page, which alone has over one million likes – making it one of the most popular pages of its kind."

Congrats go out to Amin Navabi for a job well done! We probably won't find anyone so passionate or logical as he is. To read more of his story and how he went to being a global phenomenon as an atheist activist click here.]

"They Burn Witches Here" A True Story by Kent Russell

Here is a story fit for Halloween about supposed modern witches. The full title of this powerful and bizarre story is, "They Burn Witches Here: And then they upload the photos to social media. A journey to an island caught between the ancient world and 2015."

Having studied the phenomena of witch hunts myself for a chapter I wrote in Christianity Is Not Great, I was very interested in reading this first-hand story of witch hunts in "modern" Papua New Guinea.The descriptions could well have been about the witch hunts in Europe from about 1450-1750 though. It opens with the brutal murder of a girl accused of witchcraft named Kepari Leniata:

Read more »

Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion

This is the title to my next anthology as chosen by Prometheus Books. It's a book honoring Victor Stenger's writings, who is one of the New Atheists in that his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist,was also a NY Times Bestseller. The book will include his last essay, which he submitted for it before he died. My publisher wanted a smaller book this time around, so it's to be about 380 pages. They just announced it'll be available on July 26, 2016. You can pre-order it online!Although I'm not done celebrating the release of my recent book, here we go again. Below, for your consideration, are a list and description of the excellent contributors (in alphabetical order).

Read more »

Pew Research: Fewer People Believe in God in the United States

Philosopher Stephen Law On the Boogeyman Called Scientism

Here's Another Excerpt from My New Book, Posted by the Friendly Atheist

LINK, with 242 comments so far!

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about my new book.

This is a book that has a two edged sword to it. It tells wanna-be apologists how to argue correctly for their faith. In doing so they'll also learn that if they argue correctly they wouldn't do apologetics at all, because by doing apologetics correctly they will learn Christianity cannot be defended at all. You really should read it. It's really good, and I don't just say so myself.

Comments On the Official Release Day Of My New Book

The comments have to do with my book How To Defend the Christian Faith. First, by Lazarus:

Hi John, I'm a Catholic of the open-minded-lets-see-how-strong-my-faith-is type. I have received your latest book, and will start reading that today. I found your other books to be some of the very best atheist arguments out there, if not (yet) completely convincing. Your own essay on animal suffering is the single most devastating argument that I have ever read against my faith. I still don't have much of an answer against it. Well, let's see how you go with this one. I like the starting premise - an apparent Christian apologetics book that will most likely conclude that it's all a fool's errand.

Edit: He later added:

Your chapter on the five schools of evidence / apologetic argumentation is brilliant. That is the type of information that very few people would really get to engage with.

This one is from Phil Torres on Facebook:

I've read about half of this book by John W. Loftus so far, and I can tell you that it's fantastic. Exceptionally well-written, very thoughtful, and quite authoritative. I'm looking forward to reading the rest and posting a review on Amazon!

#1 In Hot New Releases in Apologetics

Link

#1 In Hot New Releases In Atheism!

#1 In Hot New Releases in Religious Philosophy

Maybe I can now call myself a philosopher?

The Kindle Edition of My New Book, My Best Book, My Most Unique Book is Now Available. BUY!

On Christian Theology and Absolute Truth: A Thought

The entire Christian Systematic Theological system is established on pure superstitious paranoia being doctrinally presented tens of thousands of different ways by each denominations under the rubric of Absolute Truth. 

You Can Now Read Peter Boghossian's Foreword To My New Book

At last. If you've wanted to read Peter Boghossian​'s wonderful Foreword to my new book in its entirety, here it is, posted on the Richard Dawkins site (RDFRS). Enjoy and spread the word. While you're there click on the link to buy it. At the RDFRS site you can also read James Lindsay's review of it, which I linked to earlier. It's a really good day for me. I think I'll spit some worms.

Ken Ham's Apologetics Is a Tacit Admission He Doesn't Think the Evidence Exists to Believe!

In an editorial review of Ken Ham's book, How Do We Know the Bible Is True?, we're told that Ham's book "approaches the issues from a presuppositional point of view, whereas most works on apologetics come from an evidentialist perspective. This doesn’t mean that we don’t provide any evidence for our positions; it means we start from the Bible and show why the evidence makes sense in light of Scripture and cannot be accounted for in a naturalistic, atheistic worldview." LINK. In my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, I have a chapter on apologetic methodology where I argue that if the evidence existed then no other apologetic method but evidentialism would be used by apologists (chapter 5).For if the evidence existed then apologists would never have come up with any other method. You know it. I know it. We all know it. So Ken Ham's presuppositional apologetics is a tacit admission he doesn't think the evidence exists to believe!

Introducing the X-Risks Institute (for the Study of Extremism)

What will the future look like? The further upwards one moves from the basement domain of physics, the harder it often gets to predict long-term trends. Nonetheless, we have some fairly good clues about what to expect moving forward. Moore's law, for example, enables us to anticipate with some degree of accuracy, at least on a timescale of decades, how the development of computer hardware will likely proceed. And many nanotechnology experts concur that it's only a matter of time before personal nanofactories become as common as the personal computer (or even more so, given their potential for self-replication).

