It isn't certain, but it's virtually certain that probability is all that matters when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe. It it isn't certain, but it's virtually certain that sufficient objective evidence is all that matters when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe. It it isn't certain, but it's virtually certain that evidence-based reasoning is all that matters when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe. Since evidence-based reasoning is science based reasoning, it's likewise true to say that it isn't certain, but it's virtually certain that science-based reasoning is all that matters when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe. If anyone can provide a better method for understanding the nature of the universe then what is it? Faith has no method at all.
Christian apologists must denigrate science to believe. That is a fact. It should warn everyone to avoid it, or any other religious faith. Not long ago David Marshall objected to my quoting this from a CSI episode: "People lie. The only thing we can count on is the evidence." Why would he do that unless he's denigrating science? apologist Mark Mittelberg also has a dim view of science.
On Facebook I made the comment: "Every claim about the nature of nature, or how it works--or worked--needs sufficient objective evidence commensurate with the type of claim being made."
Christian apologist Matthew Flannagan responded: "That claim of course leads to an infinite regress, so it's hard to understand why you take it seriously."
I replied: "Matthew Flannagan my first thought is if you are right then all claims lead to an infinite regress. For if sufficient objective evidence isn't the foundation of knowledge nothing else works. So if all claims lead to an infinite regress Pragmatism is conclusion, the view that sufficient objective evidence works to get at the truth better than any other foundation."
I had a debate/discussion with apologist Travis Dickinson where he made the claim that relativism is self-refuting. I responded that relativists think in exclusively terms of the probabilities, so what they say cannot be self-refuting. Dickenson should just remember how he starts his philosophy classes. Instructors dislodge the idea of certainty out of their students by asking them to justify why they aren't dreaming, or in a Matrix, or brains in a vat. Any college student knows certainty is an impossible goal, so whether they state it or not these former students, who go on to become philosophers and intellectuals in the universities, are always talking in terms of probabilities. So relativism cannot be self-refuting. They are saying it's highly likely objective truth is beyond our means of knowing it, or knowing it completely, or knowing it unless there is objective evidence for it. Their statements cannot be self-refuting since they're not universalized statements. In a world where our brains haven't evolved to seek after objective truth, but rather to survive, Pragmatism (which acknowledges this about the human brain) is the only way forward. Pragmatism embraces objective evidence as a way to get at the truth precisely because our brains skewer the data in favor of preferred comfortable tribal social beliefs.
The best explanation for the fact that all non-Christian theists reject the resurrection miracle of Jesus--numbering over two billion--who a believe in a god who exists and does miracles, is a that the odds for believing in the resurrection are not increased by believing in a god who exists and does miracles.
For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid— not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they’ve been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. . . . In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
“She advocates dirty books,” was the accusation of Eulalie Mackechnie Shinn in Meredith Wilson’s The Music Man. Her barb was aimed at Marian the Librarian, and she spoke conventional Christian wisdom: sex = dirt. Tom Lehrer captured more truth—even for many Christians—in his classic song Smut, “Dirty books are fun…I enjoy having my prurient interests aroused.” But proper Christian orthodoxy pulls us back to Mrs. Shinn’s verdict. As we find it expressed in the Bible, for example.
Faith as an attitude toward truth is always blind faith. It adds nothing to the quest for truth except the dangerous feeling of certainty. It is always irrelevant, superfluous and unnecessary. It impedes the quest for truth. Any questions?
The mystery deepens. People love their Jesus, they may even claim that they belong to Him, and one measure of moral superiority is Jesus Behavior: What Would Jesus Do? But there must be widespread failure to read the gospels, or the texts are read under the close supervision of apologists (preachers and priests) who explain away—well, they try—the nasty and often grim message in many of the sayings attributed to Jesus.
The God most theists believe in isn't merely a powerful non-physical being who created the universe; he is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfectly good and perfectly free being. And apparently male. Theologians might claim that he is also immutable, timeless, perfectly simple, impassible (that is, not affected by anything), and several other things besides. But what reasons could anyone possibly have for believing in such a God?
