En marzo del año 2008, Madeline Kara Neumann, una niña de 11 años de edad, murió en la ciudad de Weston en el estado de Wisconsin (Estados Unidos). Sus padres, los cuales son pentecostales evangélicos, creyeron que solo la oración la iba a sanar y no la llevaron a los médicos cuando ya estaba muy grave.
La enfermedad de la cual murió esa niña fue determinada ser diabetes, una condición que la medicina científica moderna puede controlar efectivamente. Sus padres fueron sentenciados por su crimen.
En octubre del 2015,Dale y Shannon Hickman, una pareja de Oregon en Estados Unidos, fueron condenados por la muerte de su bebé, David. El bebé nació prematuro, y sufrió algunas complicaciones médicas. Segun un reporte, “Un médico testificó en el tribunal que si los padres hubieran llamado al 911 [cuando] apenas nació, existían ‘99% de probabilidades de que el bebé sobreviviera.’”
Kara Neumann y David Hickman son solamente dos de millones de personas que han muerto desde el principio del cristianismo cuando dependieron de la fe en lo que llaman "Dios."
Yo mismo oraba por los enfermos
En este ensayo explico por qué no creo en la sanidad divina aun despues de en un tiempo ser yo mismo un predicador pentecostal que oraba por los enfermos, muchos de los cuales testifacaron ser sanados despues de mis oraciones. La creencia en la sanidad divina carece de evidencia, y es tambien peligrosa.
Esta creencia se encuentra frecuentemente entre grupos pentecostales evangélicos modernos que usan pasajes bíblicos como Marcos 16:18 ("tomarán en las manos serpientes, y si bebieren cosa mortífera, no les hará daño; sobre los enfermos pondrán sus manos, y sanarán") para sostener suscreencias.Para estos grupos, la sanidad divina es una de las pruebas más poderosas de la existencia de Dios.
A pesar de algunos experimentos científicos recientes que reclaman la efectividad de la oración, la existencia de este fenómeno no se ha podido establecer por los investigadores científicos o por los médicos independientes.
Y aun cuando existen sanidades extraordinarias, esto no podría demostrar que tales sanidades sean hechas por el dios de los cristianos.Explicaremos más adelante también porque los experimentos científicos no pueden establecer la eficacia de la oración.
Previously I've written about Anakin, who has nearly 25K Twitter followers, right here. He's John Matthew Leone, who has a Master's degree in theology from an Evangelical seminary and graduated with a 4.0. Seen at right is what he recently tweeted. If you have $16 to spend for this one of a kind counter-apologetics book, here is the link: Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity.
This race was never supposed to be close at all. She was supposed to sail to a win this time. The socialist Senator was supposed to be a blip. He’d won the expectations game. LINK
Sanders is already a historic candidate—the first socialist in a century to build a genuine mass movement in American party politics. And whatever the Democratic Party is in the next 20 or 30 years, it will owe a great deal to Sanders and all the people—young or otherwise—who felt the Bern. LINK.
Purple America is America, Bernie's America! This is Democratic Socialism. Who's to blame if this is the wrong direction for America? The Billionaire class for the most part, who couldn't keep their dicks in their pants and f*cked it all up! I don't think this is the wrong direction for America at all. But if someone thinks it is, then the blame lies mostly with the unbridled greed of the billionaire class. Others have been complicit in it too.
This is the first US election I've ever followed. (I'm South African) I can see how important Bernie winning is for America and for the world. I hope enough of you turn up and vote for the only hope for all of us.
I am 70 YOA (years of age) and for the very first time, I will not have to vote in an insect election (the lesser of two weevils) when I mark my ballot for Bernie Sanders. Elsewhere on the inter web, I have answered a questionnaire specifying my views on a variety of subjects. The results indicate I have a 98% alignment with Senator Sanders. A vote for Sanders is a vote against the oligarchy which now runs our country and is the ONLY vote which gives my children and grandchildren a chance of living a life as rich and wonderful as I have enjoyed. Thank you Mr. Loftus for your support of Senator Sanders.
This is what I think. I can defend what I think. I have lost three personal friends on Facebook because this is what I think. You will not change my mind, not because I'm stubborn or pigheaded, but because I'm right. I can defend it too.
I am a democratic socialist. I have thrown my weight in the corner of Bernie Sanders. I am in the process of becoming a state and a national delegate just so I can cast a historic vote to support Bernie's revolution. Getting Sanders elected might be the single biggest thing we as atheists can do to promote atheism.
