Good riddance! Almost my entire life there he was, every week, predicting the return of Jesus based on this or that, with an overblown confidence and disregard for facts. He was never raptured into heaven above the earth somewhere. But he did escape the coming tribulation. Ha! LINK.
Would this be a good idea? From now on, all new Bibles should be expanded to include not just the Old and New Testaments, but also the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon. After all, the Old Testament is the sacred text of another religion, and it made it into the Christian canon. There are just under two billion Muslims in the world; how could that many people be wrong about the holy word of Allah? Don’t we have to take their scripture seriously? There are about 15 million Mormons in the world, roughly on a par with the number of Jews worldwide. How could we justify exclusion of the Mormon scriptures? Surely, they can’t all be wrong too. These branches of the original Abrahamic faith are confident God updates his word.
Suppose you WERE to think (whether imperialistically or arrogantly or not) that we are talking about levels of existence, from lower to higher: rocks, trees, non-human animals, and humans. The fact is that the lower ones can never know about the higher ones, what they really are, what they are capable of, how they exist, what they do, and so on. They can’t even conceptualize their existence.
Then what in the blazes should should make me think that I could possibly know if there was a higher order above me, superior to me in ways that I simply can’t imagine? Not just one order above me, but lots of orders? If there are such orders, there is no way I could ever know. Literally. Duh.
And so really, agnosticism is the ONLY option. Not in the sense of a shoulder shrug, “Hey, how would *I* know?” but in the sense of a deep thoughtful response – I have precisely no way to adjudicate the view, one way or the other. Facebook LINK.
My Response: Bart argues for a possibility. So, yes it might be possible that some nebulous god exists. But possibilities don’t count, especially when they lack objective evidence. You might as well say it’s possible we’re living in a Matrix or dreaming too. But it’s probable we aren’t. We should think exclusively in terms of the probabilities.
Such a god solves no problems that we cannot solve ourselves through science, nor does s/he act in the world in ways we can detect, nor does s/he guide our behavior with discernible morals we can learn from nature, nor does s/he set a good example for us given the amount of horrendous suffering in the world.
Ask yourself how your god-hypothesis might help us solve any problems that we cannot solve on our own. Without any utility such a god is unnecessary. Consider also what such a god has failed to do in the world and it’s clear s/he is an uncaring and even a terrible being, so that god isn’t worth our reverence or awe. If such a god exists we should ignore him/her or adopt Protest Theology, where we shame such a god for his/her lack of care. [Discuss].
There's a lot of confusion out there about metaethics. Case in point: I recently ran a promotion of my book Atheism: Q & A, and as a result received a one-star review on Amazon, apparently for no other reason than that the reviewer does not understand what I mean when I claim that morality is subjective. The review makes it clear he sees me as a relativist, for he objects to my position by pointing out that (contrary to what I supposedly imply) slavery is always wrong.
Part of the reason for that misunderstanding may be because many atheists do in fact espouse the kind of relativist view that my critic finds objectionable. But the main problem is the over-simplification that is common in popular discussions and writings on this topic. Most people seem to think there are only two main positions one can take: absolutism/objectivism, which states that there are moral principles that are true for everyone at all times, and relativism/subjectivism, which roughly says that what's right for one person may not be right for another. What's worse, some atheists appear to associate the absolutist view with religion (in effect implying that if one adopts such a position, it is only because of one's religious beliefs), and as a result insist on relativism. And of course, the religious more often than not criticize atheism on the grounds that it is incompatible with objective values, and thus can only lead to relativism.
In addition to all this, the terminology involved isn't used in a consistent way even by philosophers. There are specific views which everyone basically agrees on the meaning of (e.g., non-cognitivism, emotivism, intuitionism), but some of the broader terms are definitely used in more than one way — and none more so than “subjectivism.” No wonder, then, that there is so much confusion.
How would many Christians today handle these two scenarios?
• Walking down the street, they approach a busy corner, where a man is yelling his message, “Please, people, pay attention, I promise you Jesus is going to arrive any day now. We’ll see him coming through the clouds! He’ll welcome you if you have repented.” Do they stop to listen, shake his hand, and thank him for spreading the word?