The standard arguments for God's existence — even assuming that they worked — do not support the above claims. For example, design arguments at best conclude that some intelligent being is responsible for the characteristics found in the universe (or for some of these characteristics). They don't say that this being is all-powerful or all-good; they don't even show that this being created the universe out of nothing (she might only have rearranged previously existing matter), or that this being still exists. Nor do they show that monotheism is more likely than polytheism. Cosmological arguments fare even worse: at best, they show that there is some ultimate cause that is itself uncaused, or that necessarily exists. But by themselves, these arguments do not support the idea that this ultimate cause is an intelligent being, much less that it is a perfectly just and benevolent heavenly father, or one who has any of the other properties claimed by theists.
If you haven't watched this before please do. If you have watched it you probably need a refresher.
Shermer wrote the Foreword to my anthology The Case against Miracles. I wrote the chapter on the resurrection of Jesus in it, of which Shermer says: "Loftus devotes a chapter to the resurrection and it is the best analysis I’ve ever read." The rest of the book is just as good! It's coming. Get ready. Set...
This should be interesting in the coming months. I'll be featured with Shermer and James Randi in a Christian documentary on medical miracles. That film is coming out sometime between now and April (so I'm told). We represent the loyal opposition to William Lane Craig, Paul Copan and JP Moreland in it. Let's hope the final edits do us justice.
<--- Apologist Michael Licona says this...and yet the emphasis Paul gives to an empty tomb is zero (see I Cor. 15). Why is it apologists like Licona--who were NOT there--stress something that the first teller of the story--who WAS there--does not?
Licona cannot produce one eyewitnesses. No one saw Jesus arise out of the tomb. All he has is hearsay testimony from one ancient author (Paul), and one gospel writer (Mark), who's story was copied and expanded upon by others (Luke & Matthew) who differed about the details of a wildly impossible extraordinary claim that a dead person walked out of the grave. Licona should take seriously that dead people do not get up out of their graves three days after dying. One would need extraordinary claims like this to be backed up by a sufficient amount of unassailable objective evidence and/or a sufficient amount of quality unassailable objective evidence. But Licona has no objective evidence at all. None. Again, he just has some hearsay reports of a minimal level of ancient testimonial evidence as filtered through a few highly passionate believers who sought to convince others of their cultist beliefs. So there is no one we can cross-examine under oath, which means this second-third handed testimony wouldn't be allowed in a court of law.
Where the battle rages is how to best minimize our biases in weighing religious faiths, which Michael Licona admits. The only solution is to seek sufficient objective evidence for what we conclude here, or withhold belief. Again, all he has is hearsay testimonial evidence in the form of ancient writings from people who were not eyewitnesses themselves, which is not objective evidence. Such testimonial evidence would not be allowed in a court of law precisely because we cannot cross-examine it for consistency and truth.
So announced Dr. Jack Cottrell, the premier fundamentalist theologian of the college. He goes on to say, "Actually, the school that started there on Price Hill in 1924 already died just a few years ago; this will be the official closing of the school that took its place." Another fundamentalist school is taking it over. This is a sign of the times. Here is another fundamentalist college biting the dust for holding to outdated and debunked views! Which one is next? Their fundamentalist theology is no longer acceptable to the youth of today as other conservatives admit. Surely THAT is a major reason for the death of the school. Some of them are taking it as good news because they fail to understand the significance of it all. Christian colleges that buck the trends are fighting an unwinnable war against liberalism. Then the new liberals become the conservatives for the next generation as amnesia sets in. It makes sense to change, lest they die, but when it comes to faith who cares about making sense, right? So they will die off one by one.
Holy Cow! You too could be worshipping cows! This fact should be very significant to believers who are sure they were born into the one and only correct religious faith who also believe everyone else is wrong in significant ways. It should stun them. It should force them to investigate their own culturally indoctrinated faith like they would investigate buying a new car or house, by looking for negative reviews as well as positive ones. I wrote the consumer digest report manual on how to do this RIGHT HERE.More photos.