However, I cannot argue for so many things at the same time. It would mentally task me more than I'm willing to bear. And yet I am passionate about Bernie Sanders. So what to do? Should I personally make my own arguments on behalf of Bernie Sanders for President, or do I just state my conclusions and link to the Bernie Sanders campaign, who are making them without me? For the most part I've decided to do the latter. I don't plan on arguing for Bernie Sanders. But I wholly support him. Since I regard libertarianism, anarchy and totalitarian communism to all be morally bankrupt, don't waste my time arguing otherwise here at DC. Go somewhere else. I regard these views as akin to creationism. Start your own forum about it if you disagree. This is not going to be up for debate here. Try to turn this site into a debate about these things and I'll ban you. This is John W. Loftus and I approve this message.
Probably the biggest political storm you'll ever see begins in Iowa on February 1st. Social media toppled dictators and will topple the billionaire class in America. #feelthebern
David Rohl, the main "expert" behind Patterns of Evidence: Exodus, has now responded to my critique. His response is in the comments section of that link. My critique has clearly touched a nerve.
I was hoping he would come armed with facts that would definitively refute my evidence, but he came armed with speculation. I address some of his specific responses here.
RE: “The first idiotic statement from this so-called expert was that he couldn't find any Yahwistic names in the Brooklyn Slave Papyrus. This guy clearly knows his Bible, because he thinks there should by Hebrew names bearing the Yah or Yahu element in them BEFORE Moses has the sacred name revealed to him on Mount Sinai!”
Note that Rohl does not deny that there are no Yahwistic names in the Brooklyn Papyrus.
Rohl also has missed the fact that I addressed this issue. Please note my statement in my essay: “This late occurrence is odd because the Bible says that Yahweh was the name that began to be used during Adam’s generation (Genesis 4:26) and was used by the Patriarchs (see Genesis 12:7-9, in contradiction to the statement in Exodus 6:3).”
We know that there are different traditions as to when the name Yahweh was first known. Rohl simply picks and chooses which narratives tell the true history of when that name was first used or revealed. Aside from avoiding what I said, it is actually Rohl who does not believe what the Bible says.
Rohl chooses to believe that the name was revealed to Moses (e.g., in Exodus 6:3ff), but chooses not to believe that it was used since Genesis 4:26 and by other pre-Mosaic figures.
There is only so much a person can take when dealing with people who have lost touch with reality. Must we always maintain a patient attitude when we already know their arguments? Must we always respond in a dispassionate manner to people who are persuaded against reason to believe something delusional? We know this about them based on everything else we know (i.e., our background knowledge). I for one, see nothing wrong with dispassionately discussing the beliefs of philosophers who do little more than build intellectual castles in the sky without any solid grounding to them. I do this all of the time. But sometimes I don't. Sometimes I get too fed up with the pretend game of faith with its ever receding theology.
I don't intend to write this new book with the jaded attitude I have today, so this is probably just for today. I'll not apologize for arguing it's time for the philosophy of religion to end though. It's time to put the hammer down hard on pseudo-intellectuals.
I received an e-mail recently asking what I thought of a new documentary called Patterns of Evidence: Exodus produced by Timothy Mahoney in 2015 (See film trailer). I had not seen it, and I was curious to learn if apologists actually had something new to say.
I ended up suffering through about two hours of repackaged arguments, many of which I thoroughly considered and rejected decades ago.
The documentary is largely based on the book, Exodus: Myth or History? (St. Louis Park, MN: Thinking Men Media, 2015) by David Rohl, whose book cover describes him as an “Egyptologist, historian and archaeologist specializing in the historical relationship between Pharaonic Egypt and the Bible.”
Otherwise, Rohl is known for espousing other theories that are not widely accepted by most scholars.
Ron Wyatt’s The Exodus (1998) and Simcha Jacobovici’s The Exodus Decoded(2006)—see Dr. Chris Heard’s excellent critique here )— are also part of this genre.
GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENTARY
Patterns has this general structure found in other apologetic documentaries:
A. A documentary filmmaker professes to seek the “truth” in a fair-minded and “scientific” way.
B. Skeptics of biblical historicity are interviewed.
C. Advocates of biblical historicity are interviewed.
D. The conclusion claims that the evidence favors C.
This is a fairly routine approach found in the written works of Lee Strobel (e.g. The Case for Christ [1998]) among others.
We can trace this style of apologetics at least as far back as Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), the Harvard Law professor who put the Bible on trial, and called witnesses in his The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice(1846). The verdict was predictable: The Bible is historically reliable.
The problem is that most of these documentary filmmakers often don’t have enough expertise to know which expert is offering good information. Mahoney cannot read any ancient languages that are crucial to evaluating some of the claims made, nor does he have the mastery of archaeology and Near Eastern literature necessary to detect the nonsense that Rohl offers him.