• The preacher on Sunday morning, surveying his/her well-dressed, suburban congregation, has a message that no one is expecting: “Please, everyone here, stop having sex. That goes without saying for you single folks, of course, but I mean married couples. Give up sex, right away, right now, because Jesus is coming soon, and you should focus only on that!” Do they shake the preacher’s hand eagerly as they exit the church, and thank him/her for the warning?
From time to time I'll add some discussion about my anthology The Case against Miracles. Click on the Tag Case against Miracles below for more entries.
This comes from a discussion on Bart Ehrman's blog, which I've been made a temporary moderator.
Question:
How does one deal with and avoid a specific bias towards secularism in one’s intellectual work? I ask because there is no doubt such a bias exists, and there is no doubt that it debilitates rational thought just as readily as any other bias. The question is this: how do those of us who experience such a bias make sure our conclusions are not affected by a prejudiced reading of the evidence?
Loftus: The bias in deference to sufficient objective evidence is far superior to the bias in deference to what one was raised to believe, or in deference to mere 2nd 3rd 4th handed TESTIMONIAL evidence in the ancient pre-scientific superstitious world, which cannot be cross-examined for truth or consistency. Yes?
-----
Question: What if it's impossible to corroborate the resurrection of Jesus with objective evidence as you require?
Loftus: When it comes to believing in a resurrection from the dead in the distant superstitious past it requires strong and/or numerous pieces of corroborating objective evidence, unlike ordinary events. We don’t have it for the resurrection so there’s no reason to believe it.
It may even be impossible to corroborate a resurrection in the distant past, but that doesn’t change our need for sufficient objective evidence. Such a god should have waited until modern science had arrived for the ability to confirm it.
Reason itself demands this. If your god is a reasonable deity who desires us to be reasonable with the evidence, then when I say reason itself demands this, your god demands it. Or, your god created us to be reasonable people yet desires us to be unreasonable.
LINK. Here's one photo below. Christians in the West never honestly consider the implications of it. They cannot allow themselves to. So thinking about religion is not what they do. Honestly assessing their religion isn't something they do either. Belief is what they do! They could believe something totally different by virtue of when and where they were born, with no way to think themselves into the true religion, if there is one. To be honest with their inherited, culturally indoctrinated religion they must force their brains to do so. But they refuse, when deep down they know they should, which is being dishonest with their religion.
I here reprint comments made by Robert Conner, responding to my article posted here yesterday, The Why-Bother Bible Factor. His reply was prompted by my observation, "But academic Bible study is a large, sturdy industry." ROBERT CONNER:
“…one of the curiosities of a tragic bibliolatrous age…”
In the dark interior of a cathedral in Spain, I once saw women, intensely in prayer, touching the frames of paintings depicting saints. The sense of touch must be helpful, a technique for connecting with divine power. No doubt this accounts for the appeal of relics, most of which are now kept behind glass. At least people can gaze at items that holy people have touched or owned—even parts of their bodies. Is this act of piety a way to ward off doubt, a safeguard against disbelief, i.e., venerating a fragment of God in full view? God has become visible.
It’s pretty easy to spot how religion works: it usually stresses the importance of faith, urging people to skip the crucial step of asking for evidence. The author of John’s gospel is explicit about this approach. The apostle Thomas happened to be out when Jesus made a post-resurrection visit to the group, and was skeptical of their story. A week later, Thomas was present when Jesus showed up again, and the latter said to him (20:27-28): “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” And then he got a bit of a scolding from Jesus: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”
On his blog Dr. Bart D. Ehrman posted Michael Shermer's Foreword to my new anthology The Case Against Miracles. You can see teasers on his Facebook page (Dec. 22nd and 23rd). He has made contributor Darren Slade and myself temporary administrators, which is cool. Ehrman has three more selections to post about the book.
In the first one on his blog (not the one on Facebook) I got into a discussion with a believer, brenmcg. I think it went rather well, and helps clarify and expand on why we need objective evidence before we should believe any miracle tales. Enjoy.
I think evangelical Christians are in bed with "Satan". What? Don't they believe in God anymore, and that if they remain faithful to his moral principles he will straighten out their political problems? I think not. By embracing "Satan" they are forsaking any help their god might give them.