But technology isn't being developed in a vacuum. This is a crucial point that constitutes, in my view, a major weakness in a lot of (otherwise good) work being done by secular futurists. To my knowledge, virtually no one is asking questions about the important relationship between advanced technologies and religion, the latter of which is one of the most pervasive and influential cultural phenomena in the world.

Read more »

Ahhhh, the Mind of the Believer

The following discussion took place on the Facebook Wall of Paul K. Moser with a guy named Jonathan Parsons. It shows my readers what it takes to believe, and it's not pretty. Moser was liking all of this guy's comments. Why is it they don't get it? That's as baffling to me as the existence of a two-headed person in a circus (and unfortunately they do exist). See this yourself. What do you think? How would you try to convince someone of the science that lies behind cognitive bias studies, when he tries to skirt the evidence like this? [FYI: I could answer them. I just chose not to.]

Read more »

Dr. James Lindsay Reviews My Latest Book

He just wrote a review of my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.Here are the first and last paragraphs that sandwich the meat of a really nice review:

Four years ago I wrote in my first book about what I called The Problem of Apologetics, making the case that the very existence of apologetics--lawyerly defenses of religious faith--is a major strike against the believability of the contents of any faith tradition employing them. In considering and formulating that set of ideas, I rapidly concluded that religious apologetics don't deserve serious consideration, and as a result I thought it wasn't possible for me to take them any less seriously. I was wrong. In his new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, John W. Loftus managed to convince me that the amount of respect I should give to religious apologetic arguments isn't zero, as I had concluded; it is less than zero.

Those who wish to defend the Christian faith should read How to Defend the Christian Faith with utmost seriousness, ponder its contents, and ultimately find something better to do with their time as a result. Others should read it to get a full sense of just how bad the case for Christianity really is. As I argue extensively in my newest book, Everybody Is Wrong About God, the time has come to give no serious consideration to the entire theistic enterprise, and How to Defend the Christian Faith shows us exactly why. The case is hopeless; it's time to move on. LINK.

More Than 20 Teachers and Employees Were Let Go at Cincinnati Christian University On Oct. 23

After just 18 months as the President of Cincinnati Christian University, Ken Tracy resigned. Due to a serious financial crisis more than 20 teachers and employees were let go. CCU is trying to keep this news quiet for now. I'm wondering if this crisis is due to suspicions that CCU had traveled down the liberal path too far, as was reported by Lee Mason of the The Christian Restoration Association in 2013? If anyone knows more let us know.

------------

EDIT: Jack Cottrell responded to a question abut "doctrinal stability" with this:

I am always concerned for doctrinal stability. That is my life's work. And this doctrinal stability is always threatened in one way or another. The issue discussed in the article by H. L. Mason is no longer a presence on the CCU campus.

A Reflection On Randal Rauser: Some Final Thoughts On An Interesting and Paradoxical Personality, Guest Post Written by Tristan Vick aka The Advocatus Atheist

Way back in October of 2013 I sat down and read Randal Rauser’s book The Swedish Atheist the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails and then, as is my habit, wrote a series of brief reviews about my impressions on my philosophy of religion blog The Advocatus Atheist.

Initially, I think the thing that struck a chord with me about Randal was that he didn't seem like he was rehashing all the same old Christian apologetic fanfare. Rather, there seemed to be some genuine thought behind his arguments, and I found that rather refreshing (for a religious apologist). Randal is articulate and approaches perceived problems in Christianity differently than other apologists (heck, he even admits there ARE theological problems in Christianity that need addressing – so kudos to him).

Read more »

I Highly Recommend "The Faithless Feminist"

Check out Karen Gorder Garst​'s site "The Faithless Feminist." She tells us:

It was not a simple decision...when I left behind my faith.

However, I could no longer ignore the historical and social truths that surrounded me.

For me, the Bible became a book written by men that reinforced a patriarchal view of society. I began to identify as an atheist.

I could have left it as a private decision shared only with friends and family. But I became troubled as I continued to see the reach of religion into women’s private lives. I reached out to other women who had left religion behind and asked them to write about their journeys.

I am currently in the process of getting their 18 stories published in a new book.

This website is intended to continue that discussion with posts not just by my authors and myself, but by others who want a forum to discuss current events on the intersection of women and religion or other topics relevant to “faithless feminists.”

I highly recommend her site. Read this guest post by Shanna Babilonia​, who discusses five reasons why organized religion might have problems with educated women.

You Want Polls and Statistics? Bernie Sanders Is the Only Democrat Electable Who Wins In the General Election

H. A. Goodman, writing for the Huff Post Politico Blog, argues: "Bernie Sanders is the only electable Democrat for president, and also the only person setting the Democratic agenda in terms of ideas and policies in 2016." In fact, "Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election." If you think otherwise then deal with his polls and statistics.