There are thousands of dead and discarded gods. Once fervently believed in and prayed to, they have fallen out of favor, or their worshippers have been wiped out in the march of history. But faith is tenacious; it takes a lot for folks to abandon their gods, once any particular theology has seized a place in the mind. That goes for a lot of beliefs. Try explaining to people why astrology is bunk, or why crop circle aren’t proof of alien pranks.
Dr. Hector Avalos lays down a major blow on religious people who deny there's such a thing as religiously motivated violence. Containing nearly 500 pages of solid scholarship he strips believers of any reasonable response, as we've come to expect from the good doctor. It's surely going to be the classic text on the issue. Bravo! Link.
Rather than chasing religionists down the ever receding hole of definitions, I talk in terms of concrete examples. Do it and you too will have better, more fruitful discussion/debates. This is my counter-apologist stance.
You want to talk about miracles? Let's look at the virgin birth. You want to talk about evil? Let's look at the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. You want to talk about morality? Let's look at the biblical view of genocide and child sacrifice to Yahweh.
This is knockout meme #622, as compiled by David Madison. Check them out and share them when called for! Just so I'm clear, I'm not interested in possibilities, or hypothetical scenarios, or arguing with Devil's Advocates on the issues I write about. I'm only interested in probabilities. We need to think exclusively according to the probabilities by proportioning what we conclude based on them.
Given what we read in the New Testament, we are entitled to a few expectations about how the world should work—and about God’s involvement in it.
• “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. And even the hairs of your head are all counted. So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows.” (Matthew 10:29-30)
• “…on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all. (Romans 2:16)
• “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” (Mark 3:28-29)
We just released another short film which compiles the back and forth between Sir Roger Penrose and William Lane Craig. I think it shows Craig either not understanding cosmology or being dishonest about. When asked about Penrose's cyclic model Craig said it wasn't a cyclic model and it has a definite beginning. Penrose said that was wrong. Craig then doubled down and we went back , not just to Penrose, but also his colleagues. They all said Craig didn't understand relativity.
We also show that Craig quotes Penrose saying the universe is fine tuned for life. But Penrose himself says he doesn't believe in fine tuning. He also said he agreed with Sean Carrroll's point that the entropy clearly isn't fine tuned for life. This despite the fact that Penrose's name was trotted out by Craig as someone supporting fine tuning.
Lastly in his discussion with Lawrence Krauss , Craig said to the audience his co author James Sinclair, is a physicist. We show that claim is extremely dubious.
How do you walk away from a group that promises eternal life as a membership perk? “Your body may die, but you don’t have to, if you believe what we tell you to believe.” The resulting emotional investment commonly blocks rational thought, especially if mom and dad got you to join the group as a kid.
But what if that same group teaches that you are an inferior form of humanity? Being a woman, for example. You’re free to join—to retain your membership—just don’t forget your subservient role. That promise of eternal life overrides everything: you can put up with a lot. And, of course, the bureaucracy has worked hard to explain that your inferior status is divinely ordained.
I just took the #SecularSurvey! If you're an atheist, agnostic, humanist, or non-religious American, you can tell your story and help our community be heard! Check it out at www.secularsurvey.org
We’re so used to hearing Bible texts recited from the pulpit, hence the aura of holiness surrounding “God’s Word.” And as part of devotional exercise, church folks are commonly urged to read their Bibles to advance their understanding of the faith. Priests and pastors are there to help them deal with rough patches they might encounter; apologists have formulated endless excuses to make the bad stuff in the Bible look good.
Lay people are not usually coached, let alone trained, to come at scripture with a rigorously skeptical, critical eye; a devotional posture doesn’t encourage that. How many of them have the time or inclination anyway? They want to “take it on faith” that each Bible chapter—even the bothersome bad stuff—must have value, must reveal something about God.