Five separate excerpts of my book on miracles will be posted by Professor Bart D. Ehrman for comment, beginning today. The first one is from Michael Shermer's Foreword. A big thanks goes out to Ehrman for doing this. Please share. Facebook link.
Belief in God might be sustainable if folks could just settle on a simple affirmation, such as “God is…” Perhaps an unknowable Force or Power that ignited the cosmos exists, and we can take heart that cosmologists are on the hunt to discern what actually happened. However, theologians and laity alike—from ages long ago to the present—have never been satisfied with “God is…” They have decided, without telling us how they know for sure, that God has multiple traits. “God is…” e.g., all-powerful, loving, knows everything, is slow to anger, has a plan for everyone, picked out a promised land, had a son; the list goes on forever. Unfortunately there never has been a Supreme Religious Council to say, “Stop! What a mess! All of these things can’t be true.”
Judeo-Christian theologies aren't the only ones requiring blood sacrifice! So does Hinduism. That's crazy! More crazy is a human sacrifice! It's unbelievable people still believe this is necessary. The only explanation is that they were raised to believe it, by parents who were raised to believe it, stretching back parent by parent to a previous barbaric superstitious century. Likewise with the animism of Shintoism, even though its worship of nature stands opposed to such sacrifices.
The appeal of holy books, according to John C. Wathey, is that
“…it does not matter what they say. As long as they are perceived as imparting divinely inspired instructions and wisdom, they will evoke in readers the infantile solace and comforting emotions of a small child receiving help and instruction from a parent—the less comprehensible, the better.” (p. 133, The Illusion of God’s Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing)
Of course, preachers and priests draw attention to Bible texts that make the faith look good. These texts are read from the pulpit, set to sacred music, and embedded in stained glass—and the Bible itself, in splendid binding, is adored on the altar. None of which means that it is comprehensible—in fact, far too much of defies comprehension, which doesn’t take too much digging to discover. But the laity commonly settle for devotional study of the Bible, hence they are in a category Randel Helms has called “inattentive readers,” those who would be
"Send a copy of 'The Case Against Miracles' to your favorite Christian apologist!!!" So challenges Gary M, a former conservative Lutheran, who is now a counter-apologist. He writes for his blog Escaping Christian Fundamentalism, which I highly recommend everyone visit.
I am a counter-apologist and have read a long list of books by Christian scholars, apologists, and fellow skeptic counter-apologists. This book, The Case Against Miracles, is absolutely devastating to the theistic belief in miracles, and more specifically, absolutely devastating for the greatest alleged miracle of all, the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The convoluted arguments made by Christian apologists for their belief in the supernatural are disassembled. Order this book for yourself and send a second copy to a Christian friend or family member! Help to facilitate the demise of fear-based, superstitious thinking.
To see the books he's read, just check out his current top post! It's pretty impressive. He likes CaM so much he sent copies to several top Christian apologists whom he names:
It took me a long time to detect the fatal flaw in the claim that the Bible is the revealed Word of God. I was well beyond my teenage-Bible-geek years when it happened. While I had never been a fundamentalist—I could admit the flaws and errors in scripture—I studied the Bible because I assumed that God’s thoughts and wishes for humanity could be discerned in its pages. In some sense, God had inspired the authors; the ideas they had committed to writing were God’s ideas.
But eventually I had to come to grips with the mechanics of that. Just how would inspiration work? It turns out to be beyond verification, and other problems pile on as well, virtually eliminating the Bible as a source of trustworthy information about God. It has no standing whatever; Christianity is without famous anchor. Demonstrating that, in detail, is Knockout Punch Number 3.
[The following is an excerpt from my small book, Atheism: Q & A, the Kindle version of which is, for promotional purposes, free December 4 through December 8. The book consists of short entries (like this one) that answer common criticisms of atheism. The paperback isn't free, but it is inexpensive — and might make a nice Winter Solstice gift for anyone who holds misconceptions about your views.]
The complaint that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist is a strange one. After all, it seems to imply that there’s something wrong with believing on faith — even though in every other context faith is regarded by believers as a virtue. Maybe all that is meant, however, is that everyone is in the same boat, ultimately basing their views on something other than reason and evidence, and that the atheist therefore has no right to single out the religious for criticism.