In reality, Mahoney did not evaluate carefully even the very archaeological artifacts and reports that he displays for the camera. He omits a lot of countervailing material (e.g., the Amarna letters, as I will explain).
To his credit, Mahoney admits that he is not an expert. I also will credit him for at least admitting that the majority position among scholars is the one his documentary opposes. But this will not save his documentary from some of the fatal flaws that were obvious to me upon first viewing.
I’m into Bernie Sanders. I think Bernie Sanders is somebody that we really have to focus on—especially now,” he says. “Whether or not the money buys the other contenders, we still have to stay together on Bernie because Bernie’s got the goods. He really knows what he’s talking about and he’s got all the issues down. He gets all these little donations because he doesn’t want to be beholden to anybody. Bernie will give us the best shot at getting equality for men and women, African Americans, and all people of color; he’ll give us the best shot at healthcare; he’ll give us the best shot at the international situation so that we don’t start blowing things up, and to try to pull back a bit on the Imperialism. We need to pull back on it. We can’t keep dealing with regime change and all this shit! You guys—the young people—have to look at this and say, ‘Enough of this crap!’”
He adds, “I think a lot of people are starting to Feel the Bern—that’s a funny saying, but people are starting to feel the heat and the responsibility that we all have to at least give the planet a shot. We want to try to keep the Earth in a stable position for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. LINK.
As many readers of this blog may know, I have a forthcoming book called The End: What Science and Religion Tell Us About the Apocalypse (Pitchstone Publishing 2016). It brings New Atheism into conversation with Existential Risk Studies, arguing that, on the one hand, advanced dual-use technologies will make religious extremism unprecedentedly dangerous in the future and, on the other, of all the risks within the categories of error and terror, religion is the most serious. In other words, it’s crucial that secularists pay attention to the field of existential riskology, and that existential riskologists pay attention to secular critics of religion. For reasons I explicate in the book, drawing from a wide variety of scholarship, I genuinely don't think it’s hyperbole to say that our survival through the current century may depend on it.
I finally decided to get a professional photo done of that rascal named John W. Loftus (anyone know him?). It was taken today. Put it on a coffee mug. Use it as your wallpaper. Or pin it to a dart board. When arguing against him use it. When agreeing with him use it. I'm John W. Loftus and I approve of this message.
More and more I'm finding that atheist intellectuals and philosophers of religion are granting too much when dealing with the coherence of such mythological nonsense as the existence of Yahweh, Satan, hell, the virgin birth, incarnation and resurrection of Jesus. It's like we skip a very important step, even a crucial one in my opinion, when we grant ancient beliefs that don't deserve any respect at all. Anyone who looks into the historical evidence for Yahweh, Satan, hell, virgin births, incarnations and resurrections will see these beliefs come from the ancient mythological past. The best way to kill such barbaric and utterly ignorant beliefs is to look at their mythological origins, and no appeal to the genetic fallacy can help the honest believer here.
When we take seriously an idea we give it some sort of respectability just by doing so. For instance, I doubt very much that philosophers would try to show why Mohammad could not have ridden a horse around the solar system by offering a detailed analysis of physics and horses.
There is a two pronged attack we shouldn't neglect. When we're dealing with an ancient religious belief we should first attack it by linking it to the mythological past where it belongs, and then we can attack its philosophical coherence. If I were to do just one and not both, I would link the belief to the mythological past. If my focus was on the philosophical coherence of the concept I would still write a paragraph or two about its mythological origins and footnote a few books on it (seen below).
You'll find Dr. Stephen Law online all over the place. He seems indefatigable in the goals of educating people and helping them escape from faith-based reasoning. Today I discovered he's an active writer at the site for Center for Inquiry. What's more I found his most recent essay to be something I agree with completely, where he offers five morals that should guide debates between atheists and believers. This is refreshing to me personally, having participated in daily discussions/debates with believers for ten years now. So here they are with my comments, along with a link to what he wrote from a forthcoming book chapter. His focus is on issues that might cause offense between us that could potentially shut down our debates, having atheists mostly in mind. [He uses the name Peter to refer to a Christian believer.]
1. There's a tendency among the religious to take offence at comparisons drawn by atheists between religious belief and other supernatural beliefs such as belief in ghosts, fairies, etc. No doubt some atheists do just want to belittle and bait the religious by making such comparisons. However, it seems to me that drawing such a comparison can be very appropriate. I certainly intend no offence by drawing it. I don't think the religious should take offence.