In Part 1, we saw that the Modified Divine Command Theory (MDCT) attempts to avoid the Euthyphro dilemma by postulating that God's nature is such that he would never command, say, torturing babies (and thus make torturing babies good). However, it was argued that this solution doesn't work, for in place of the original dilemma, we can now ask, is what God commands good only because he has that specific nature, or would his commands still be good if his nature were different?
If the former, then what makes his commands good is that they are compatible with the particular nature that he has, and not merely because they are his commands. But then God is not needed as a basis for morality, since in this case what makes something moral is just that it conforms to what any being with that nature would want (whether such a being exists or not). And that is inconsistent with the MDCT.
If the latter, however, then his commands would still be good even if his nature were entirely different. And that means that if he did command torturing babies, it would be good to do so — and thus we have not avoided the problem that plagued the traditional Divine Command Theory.
Unsurprisingly, the above criticism has itself come under attack by proponents of the MDCT. Their attempts to fix the theory, however, reveal a deeper problem — namely, that they have two incompatible views as to what is essentially moral. Like almost everyone else, they believe that what's essentially moral are acts that are kind, fair, etc. Yet they also believe — or want very much to believe — that what's essentially moral is whatever God wants.
Trent Horn earned three master’s degrees in the fields of theology, philosophy, and bioethics. He runs the apologetic podcast "The Counsel of Trent." He's also the author of nine books, including Answering Atheism. We recently dialogued on the rationality of miracles based on my upcoming anthology, The Case against Miracles. It's only $20.99 and contains 644 pages, so I'm told --a whopper of a deal if I've ever seen it! Trent wrote this blurb for it:
"While some entries are stronger than others, The Case against Miracles represents a powerful critique of the miraculous. Its central arguments demand the attention of any serious defender of the Christian faith."
Parts 1 & 2 of our dialogue can be found right here. It's really good I think.
The quote is from David Eller: "Nothing is more destructive to religion than other religions; it is like meeting one’s own anti-matter twin. Other religions represent alternatives to one’s own religion: other people believe in them just as fervently as we do, and they live their lives just as successfully as we do. The diversity of religions forces us to see religion as a culturally relative phenomenon; different groups have different religions that appear adapted to their unique social and even environmental conditions." Eller goes on to ask the problematic question: "But if their religion is relative, then why is ours not?" Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker, p. 233 which is a superior book!
Tim Sledge proves ex-clergy can still be good pastors
“The trouble with born-again Christians is that they are an even bigger pain the second time around.” So said Herb Caen, the San Francisco columnist who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1996. I don’t know what Caen’s experience was, but these days we know that the zealotry of the born-agains can be so tiring. A few of them drop in here at the DC Blog to comment and complain. They admit—they confess to the world—that they are devotees of the ancient Jesus mystery cult; no rational argument can dissuade them. They remain under the spell of the 1912 hymn, “I will cling to the old rugged cross.”
This essay was written by Dr. Dale O'Neal, who received a “Preacher of the Year” award from Talbot School of Theology when he studied there. The winner two years earlier was John MacArthur Jr., and the winner the previous year was Josh McDowell. As an ex-christian and psychologist he explains how Christian zealots are made. This is very insightful! Christian apologists should read this essay to see what has happened to them. I can only hope it will be shared and read widely!
Growing up in a naïve version of Christianity—we heard little about the Crusades, the Inquisition, and certainly nothing about the horrors of the Thirty Years War—I had little trouble embracing the assurance that God is love. I heard it from the pulpit, from my mother, and it could be carefully teased out of scripture that actually disconfirms it.
It never crossed my mind to wonder where the idea that God is love came from, nor, of course, to doubt that it was true. Faith was the guarantor. Christianity would be in jeopardy, of course, if the folks in the pews mustered the curiosity to probe: Indeed, where does this idea come from? Preachers and parents in the Christian tradition have heard forever the bedrock article of faith God is love and passed it along.