But is this really true? Does atheism rest on no firmer foundation than religion?
This meme is floating around apologetics sites with a huge number of likes and positive comments. It is the brain child of Greg Koukl, who is training Christians in the tactics of debate.
The point of this meme is that we believe the religion (or nonreligion) of the relatives who raised us. Koukl is stating the obvious as if this is significant. He ends by rhetorically asking atheists "Now what?" as if it takes away our thunder. Koukl's answer to atheists is to use the fallacy of tu quoque, known as the “you too” fallacy, which is claiming an argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making it is not being consistent with the claims of the argument. The reason why this is a fallacy is that the one who argues in this way, as does Koukl, is skirting the argument by not dealing with it honestly. For example, if someone argues "Your Mom is a bad cook", it does nothing to show your Mom is a good cook by retorting, "Your Mom is a bad cook too." Yet that's exactly what Koukl does.
This is the kind of tactical advice Greg Koukl offers. We've seen it before [click on the Tag below]. Koukl explains what he's doing with these kinds of meme's in the introduction to his book Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions:
With the recent release of my anthology, "The Case against Miracles", I've noticed a small spike in sales of my other books. So if you want more of them here are all TEN, listed in order of publication date.
“When was the last time you offered your condolences to a neighbor whose son is demon-possessed? Demons are just not encountered in everyday life, contrary to what one would expect if the New Testament worldview still held good.” So says Robert M. Price in his new book, Jesus Christ Superstition (p. 123).
Hold that thought: “…if the New Testament worldview still held good.” We know that many Christians have moved on, and not reading the Bible has probably helped with that. In the fifth chapter of Mark’s gospel, Jesus transferred demons from a man into a herd of pigs. How many Christians would admit that this story doesn’t reflect how they view the world, much less enhance their faith? But demons transporting into pigs reflects the New Testament worldview. Again, Robert Price:
Here is a discussion I had with a guy who continues to pray for me despite the fact that I have committed the unpardonable sin of blasphemy the Holy Spirit. I inform him that his faith will eventually die and I show it might take the extinction of life as we know it, but it will die.
How bad does the Bible have to get before you toss it? “That’s quite enough of that!” The Bible has been so well sold that laypeople usually are unprepared to be that brazen. But theologians and laity alike—were they to be honest about it—would admit that they embrace or disown Bible texts based on their own moral sensibilities. Yes, indeed, they do judge the Bible.
Here's the LINK to my Freethought Radio interview with hosts Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor. I talk about my new book being released tomorrow, The Case Against Miracles.
Currently it's ranked 1st in Atheism Kindle New Releases and 3rd in Atheism Kindle Best Sellers over-all! Be the first kid on your block to get it! ;-) It'll be released this Friday I'm told.
I have initiated these types of requests. I also receive these types of requests. Some I accept. Others I don't. It depends mainly on whether I want the offered book.
[Edited on 7/20/21] If you're here from following a link in my anthology, "The Case against Miracles", thanks so much! You now have an edition of the book that's been thoroughly checked for typographical errors. As of 7/20/21 the book is probably error free. To read updates and further discussions about the book click on the following tag: Case against Miracles.
-------------
Previously I have justified compiling an anthology on miracles, and described Hume's towering influence over us right here. Some would say there's nothing let to say after David Hume's chapter "Of Miracles". If so, we might as well throw up our hands and complain that the ancients have stolen all of our ideas. There hasn't been a book length treatment of miracles like this written by atheists in forever, so it's long overdue. It's also a major defense of David Hume.
In the dedication to The Case against Miracles I wrote: "This volume is dedicated to the legacy of David Hume, considered to be the greatest English-speaking philosopher who ever lived." Then readers will find this quote from Hume:
I flatter myself, that I have discovered an argument...which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures. – “Of Miracles” by David Hume (1711-1776).
No one likes an arrogant person. No one likes to be ridiculed for what they think either. What if Hume didn't say this? What if he played nice with believers? What if he had toned down his rhetoric? What we know is that no one likes to be taunted, belittled, or called ignorant, or delusional. Yet this is what Hume did. Doing so brings believers out of their caves to debate, and debate Hume they have. It's as if what Hume said had a self-fulfilling effect to it.