I've said it before and will say it again, if all you read are Christian defenses of your faith then you're not really interested in the truth. It would be like a Mormon who read nothing but the Book of Mormon, or Mormon defenses of the Mormon faith. It would be like a Muslim who read nothing but the Koran, or Muslim defenses of the Muslim faith. Get the picture? So if you don't read the books recommended by apostates, those of us who have rejected your faith, then you're not interested in the truth. I say this to jolt Christians into making a conscious choice. Either start reading the books we recommend, the ones that led to abandoning our faith, or admit you're really not interested in the truth. See if this might jar a few of them into reading outside the box. My guess is that it will.
Christian, before you complain about granting your particular faith equal time, the only question is whether or not YOU have read our recommended books. Yes or no? You need not complain about anything to us since we answer to our own consciences. Have YOU read our books? It's a question for you and you alone to answer.
I'm going to talk Presidential politics folks. Atheist intellectuals and activists are failing us when it comes to something that may do more for atheist causes than anything else we can do, or say. Atheist leadership should lead. So far they are failing us. I'm talking about leaders like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Valerie Tarico, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Dan Barker, David Silverman, Russell Blackford, Hemant Mehta, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne, Peter Boghossian, Barbara Forrest, DJ Grothe, Phil Zuckerman and others, some of whom I am personal friends with, and all of whom I respect for their contributions. What am I saying? We should all be speaking out in support of Bernie Sanders for President for these reasons!
I'm not naive about this. I'm up to date on the controversies and the polls. If you value my opinion at all, getting Sanders elected as the next president of the US may be the most important thing we can do. I know politics is dirty business. There are compromises that must be made. For if we get involved in politics at all, rather than remain passive bystanders, we must fully support a candidate. We cannot vote 35% for one candidate and 65% for a different one, even though that's how we might think. I also know people don't like supporting a candidate who doesn't win in the end, since we want to pick winners. So think of it this way instead if you must: Even if Bernie doesn't win you'll be on the right side of history. Eventually his proposals will win the day. Nonetheless, I'm here to say Bernie Sanders can and will win. He just needs to win the democratic primaries. That's where the general election for the top political office will be decided, in the primaries, since polls show that in the general election he'll beat any of the potential Republican candidates by wider margins than Hillary Clinton. It will be too late to support Bernie after he wins the democratic nomination. He needs your support now, when it's important in the primaries. Supporting him afterward will be nice but not proactive, which is not what leadership is about on this most important issue.
------
On Facebook Phil Torres says: "As a Sanders supporter myself, I strongly agree with this post about the need for atheist leaders to voice support for Sanders' campaign!"
I find it most interesting that there are a cadre of Christian evangelical philosophers and apologists claiming, as MacGregor does, that Molina "ranks among the foremost philosophical theologians in church history" (p. 15) who was only discovered accidentally by them when Robert Adam's told Avin Plantinga that a good bit of his defense of God in his 1974 book "God, Freedom and Evil" was straight out of Molina. Adams' rejected Molinism as did William Hasker in his 1989 book "God Time, and Foreknowledge." I would think that to say a given theologian "ranks among the foremost philosophical theologians in church history" as MacGregor did, when he's only recently been discovered by evangelicals who think of him this highly is unjustified, since his work was not appreciated by them until 1974. Unless of course, MacGregor is making a prediction of his stature into the distant future, upon which it’s way to early to call that. LINK.
In other news, another rambling Amazon review of a book of mine by David Marshall is getting way too many up-votes. Huh? Seems as though he's announced it on a Christian forum and they agree it's a good one. He can deny this here if it's otherwise.
I saw this in my Twitter feed today. Christian, what's your view of the sin of lust? Jesus: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28) I'm told Martin Luther said, "we cannot control what birds fly over our heads. We can only control whether they build nests in our hair." This is supposed to mean the sin of lust is not involuntarily seeing something improper; the sin is in entertaining the thought once it comes. But when it comes to porn it is almost always a deliberate act. LINK.
This is one of the main reasons I finally came to the conclusion that Christianity couldn't be true. The most devout Evangelical Christians tended to be the most self-centered/ethnocentric contrasted to a wide variety of others who were far more generous. LINK
The twin goals of Democratic Socialism are to meet human needs and at the same time produce economic growth. So long as people maintain those goals I don't see how Democratic Socialism can fail. The reason is because it's democratic. It might have setbacks, I know. So excesses to the left or right need their corresponding correctives so that a balance can be maintained between meeting human needs and economic growth. It's a hard balance to sustain for decades. So whenever human needs are not being met the populace will demand a corrective to the status quo. Likewise, whenever economic growth suffers greatly that too will demand a corrective, since it doesn't meet human needs either. Although surely, the more we work at it then the better we get, so we don't have excesses in the first place.