If you find this religious practice abhorrent then realize self-flagellation has been practiced by Christians, even by the Reformer Martin Luther. For more photos see LINK. If you think this is wrong then tell us what you would believe and defend if you were born into this religious culture?
If you ask the average believer why killing an innocent person is wrong, chances are they will say something like, “because God commanded us not to murder.” This suggests that most Christians agree with the traditional Divine Command Theory (DCT). On this theory, what makes something right or wrong, good or bad, is God's will. Thus, killing an innocent person is morally wrong because God has a rule against murder, charity is right because he wants us to love our neighbor, and so on. I doubt whether the majority of Christians actually accept the DCT, however.
On a previous post, I argued that, if people actually learned morality from The Bible, then they would not find anything in it morally problematic. Similarly, if believers thought that what makes something right or wrong is nothing more than God's will, they should not find any of God's commands disturbing. On more than one occasion, the biblical God commanded the slaughter of women and children. If the DCT is correct, then that was obviously the right thing to do. Remember, all that it takes to make something good is God willing it. And yet, even when theists bite the bullet and say that there must have been a good reason for such a command, they show by their hesitation that they do not find it obvious at all. Similarly, consider the fact that God regarded slavery as permissible. Why don't most Christians today accept that? After all, the permissibility of owning other human beings follows straightforwardly from the DCT and the claim that the Bible is the word of God. But fortunately, most Christians apply an independent moral standard, and as a result reject the pro-slavery position (even if to do so they have to make up some excuse for God).
According to the resurrected Jesus, speaking in Mark 16, baptized Christians should be able to cast out demons, drink poison unharmed, pick up snakes, heal people by touch—and “speak in tongues.” But the faithful can breathe a sign of relief: This is a fake Jesus quote, included in the fake ending of Mark’s gospel, 16:9-20; these verses were added later, by whom and when, we do not know.
This list gives us an idea, however, of the mindset of the early Jesus cult that wanted Jesus to preach this message. Christians today—those outside Pentecostalism, that is—may draw a blank about “speaking in tongues.” But it’s not hard to find the apostle Paul’s guidance on the topic, in I Corinthians 14. Richard Carrier has defined “speaking in tongues” as “babbling in random syllables,” and it would appear that Paul was less than enthusiastic about it himself, although he bragged that he spoke in tongues more than anyone else (v.18). v
The video below on the probability version of suffering was written by William Lane Craig and produced by his staff at Reasonable Faith. The question is whether an omni-god exists or not. Don't allow Craig the magician to draw your eyes away from that question with the deception of misdirection. For Craig the magician cannot use the existence of an omni-god to solve the problem of suffering for the existence of an omni-god, since whether an omni-god exists is the issue. Nor can he use his unevidenced believing background indoctrinated information.
Furthermore, Christians like Craig are still focusing on the wrong problem. We keep hearing how they (i.e., Alvin Plantinga) have answered the logical problem of suffering, and it's nauseating (and probably false). But when they turn away from it to the probability version of suffering they don't answer the real problem. It's not just suffering we're talking about. The real problem is that the amount of horrific suffering in the world makes the existence of an omni-god improbable.<-- See the link then ask yourself if the video addressed the points made there. While the video gives lip service to the phrase "so much pointless suffering", it expresses the problem like this: "Suffering provides empirical evidence that God's existence is highly unlikely."
So there are two kinds of misdirection going on. Craig the magician 1) uses an omni-god, at least in part, to solve the question of the existence of an omni-god given the existence of so much horrible suffering, and he does so 2) with a strawman version of the real problem. If you don't see what's going on you're not paying close enough attention. With this magician's trick exposed for what it is, enjoy the show:
I was asked to talk on best advice I ever received for Hall's podcast, Laughing in Disbelief. I wanted it to be different so I chose something GK Chesterton said (14:37 minutes).