God Cannot Be Perfect Because Perfect Does Not Make Sense

In another post I was talking about how God, prior to creation (at least according to classical interpretations of God based on the Ontological Argument), had ontological perfection. That is to say, he was in a perfect state of being (since this is built into the definition of God). The argument followed that, in creating the world, God would be either lacking something and thus having a need, which is incoherent with ontological perfection, or he was downgrading his perfect state in the process of creating this world.

Read more »

Bernie Sanders Can and Will Win!

Like I've said, Bernie Sanders will win the democratic nomination. The enthusiasm is growing and they're now saying he can win. LINK. Onward we go. It's too bad a few important atheists have said he doesn't have a chance. Apparently they don't understand the importance of social media, crowd enthusiasm, and a huge number of small individual donations. When it comes to donations, people who donate to a political campaign are much more likely to tell others about the candidate and to get involved in other ways. This is not just a grass roots movement of voters. It's a grass roots movement of activists. Come on. Be on the right side of history.

Why Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky are Both Right

Sam Harris recently appeared on Kyle Kulinski’s radio show to discuss his views on “progressivism, torture, religion, and foreign policy.” The impetus behind Harris’ appearance was to defend himself against the accusations of Glenn Greenwald and (the increasingly execrable) CJ Werleman, both of whom had previous public discussions with Kulinski.

Read more »

What You Need to Know About Bernie Sanders Supporters, by Staks Rosch

I've found one secularist/humanist/atheist who is a big supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders, and has been so since May 22nd when he predicted Sanders will win the Democratic Party's Nomination. Now THAT'S some foresight! Who did this? Staks Rosch did, who writes for the network I co-founded, Skeptic Ink Network. His most recent post is titled as displayed above, LINK. I am very happy to join him in this goal and bid others do so as well, publicly, passionately, intelligently, with footwork and with money. I join Rosch in saying Sanders will win the Democratic Party's Nomination. Bold? I think not. The Bernie Sanders's movement is being conducted by passionate people who want nothing short of a political revolution. It's an idea whose time has come. It's a grassroots social media movement that's opposed by very influential people with obscene amounts of wealth. It's a modern-day Davy and Goliath tale with a twist. In this story a bunch of little people overthrow a bunch of big people. Kudos Staks! Go Bernie! [For more click on the "Bernie Sanders" tag]

Jimmy Kimmel Asked Bernie Sanders If He Believes in God

Where's the Secular/Humanist/Atheist Support for Senator Bernie Sanders?

My temporary goal is to help Senator Bernie Sanders win the Democratic Party's nomination for president of the U.S. When I first approached an important atheist thinker about this goal I was told, "Sanders has a zero chance to be president, zero." Well as you would guess, that didn't discourage me in the least. As I've said, I like those odds! ;-) I like proving the naysayers wrong, AND THEY ARE WRONG!

So let me tell naysayers why I think this is the most important goal we can probably pursue right now, and why more secularists, humanists and atheists should back Bernie's candidacy. After all, we're a strong important voting block that if fully engaged could make this happen. And if we make Sanders the Democratic Party's nomination then people in the middle will have to vote for him in the general election, since the Republicans only have nutcases vying for the same high office. If you read just one post from me on Sanders for President read the rest of this one.

Read more »

Why Bernie Sanders Is Attracting Conservatives

This is a grassroots movement that will attract more and more conservative voters, explains Rick Perlstein of The Washington Spectator. LINK. Sanders explains:

Republicans “divide people on gay marriage. They divide people on abortion. They divide people on immigration. And what my job is, and it’s not just in blue states. . . [is] to bring working people together around an economic agenda that works. People are sick and tired of establishment politics; they are sick and tired of a politics in which candidates continue to represent the rich and the powerful.”

Sarah Silverman Endorses Bernie Sanders Who Has Always Been On the Right Side of History

A Recent Review of My Co-Written Book "God of Godless"

This Christian review quotes Randal Rauser and I throughout his review, ending by saying:

Rauser is perhaps not the best (or at least, not the more forceful) advocate for the Christian position that could have been featured; nevertheless, this is a creative, cordial, well-presented exchange of viewpoints, that will be of great interest to anyone (on either “side”) interested in such debates. --Steven H. Prop, LINK

Bernie Sanders Called "The Amendment King"--"one of the most effective members of Congress"

“I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done,” Hillary Clinton said at the first Democratic debate, in response to a question from moderator Anderson Cooper about whether she defines herself as a moderate or a progressive.

The implication was that progressive Bernie Sanders is too far to the left to accomplish anything—all of his ideas are pie-in-the-sky. You have to be able to find the bipartisan, “warm, purple space” as Clinton said earlier this year, to get anything done. Slate’s Jamelle Bouie was super-impressed by this rationale, saying Clinton has “skilled use of bureaucratic power.”

The problem with this narrative is that it is completely false. Not only has Sanders gotten a lot more things done than Clinton did in her own short legislative career, he’s actually one of the most effective members of Congress, passing bills, both big and small, that have reshaped American policy on key issues like poverty, the environment and health care. LINK.