John Earman viciously criticized Hume in his anthology Hume's Abject Failure, The Argument Against Miracles (2000). One of his claims is that "Hume's famous essay on miracles is set in the context of the larger debate that was taking place in the eighteenth century about the nature of miracles and the ability of eyewitness testimony to establish the credibility of such events. Hume's argument against miracles is largely unoriginal..." He says, "'Of Miracles' is often treated as if it were a genuinely original piece of philosophy. But although it does contain some original insights and is cast in Hume's characteristically forceful prose, it is in fact a largely derivative work." [Chapter 1, Section 7].
While some of the arguments Hume made were, loosely speaking, floating around in his day, it hardly goes to say that his particular argument in "Of Miracles" was made by anyone else. Earman shows where John Locke had some influence on Hume, but merely suggests some others may also have influenced him, without providing any direct evidence. Hume doesn't really say he came up with his argument, anyway. He says he "discovered" it, even though it's clear he's taking ownership of it. The way a particular argument is expressed can make that argument more powerful. Sometimes it matters who makes that argument. People were forced to pay attention to Hume, known to "the wise and learned" as a great philosopher and a great historian. For he had became widely known for his massive 6 volumes series on The History of England, published from 1754 to 1762. When readers of Hume's history learned he ridiculed believers for believing in the impossible, it was his arrogance and his ridicule that most likely thrust what he argued into the spotlight like nothing else, and it still does.
Hume knew the effect of taunting believers who disagreed. At the end of his chapter on miracles he wrote:
So our over-all conclusion should be that the Christian religion not only was at first accompanied by miracles, but even now cannot be believed by any reasonable person without a miracle. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its truth; and anyone who is moved by faith to assent to it is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person—one that subverts all the principles of his understanding and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.
Then at the end of Hume's Enquiry itself, he concluded:
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
Whew. Them's fighting words! And believers have been fighting with Hume ever since. Now I've written a lot to justify the use of ridicule. Hume used it brilliantly. He was also arrogant. He knew the effect that arrogance, inflammatory rhetoric and ridicule would have on believers, when most everyone else thought it was better to engage them with respect. Bravo to Hume!
National Geographic magazine, adhering to the highest scientific standards, four years ago published a map of worldwide Virgin Mary sightings, covering 500 years of reported visions. Not surprisingly, I suppose, Mary has favored traditionally Catholic countries—especially Italy and France—but shunned Muslim countries; it would seem she’s not very missionary minded. No doubt Catholics were over-the-moon contemplating this map. But were those outside the Catholic camp, including non-Catholic Christian theists, as thrilled—or convinced?
Ladies and gentlemen, I humbly submit to you more in the case study of Dr. Matt Flannagan's view of the The Outsider Test for Faith. Here's an example of what cognitive biases do to someone's brain when rejecting the requirement for sufficient objective evidence. He's digging his heels in deeper and deeper into the muddy waters of his faith bias. [See Tag for earlier entries].
This exchange took place on Facebook. I had posted pictures of the Christian apologetics books I own and Flannagan commented.
Flannagan: I am pretty confident that during my education: through secular public school, a public university known for leftist leanings and activism and a secular philosophy department. I studied, read and listened to more atheists and secularists than the average atheist has to Christians. I certainly have read more atheists philosophers than any atheists I know has read Christians.
I had to pounce!
Loftus: You had me up until the bold claim of your last sentence. I think you may know of one such atheist. Even if what you claim is true, it only shows that cognitive biases run wild within your brain. I know this from your review of the outsider test for faith.
The goal of the OTF is to help indoctrinated people to require sufficient objective evidence for their own faith, just as they require it for the faiths they reject. You failed to properly object to the OTF because your brain wouldn't allow you to understand it. LINK.
Here's a shot of my current apologetics books. I have others as ebooks, and given away or sold still others. I've read through most of them, and read significant portions of others. I might be wrong but you can't say I'm ignorant. I showed you mine now show me yours. If you're a believer send shots of all the atheist works you've read.
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.