Dr. Nick Trakakis, one of the most important philosophers of religion in today's world, and author of "The End of Philosophy of Religion," surprised me recently with the following message:
Hi John, I'm currently reading your book Unapologetic book and thoroughly enjoying it. Suffice it to say that I am in wholehearted agreement with you. I actually find it very sad to see a discipline (the philosophy of religion) I have cherished for many years being debased and distorted by so-called Christian philosophers. Like you, I have now finally and happily found my place in the atheist community.
I seem to be moving towards a strange kind of atheism, whereby (i) the personal theistic conception of God is rejected as incoherent, but (ii) even if it turned out that I was wrong and there is such a God after all, I still think that such a God should be rejected, in Ivan Karamazov style: “no thanks, you can have your ticket back”.
I’m slowly making my way through your "Unapologetic book", it’s quite fascinating, loving the Nietzschean hammer style."
John Constantine lives in Johannesburg, Gauteng. On Facebook he did me an honor by posting my words into a list of "ten presuppositions of atheism." As you might guess I love them! I was meaning to do this same thing but never got around to it. I'm not claiming to have originated these concepts. But someone is reading my works! As a quibble, I wouldn't call them "presuppositions" but rather axioms. What other axioms are foundational to atheism? Below I'll suggest a few more. Let's be creative and find some new ones.
Look how long William Lane Craig's answer to this question is! LINK. It appears that the more words required then the more obfuscation we see. It shows how much he needs his "answer" to be true as opposed to the correct answer.
The correct answer to this question is simple and easy. Professional historians are held to the standards of probabilities. So it stands to reason that a miracle like a resurrection from the dead is extremely improbable, to say the very least. Neither Jewish nor Christian historians conclude otherwise, even though they are theists. It takes the special pleading of an apologist to do so. Don't just take my word for it. See Bart D. Ehrman's argument.
Christians turn to the gospels to read the story of Jesus, and they assume that the stories are God’s honest truth—so to speak. Scholars, however—even devout scholars—want to know where the gospel accounts came from; after all, they were written decades after the events described. But it’s good enough for believers that God inspired the authors, so how could they not be accurate? In Caravaggio’s superb depiction of divine inspiration, an angel guides the right hand of Matthew as he writes.
But insistence on “scriptural inspiration” is an example of special pleading, that is: our documents don’t have to meet standards of evidence that are expected of other histories—because, in effect, God wrote them. No scholar would accept that argument to prove the accuracy of, say, David McCullough’s biography of John Adams, i.e., God inspired him. No: especially with someone as important as Jesus, rigorous standards of evidence must be used. Special pleading is cheating.
If you were indoctrinated into your religion, why doesn't that make you suspicious? Why don't you recognise that indoctrination is not evidence that a belief is true? On the contrary, why don't you treat indoctrination as a red flag? Why don't you see beliefs that are not supported by evidence but have to be drummed into small children as prime candidates to be questioned? Why don't you see that beliefs you are instructed NOT to question are the very beliefs you SHOULD question? If you think at all, indoctrination should be the trigger to doubt a belief, not to double-down and defend it with your life. Indoctrination works on children but only works on grown-ups if they let it. Don't let it. --On Facebook.
Exactly! This! If you were indoctrinated then that's a very strong reason to investigate your indoctrinated religion for the first time, as if you were a non-believer. In fact, doing so should be considered a rite of passage into adulthood. All you have to do is start by honestly admitting you were indoctrinated!
Jack and Andy talk interview me about the fallacious nature of religious thinking, and my upcoming anthology, “The Case against Miracles”. I've never liked my own interviews but there is a lot of good information in this one! Enjoy.
Parasites like mosquitoes kill and kill again. Praise Jesus!
"Mosquitoes are our apex predator, the deadliest hunter of human beings on the planet. A swarming army of 100 trillion or more mosquitoes patrols nearly every inch of the globe, killing about 700,000 people annually. Researchers suggest that mosquitoes may have killed nearly half of the 108 billion humans who have ever lived across our 200,000-year or more existence." LINK. Isn't your god good!