Neither pure socialism (or even communism) nor unbridled laissez-faire economics work. What's left? Call it democratic socialism or socialized democracy if you want, but I'm endorsing Bernie Sanders because of his specific policy proposals. I like them. I think they can work. There is nothing in them that calls for the end of capitalism. It's time for his kind of change.
I have been pushing for Bernie Sanders with his Democratic Socialism. There has been quite a kickback from the very people who should be endorsing this position, right-wing Republican evangelical Christians. Here's a bit of what I've been saying in opposition to the conservative status quo.
Bible quote: Jesus said, "if you wish to inherit my kingdom, go and sell all your possessions and give the profits to the poor, then come and follow me." (Matthew 19:21)
Actual Christian response:
I'm not sure where you're going with this thought as the quote is simply addressing the dangers of people relying on Government help without working and trying to provide for themselves and contribute to society. I believe the Bible passage you quoted to be more about letting go of items such as wealth that inhibit us from following Jesus with our whole heart rather than dictating how the poor are to be taken care of.
The Bible is quite clear in both. The New Testament and the Old Testament that we are to work to provide for ourselves and our families. Here are just a couple quotes:
2 Thessalonians 3 10-12: For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
Proverbs 14:23: In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty.
John Loftus:
First off, notice the radical individualism inherent with the misuse of these texts. This may be the over-all problem in America, an antiquated Westward-Ho individualism, and it's still here today.
This is a visual demonstration using many graphs showing why we should be democratic socialists.
I am a Social Democrat. The reasoning is simple, if you care about social equality, freedom, democracy, quality of life etc., then Social Democracy is the best way to achieve these. Many European nations apply Social Democracy to a certain extent but there are four nations which are truly Social Democratic: Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. Let’s see how successful these nations are when it comes to what is important to a functioning society. LINK.
Now that's a very impressive number of followers. Anakin began quoting my book, so I asked him who he was, and began following him. I didn't expect what he told me. His name is John Matthew Leone, saying: "I'm a former Fundamental (later Evangelical) pastor from New Jersey. Graduated from a fundamental Baptist seminary with a MATS and helped to plant several churches in Philadelphia and one in Camden (NJ)." Below is why he's an atheist:
I don't know exactly how one gets a following that large (I know others have more), but I'm guessing it takes a lot of hard work, or someone with lots of followers to ReTweet your Tweets. We followed each other and I bid my readers to follow him. He told me his deconversion story which I placed below. I ask you, is it much different from a great many others we've heard? Seems like the Bible is the #1 reason people leave the Christian faith. So read the Bible!
This former Seventh-Day Adventist from Australia began looking into atheism out of curiosity, beginning in 2008. What led this nurse away from faith entirely? "Books mostly, that's what did it. Only after that year did I see some videos, hear some podcasts, read some blogs, join some Facebook groups, attend an atheist convention, go to some meetup groups etc." And then an all too familiar sounding story played itself out:
My journey begins. The train pulls out of the station from outer suburban Melbourne. I am on it, I begin reading my "book one". The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I felt awkward, embarrassed even and read it behind a magazine to disguise the fact. I had picked it up on a whim, seemed many others were reading it. My motivation was curiosity, my expectation was that it was all rubbish and I knew better as a Christian, my hope was to be able to refute everything with an apologetic stance etc. Questions were raised.
Then the author says what so many of us have repeatedly said: "Consider reading "both sides", some apologetic books and rebuttals etc."
Notice the value of books here! Yes, books, not soundbites, not pithy sayings or pictured memes, not podcast interviews, not YouTube videos, not blog posts or Facebook updates. Books alone, out of the other media available, allow an author to produce a lengthy sustained case for something. Books are also the source for many of the ideas found in the other media.
Christian, have you done this? I've said it before and will say it again,if all you read are Christian defenses of your faith then you're not really interested in the truth. It would be like a Mormon who read nothing but the Book of Mormon, or Mormon defenses of the Mormon faith. It would be like a Muslim who read nothing but the Koran, or Muslim defenses of the Muslim faith. Get the picture? And if you don't read the books recommended by those of us who have rejected faith then you're not interested in the truth either. I say this to jolt you into making a conscious choice. I want Christians to make a conscious decision. Either start reading the books we recommend, or admit you really are not interested in the truth. I have produced a monthly book reading program for readers in what I call The Debunking Christianity Challenge. Read these twelve books. Start this week! [I really should update this challenge for 2016, but by the end of this year I will have published ten books, which means my ten choices for twelve months would be my books, and that ain't right, right?]
Frank is a good friend of mine. We've spent several weekends together talking and laughing and telling stories. At the age of 76 he's still an indefatigable laborer on behalf of atheism. I've mentioned him several times [See tag]. Here's a picture of us from this past weekend.
Frank was the voice of atheism in America for at least a decade, and he earned the "Mr. Atheist" yearly award twice from American Atheists. Many young atheists and new people to atheism have never heard of him. They should. Ed Suominen, co-author with Robert Price of the book Evolving Out of Eden, wrote up a very nice celebration of Frank's life.
Below you'll watch Frank do a great job of debating William Lane Craig. This debate took place at the Willow Creek Church in 1994. I don't have the words to express my contempt for Jeff Lowder, whose only comment about Frank Zindler, a giant of a man, was that he's one of the worst atheist debaters. WTF? No really, WTF? It took my prodding to keep Lowder honest, since that's apparently a hard thing for him to do if left unchecked, by forcing him to change what he wrote. Now Lowder says this is one of a handful of the "worst atheist debate performances," and that too is nothing but dishonest self-promotion from a non-credentialed wannabe self-proclaimed "philosopher." For apparently we need Lowder to tell us what a bad debate performance looks like because we're just too dumb to think for ourselves. And yet Lowder refuses to say what everyone else but him thinks, that Richard Carrier's debate performance against William Lane Craig was one of the worst atheist debate performances, making Lowder a hypocrite as well.
Steve Stewart was a music pastor in a large Evangelical church who's now a freethinker. This is Part 3 in a series of posts from a paper he wrote [See tag below for others].
JESUS OF NAZARETH
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. -Hebrews 13:8
1 John 3:8 says, ”The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” What works of the devil did He destroy? Isn’t there as much or more evil in the world now than before Jesus came?
Jesus said that His Father “has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners…to release the oppressed” (Luke 4:18-19). Why doesn’t Jesus bring about the freeing of the 30 million exploited and powerless captives who are being held in slavery throughout the earth?
The Jews were punished because they rejected and killed Jesus. But what if they hadn’t? The whole doctrine of Redemption through Jesus’ blood would be null and void.
When Jesus said, “Take no thought for the morrow,” (Matthew 6:34) didn’t he realize how many people would take him literally and therefore foolishly make no preparations for the future? Shouldn’t He have qualified that statement?
Why doesn’t Jesus multiply loaves and fishes (Matthew 14:13-21) again to provide food for the 17,000 children all over the planet who die from hunger and starvation each and every day?
Why doesn’t Jesus again say “Peace! Be Still” (Mark 4:39) to the tornados, floods, hurricanes and typhoons that have been devastating the earth God made and killing its inhabitants?
Why doesn’t Jesus extend His healing hand in Haiti to strike down Cholera, which has stricken more than 660,000 people resulting in more than 8,300 deaths in the last few years?
How is it possible that Jesus said “Let the little children to come to me” (Matthew 19:14) and also that the Holy Spirit inspired, “Happy is the one who seizes his infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)?
The New Atheism is a name given to a movement represented by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, all of whom wrote best-selling books that were highly critical of religion [1].
Although the New Atheism does not eschew the classical arguments against the existence of God, its focus is primarily on the immorality and harmful consequences of religious thinking itself. For some, the New Atheism is not merely atheistic, but also anti-theistic [2].
Another main feature of the New Atheism is a secular apocalyptic outlook born out of the events of September 11, 2001. A secular apocalyptic outlook refers to the view that religion has the potential to destroy humanity and our entire biosphere.
However, many secular and religious critics of the New Atheism have charged the New Atheism with a number of flaws. One is a lack of expertise in scriptural and religious studies that has led Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens to make pronouncements that are rightly viewed as simplistic or inaccurate in some cases.
This situation has led to the perception that the New Atheism has no experts in scriptural and religious studies that could challenge religious counterparts with as much or more expertise. Others have conflated all New Atheists as followers of a neoliberal or capitalist ideology. Still others note that all the representatives of the New Atheism are white males.
Accordingly, there is a need to identify a Second Wave of the New Atheism. Such a need was discussed briefly in Hector Avalos, The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), but it received no elaboration [3].
I have a few questions about your test that I have been developing since completing WIBA. I have three challenges to your test and would love to see what you think here.
1. The problem of interpreting results:
Imagine that every single prayer was answered. Would that mean that God exists? Or that I had developed some kind of new age focus technique that controls reality? A positive karma shield? Or maybe Satan is answering these prayers to fool me and keep me from becoming a muslim? Or perhaps Stephen Laws Evil God answered them to bring about some greater evil. What conclusions would I draw?