Bart Ehrman, with several best-selling books about the Bible to his credit, has taught undergraduates:
“… part of the deal of teaching in the Bible Belt is that lots of my students—most of them?—have very conservative views about the Bible as the Word of God. A few years ago I used to start my class on the New Testament, with something like 300 students in it, by asking the students a series of questions, just for information:
• How many of you in here would agree with the proposition that the Bible is the inspired Word of God (PHOOM! Almost everyone raises their hands)
• OK, great: Now, how many of you have read the Harry Potter series? (PHOOM! Again, almost everyone raises their hand).
• And now, how many of you have read the entire Bible? (This time: scattered hands, here and there, throughout the auditorium)
Marty Sampson, formerly of the worship team "Hillsong" is in the throes of doubt. I know one other person who became a blogger here at DC, who eventually emerged from doubt as a Christian. Check his story out right here. So I don't predict how Sampson's journey will go. I wish him well on his journey. I know that belief is powerful and bolstered by a whole lot of very strong social ties that can be extremely hard to break away from, even if there are an overwhelming number of good solid reasons to walk away from it. So I won't accept praise or blame for his final decision even though I'm in contact with him.
I was honored to join in a discussion with apologists Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, known as experts resurrection apologetics, at Marty's request. I like Gary and Mike both as persons. I've met them both on two or three occasions. Habermas even recommends my last book to his PhD students LINK. But they are wrong. I think I made that case.
I was a teen-age Bible geek, way back in the 1950s, in rural northern Indiana. My devout mother was not a fundamentalist, however, so I escaped that infamy. Quite the contrary, even at that early age I developed as aversion to the letters of the apostle Paul. There was no one to tap me on the shoulder and warn me: if you don’t like Paul, Christianity probably isn’t for you. My dislike for Paul had not diminished years later when I selected my major in the PhD program at Boston University; I chose Old Testament to escape excessive study of Paul. I would realize my mistake many years later, since Paul’s theology plays a major role in the falsification of Christianity.
Marty Sampson of "Hillsong" posted this on Instagram. See what Cameron Bertuzzi thinks is a sufficient response:
CC:
A few thoughts:
(1) Interesting use of legos.
(2) This is why it’s important that we continue to emphasize that questions aren’t arguments.
(3) Maybe I should start saying that incredulity isn’t an argument either.
(4) Christians have not been silent on passages like these (e.g., see Copan and Flannagan’s book).
---
Kit Alcock:
I think it's obvious what the implicit argument here is, or at least one can do a charitable construction of such an argument
---
CC:
The most that we’d have is a syllogism, there certainly wouldn’t be a defense of the premises.
----
Kit Alcock:
Right I agree with that, I just think that that can often be achieved by setting out the argument for them
----
CC:
But this is kind of missing the point. The point is to get the person asking questions to think logically. To help them think about the connections between their statements and their conclusions. To get them to consider whether their statements are supported by more than their own credulity.
It depends on the situation. Just giving them a reconstruction that’s valid isn’t necessarily going to help them give valid arguments in the future.
----
John Loftus:
This final answer of yours makes no sense if you're trying to actually help the doubter. The goal isn't to teach them to offer articulate arguments. Your goal should be to answer their objections.
Some angry Catholic apologist has been tagging our posts with his angry long-winded responses. I know of no other blog, Christian or atheist, that allows for arguments by links, especially to plug one's failing blog or site. I've allowed it for about a month with this guy but no more. He's not banned. He can still come here to comment. It's just that we don't allow responses in the comments longer than the blog post itself, or near that. If any respectful person has a counter-argument or some counter-evidence then bring it. State your case in as few words as possible and then engage our commenters in a discussion. But arguments by links or long comments are disallowed. I talked with David Madison who has been the target of these links and he's in agreement with this decision. He's planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future. So here's how our readers can help. I've deleted a few of these arguments by link. There are others I've missed. If you see some apologist arguing by link flag it. Then I'll be alerted where it is to delete it. What's curious to me are the current posts he's neglecting, like this one on horrific suffering. If he tackles that one I'll allow him a link back.