What if all of them fail completely. Nothing is answered. 100% negative response. What does that mean? Is God mad at me for testing Him? Is Satan trying to crush my faith? Is it all for a greater good? Bad Karma? Again, no answers.
If the hits and misses run right about equal what would that mean? If I concluded that God does not exist, wouldn't that be committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
Albany is in New York/' I am in New York/ Therefore I am in Albany
Easy to catch the fallacy right? But now run it with prayer
If God goes not exist my prayers will not be reliably answered/ my prayers have not been reliably answered/ therefore God does not exist
Just as I was beginning to think my book publishing days were over, thinking I had personally written all the books I had in me, I submitted a proposal just to test the waters one last time, and lo and behold it was accepted for publication! This happened just when I was beginning to think Randal Rauser had successfully minimized my influence. *Whew* THAT was a very close call!! NOT! More details will follow in the months to come. It makes me happy to make Rauser happy, and Marshall, and Lowder, and Reppert, and even Parsons!! David Marshall will now have at least two future books of mine to review, er, trash on Amazon, while Lowder will still be bookless to speak of, and will still be pleading for William Lane Craig to debate him. Dr. Craig, debate him for Pete's sake. Make that BS in computer science stop whining! Maybe I'll just keep on publishing books to keep them all happy...especially Marshall.
For the record I do not take kindly to bullies. Never have, never will. If you want my disdain then try bullying me. It motivates me. It really, really does motivate me. I can't explain why, maybe it comes from my potty training days. ;-) What I know is that I was born for this, for if this is not who I am, I wouldn't be doing what I do. All I can say is keep it up. It's like pouring gasoline on the fires of my passion. You should all be congratulated, or something!
Look what I found on my twitter feed today! There is importance to an outsider's view! Where have you heard THAT before? We all realize how important this is in every other area. But when I say it regarding religious faith it's denied by Christian apologists. Why the double standard? No really, why the double standard? Please share.
Steve Stewart was a music pastor in a large Evangelical church who's now a freethinker. This is Part 3 in a series of posts from a paper he wrote [See tag below for others].
---------------
THE BIBLE AND TRUE THEOLOGY
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. -2 Timothy 3:16
Evangelical Christians believe that every word of the Bible as originally written was inspired by God. Why hasn’t God acted throughout history to make sure the text passed down from one person/generation to another remained pure and unadulterated in the thousands of times it has been translated and/or copied? Why are there thousands of textual variants in the very ancient copies? Why didn’t he preserve the original “autographs” so that many textual disputes could be avoided?
"Billionaires already own much of our economy. That's not enough. Now, they want to own the United States government as well." --Bernie Sanders. Please share.
I'm linking to a four part series produced by the History Channel called The Men Who Built America. The series focuses on John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford and J.P. Morgan, and how their business empires revolutionized modern society and also made them powerfully rich.
If you want to know the problems Theodore Roosevelt faced as the President in those days this is a much needed set of programs. Episode 4 is an absolute must! In episode 4 we see how "Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan team up to help elect William McKinley to the U.S. presidency by paying for his 1896 campaign, to avoid a possible attack on monopolies. However, fate intervenes when McKinley is suddenly assassinated, and vice president Theodore Roosevelt assumes the presidency and promptly begins dissolving monopolies and trusts in America." This series can also be found on Netflix and perhaps other such sites.
Believers all around the world claim that their particular god answers petitionary prayers. An answered prayer is a request that is granted while an unanswered one is not, okay? From my experience all that's going on is something called selective observation, where a believer counts the hits and discounts the misses. Scientific studies have shown that these prayers don't get answered any better than luck. So if believers really want to know if God answers prayer then here's what to do:
Steve Stewart was a music pastor in a large Evangelical church who's now a freethinker.
---------------------
FAITH
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. -Hebrews 11:6
Why is “faith” so important? How can people in the 21st Century be expected to believe as absolute truth statements written down thousands of years ago purportedly from God and about God, but without current substantiation to affirm the trustworthiness of the statements? The fact is, In order to trust God, we must trust/believe
The Bible
The versions of the Bible we read, and all the people involved in the translation processes from the original languages.
The fallible 4th Century men who finally decided which books should be part of the Bible, since God did not “dictate” what the list should include and exclude.
The people who actually penned the original manuscripts thousands of years ago that became the Bible
The absolute purity of memories of several generations of people who passed the stories and ideas on to others who passed them on to others, etc., down through the years before they were written down
The people who hand-wrote copies of the copies of the copies of the original manuscripts, none of which have survived.
The absolute integrity of every person involved in producing the Bible, from the first person who gave an account or a testimony of an event or teaching, to the translator of the ancient languages.
That nobody who wrote down any part of the Bible, nor anybody who passed on oral tradition before it was written down, had any hidden or private agendas, or had any private point of view which influenced how he/she worded any phrase or sentence. Further, that no one involved exaggerated, lied, minced words, or altered or added words to the original.
All who were part of the process behind the Bible - the hundreds of men and women who lived thousands of years ago, most of whose identities, motives, ethics, life-issues, religious and cultural “baggage,” and intellect or emotional health we know nothing about.
I have been slammed for responding to Amazon reviews so I'm questioning my own judgment on whether to respond to a recent one. I put a placeholder there just in case I decide to do so. What I don't get is that the first two paragraphs said some really nice things about my work, but that three later paragraphs stressed two things that are almost irrelevant if what was said earlier really mattered. It can be read here. Below is my potential response. Should I post it?
Thanks for your review and for your kind words in the first two paragraphs. I appreciate this very much!
As to the typos I think we have them all fixed for the next printing.
As far as the disdain goes, according to Google (which never lies) it's "the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt." I do have disdain for Christian apologetics, and yet paradoxically I'm giving it consideration in this book. So which is it? Are apologetics unworthy of consideration or not? Try writing a book on something you consider unworthy of consideration. That's the Catch-22. I tried not to let it show too much. I did want it to show a bit though. I don't think doing so was obtrusive. And even if it was, doesn't it show would-be apologists how little I think of the present state of Christian apologetics? And isn't that important for them to know?
But I'm not just writing to Christians. I'm also writing to atheists, especially those who wish to argue with Christians. Christians are not likely to read my book no matter what. So what makes you so sure I wrote it exclusively for them? I didn't. I see you rated Greta Christina's, "Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless" with 4 Stars, having deducted one star merely because some of the material was taken from her blog. She clearly shows disdain for Christians and Christianity. So you're holding me to a different standard. I wonder if I were more famous whether more atheists would rate my books higher simply because I was more famous. She is. I'm not. Thinking more highly of a famous person because she is famous is a known cognitive bias associated with the Bandwagon Effect.
If being an apologist requires "deceptive or dishonest argumentation: ignoring evidence, setting up double standards, perhaps even lie to defend [their] faith" as you wrote, then disdain is the inevitable outcome of being an expert in apologetics like I am. It's going to show through sometime.
But I get it. You want me to hide it better. You think that if I did a better job of hiding my disdain for the apologetic enterprise and for the people who specialize in bamboozling the uninformed, that my book might reach more would-be apologists. You actually seem to have hoped it would reach more apologists. You write as if this saddens you too. Yet here you are paradoxically revealing my disdain for apologetics in this review. That sounds counter-productive to our shared goals. Why not let would-be apologists find this out for themselves, rather than warn them of it, if you really want the book to reach them?
Steve Stewart was a music pastor in a large Evangelical church who's now a freethinker.
---------------
INTRODUCTION
For almost all my life I have been taught, have believed, and have taught others that the Bible from cover to cover is absolutely and infallibly true and inerrant, having been inspired by the Holy Spirit. This has been the position which I learned from my parents, our Baptist Church, my Mom’s Good News Club, my Presbyterian Church, the conservative Christian College I attended, the Evangelical Seminary where I earned my Masters of Divinity, and which I have held and taught through my many years of pastoral ministry. It’s why I received Christ as my Savior at a very early age, was baptized, and later ordained to the Ministry.
At various times during my life, I’ve had questions about things I have read in the Bible: things that just didn’t make sense or seemed pretty strange; or statements made in the Bible that didn’t jive with life as I know it. Being very strong on sound, orthodox theology, and always a defender of “true truth,” I just wrote off my misgivings and questions to simply not being able to understand the mind or ways of God. But someday – in heaven – everything would make sense and “we will understand it better by and by.”
I was known for championing “the truth” and disallowing worship songs whose lyrics were not consistent with Biblical concepts.
And then in 2012 something very disturbing and disconcerting happened in the life of our church. I just couldn’t make sense of what occurred. For the first time I was really disillusioned about the efficacy of prayer, for one thing. I began to wonder if God was really listening to His people bringing their deepest requests before His throne day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. And if God WERE listening, why He didn’t respond with an answer that would bring glory to Himself, His Name (reputation) and the Bride of Christ? So my first question about my faith became a momentous catalyst which brought many others to the surface – some of which I had buried for years, and others which came to my mind, one after another. I started to step back from long-held assumptions and presumptions and decided to be open and honest with myself regarding questions that “bubbled to the surface” in my mind.
Judging from a couple of votes, readers don't like it. Here's one thing I wrote:
