How do you explain torture to children? Author Phil Zuckerman faced this challenge on a day that was supposed to be a pleasant family outing:
“Our older daughter had a school assignment to visit a California mission. Built by the Catholics in the 1700s and 1800s, the California missions are a vital part of California history. And so we were excited to take our daughters to check one out, about 20 miles from our home.
“And the mission was lovely: beautiful landscaping, old buildings, indigenous flowers, a trickling fountain. And then we walked into a large hall—and that’s when my younger daughter lost it. The space was full of crucified Jesuses. Every wall, from floor to ceiling, was adorned with wooden and plaster sculptures of Jesus on the cross: bloody, cut, and crying in pain. Some were very life-like, others more impressionistic. But all exhibited a tortured man in agony. My daughter had no context to understand it; she had no idea what Christianity was all about and had never been exposed to this most famous killing in history. She just saw what it objectively was: a large torture chamber. And she burst into tears and ran out.
"In around 2020, a severe pneumonia-like illness will spread throughout the globe, attacking the lungs and the bronchial tubes and resisting all known treatments."
Those are the words of psychic Sylvia Browne in her 2008 book End of Days: Predictions and Prophecies about the End of the World, which rose to the number two position on Amazon's non-fiction chart after Kim Kardashian tweeted about this. For the naive, the accuracy of Browne's prediction seems impressive. But of course it really isn't.
To begin with, the fact that she stated something that turned out more-or-less right is easy to explain: That there will be a widespread virus, and that it will cause “pneumonia-like” symptoms (why not simply “pneumonia”?) are both fairly safe guesses as to what could happen in a given year — even though one is of course still likely to be wrong when making such a prediction. In this case, Browne just got lucky. But she also made far more incorrect than correct predictions. Kardashian's tweet includes the above picture of the relevant page in Browne's book, and there one can also read that another epidemic would take place in 2010, this one involving a flesh-eating disease transmitted by mites that came from exotic birds. You probably don't remember that epidemic, since it never happened.
What you’re about to read may very well be the biggest game changer in the history of discussions on the resurrection of Jesus. In fact, what you’re about to read is likely going to change the way theologians, scientists, apologists, and philosophers view the probability that any corpse, at any point in history, revivified back to life.
I've decided to provide excerpts from my works for consideration. Here's one from Unapologetic, "Chapter 4: Case Studies in Atheistic Philosophy of Religion."
In Defense of the New Atheists
My specialties are theology, philosophical theology and especially apologetics. I am an expert on these subjects even though it’s very hard to have a good grasp of them all. Now it’s one thing for theologically unsophisticated intellectuals like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Stenger to argue against religion. It’s quite another thing for a theologically sophisticated intellectual like myself to defend them by saying they are within their epistemic rights to denounce religion from their perspectives. And I do. I can admit they lack the sophistication to understand and respond point for point to sophisticated theology. But it doesn’t matter. The reason is because all sophisticated theology is based in faith: faith in the Bible--or Koran or Bhagavad Gita--as the word of God, and/or faith in the Nicene creed (or other creeds), and/or faith in a church, synagogue or temple. No amount of sophistication changes this.
When did belief in God begin to lose its footing? Realities on Planet Earth can deliver devastating blows—perhaps none greater that the Black Plague that killed one-quarter to one-third of the population between India and England; each death was grotesque, horrific. Barbara Tuchman made this observation—one of her ringing classic statements—in her 1978 book, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century.
Why don't you read some books while staying home during the next few weeks and months? Here is one suggestion, my latest anthology!
It's very gratifying to hear the recommendations of this new work titled, The Case against Miracles. Like almost every single book of mine it's highly recommended by thinkers and scholars on BOTH SIDES of our debates!
Of it, famed Christian apologist Dr. Gary Habermas said:
Christians need be aware of what non-Christian scholars are saying. In this thoughtful and stimulating volume, editor John Loftus brings together a number of the most accomplished atheists and other skeptics to deal with the crucial topic of miracles, an issue that is important on all sides.
Catholic apologist Trent Horn, author of nine books including Answering Atheism, said:
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.
Dr. David Madison said:
The previous four Loftus anthologies have left little of Christianity intact. Of course, apologists continue to flail, but the case against miracles—so massively documented in this new 562-page book—wipes out all vestiges of this primitive, magical thinking.
Dr. Peter Boghossian just wrote this additional comment on Twitter:
The concept—the excuse—that “these are holy writings” diverts attention from the haphazard way in which the New Testament was put together. Let’s imagine Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John sitting together in a bar, awaiting news about which of their gospels will be selected for the Bible. They don’t especially like each other, and wrote their gospels because they also didn’t like the way the others told the Jesus story. Matthew wanted to correct Mark; Luke freely changed what he found in both, and John—well, John, was sure the others had it all wrong.
Both the political establishment and the billionaire class that backs them want Sanders to quit. Why should he? Now it's down to two candidates, and my bet is that Sanders will destroy Biden in their debate on Sunday March 15th. Here's a preview:
This debate takes place at an important crossroads, where the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic meets a country that doesn't have universal healthcare coverage. Professor Robert Polin provides an excellent commentary on it starting at the 2:05 mark. Polin ends with some very strong words.
Plus, don't forget the existential threat of climate change. Here is the evidence and why it's troublesome! Given that it has been one of Sanders main platforms, and that Biden's record is sketchy, Sanders is the one we can really trust to push for change.
We bailed out foolish banks and their rich investors in 2008-09 to the tune of 700 billion dollars. Records show they spent some of that money foolishly with bonuses to the CEO's, without helping many of the people stuck with home loans that were higher than the cost of their houses.
It's about time the filthy rich should pay back to those of us who helped make them rich!! It's about time we bypass the political establishment who has been complicit in their heist. Let's stop the madness. Let's stop justifying the madness to our own peril. It is time for a revolution.
Do you see how the democratic party and former presidential hopefuls are lining up behind Biden? Rebel against them. They are part of the problem! If you disagree, who's going to force the rich pay a fair wage to their employees, one where no one working 40 hours a week fails to earn enough to afford decent housing, or go to college, or pay for their healthcare? If they don't do it voluntarily they should be taxed into doing it because it's right. It's inhumane not to do so. Better yet, make several of these things free for the American people.
If you're dismissive of these realities, please acknowledge that we need the workers who will accept poverty wages for many needed jobs, and why this is not the society you wish to live in!!! It's not the kind of society I want to live in, no matter how much money I make, because I care. Contrast this with what Trump is planning. He has pledged to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid if reelected:
"Yesterday, when asked about the growing national debt, Trump pledged to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid if reelected. This has been his plan from the start: 1) Pass massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations by claiming they'd pay for themselves. 2) Explode the deficit and send the national debt skyrocketing. 3) Demand cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."
"At this point, Trump and his enablers aren't even trying to hide their plans anymore. For decades, Republicans in Washington have had their eyes on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If Trump is reelected, they'll finally get their wish. We must all come together to stop them." LINK.
Religion and economic inequality exist together. Where you find one you find the other in a modern industrial society. The working class needs religion whenever inequality prevails. The wealthy class of people need religion to pacify the working poor.
This symbiotic relationship is so intertwined the working poor will even justify their economic inequality, and do so because of their religion. This keeps them all happy until someone asks if there's a better way.
It’s rare for religions to come up with new ideas, and Christianity especially did a good job of borrowing, adapting, and recasting. One of the oldest ideas is that gods have a habit of coming alive again. In fact, early humans explained the arrival of spring in just this way:
“A vegetation deity is a nature deity whose disappearance and reappearance, or life, death and rebirth, embodies the growth cycle of plants. In nature worship, the deity can be a god or goddess with the ability to regenerate itself. A vegetation deity is often a fertility deity. The deity typically undergoes dismemberment, scattering, and reintegration, as narrated in a myth or reenacted by a religious ritual. The cyclical pattern is given theological significance on themes such as immortality, resurrection, and reincarnation.” (Wikipedia)
[Originally published as a guest-post on the A Tippling Philosopher blog at Patheos.]
In one of the essays in Loftus's anthology The Case Against Miracles, Robert Price raises an issue that is commonly ignored. Price's essay, “Jesus Christ: Docetic Demigod”, concerns the miracles of the Incarnation and of the Virgin Birth, and is well worth reading for the many additional points it makes (as is the rest of the anthology). Here, however, I'm just going to discuss that one issue, for it is something that puts the very idea of Christian belief in doubt.
Price asks whether it is possible to “believe what you cannot understand.”
Consider the doctrine of the Trinity. It does not mean that there are three gods, nor does it mean that there is one God who “reveals himself in different forms,” for those, he points out, are both considered heresies (Tritheism and Modalism respectively). Or consider what is claimed regarding the Incarnation — namely, that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human. It is impossible to make sense of such a thing. After all, it is a logical contradiction. But then what is it that the Christian is supposed to believe?
The following essay gets it right! That's why we need a revolution that gets results!
Oligarchic rule must be destroyed. If we fail, our democracy, and finally our species, will become extinct.
The oligarchs are happy to talk about race. They are happy to talk about sexual identity and gender. They are happy to talk about patriotism. They are happy to talk about religion. They are happy to talk about immigration. They are happy to talk about abortion. They are happy to talk about gun control. They are happy to talk about cultural degeneracy or cultural freedom. They are not happy to talk about class. Race, gender, religion, abortion, immigration, gun control, culture and patriotism are issues used to divide the public, to turn neighbor against neighbor, to fuel virulent hatreds and antagonisms. The culture wars give the oligarchs, both Democrats and Republicans, the cover to continue the pillage. There are few substantial differences between the two ruling political parties in the United States. This is why oligarchs like Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg can switch effortlessly from one party to the other. Once oligarchs seize power, Aristotle wrote, a society must either accept tyranny or choose revolution. LINK.
Here are two important essays and a video interview with Michael Moore:
One) In truth, the divisive attacks on Sanders and Warren have nothing to do with assuring Democratic unity, or victory. Rather, they serve to defend deeply embedded financial interests and the wealthy donor class on which the mainstream Democratic Party has come to rely. Such wealthy interests are adamantly opposed to the types of policies being advocated by Sanders and Warren—such as Medicare for All and a Green New Deal—that would threaten their concentrated financial and political power. Centrists Don’t Want “Party Unity”—They Want to Defend the Wealthy.
Two) Democratic officials have insisted that Donald Trump is an unprecedented threat to the republic, a fascist and racist dictator whose removal from power is the paramount, if not the only, political priority. Yet the strategy on which they are now explicitly relying to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders from being their 2020 presidential nominee — a brokered convention at which party elites anoint a nominee other than the one who receives the most votes and wins the most delegates during the primary process — is the one most likely to ensure Trump’s reelection. Democrats Craving a Brokered Convention — Including Elizabeth Warren — Should Learn the Lessons of 1968.
Three) Michael Moore in this interview says the democratic party is not thinking about who can beat Trump but who can beat Sanders. Isn't it obvious? Biden has ran for the Presidency three times and only won one state a few days ago, South Carolina. So they're risking losing to Trump.
I have a brand. It's debunking Christianity. And I have a regular readership who likes what I write, and/or finds it interesting to discuss. When I switch gears every four years, or so, to talk about politics, this cuts across the grain of what people expect, and the shit hits the fan. So if you don't like what I say in politics, rest easy, I'll regain my right mind again in a week or two or more. It's just that politics matters to me and this is my venue!! Be patient for a few weeks at the most. All will be well again, and there will be peace in the valley.
The Democratic Party, my party, is doing it again, and will probably get the same results. Last time they decided in advance to nominate Hillary Clinton no matter what. We all know the results. This time it's Joe Biden no matter what.
On NBC News tonight the commentary was that the democratic party is not worried whether Bernie Sanders can beat Trump, they're worried he will win! I kid you not! What this means, if I heard correctly, is that they have a candidate whom they know can beat Trump, but they're going to risk it on someone else, Biden. Forget voting "blue no matter who." Now it's vote for the establishment "no matter what."
The establishment democrats can do whatever they want, but since they already have a candidate in Sanders who can beat Trump, if they risk it all on Biden then it's hypocritical for them to blame the rest of us when we don't march to the tune of "blue no matter who." But they are doing just that. LINK. Given that Bernie has brought into the political process a great many new voters, they are not beholden to the establishment democratic party. Given that the attraction of Bernie's candidacy is to stand against corruption, there is a likelihood they will not vote for corruption if they see it in the democratic party no matter what. LINK. It's times like these I wish I had a much larger audience.
"Four years ago, 12 percent of people who voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary ended up voting for Donald Trump in the general election, according to two surveys. That defection rate is not unusual; the same percentage of Republican primary voters that year ended up voting for Hillary Clinton, political scientist Brian Schaffner explained to NPR. But keeping Democrats unified after a sprawling and increasingly contentious primary season will be essential if the party is to retake the White House in November. So far, signs are not promising: A poll conducted in January by Emerson Polling found that only 53 percent of current Sanders supporters say they will definitely support the eventual Democratic nominee, even if it is not Sanders. By contrast, at least 85 percent of Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren supporters say they will support any Democratic nominee." LINK
Here are some more items that political people for Bernie Sanders might want to share.
Next time someone says Bernie Sanders didn't get much done in Congress send them this informative link to chew on. He's known as the Amendment King! As an outsider, whose perspectives were different than his colleagues, that's the only thing he could do. Even then his amendments were shot down many times. So he learned how to put pressure on Congress from the people, and out of it came a formidable Presidential candidate, who eventually by-passed Congress since they weren't interested. If anything, Bernie's career shows a patient principled wisdom with a tenacity that is admirable! LINK.
I hope all of you on Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid are paying attention! "The Trump Budget cuts the Social Security disability program by tens of billions of dollars. It cuts Medicare by about half a trillion dollars. It cuts Medicaid by nearly $1 trillion." LINK.
Margaret Brennan sat down with 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail in Columbia, South Carolina. Hear for yourself and share. If you are sick and tired of the establishment. If you are sick and tired of Trump. Bernie is your man!
From the article, "It's an absolute certainty that Americans will hide their sniffles, drown their symptoms in over-the-counter drugs, and try to “tough it out” because they can’t afford health care. Besides, they have no paid sick leave, no paid child care, and no guarantee that missing a day’s work won’t mean being cast to the curb. All that “socialist” crap."" "America is, unfortunately, about to get a lesson in why there is much more to a national health system than whether you pay for it in taxes or with checks to an insurance company." LINK
Previously I had argued Bernie Sanders is the atheist's candidate because his policies will raise societal health, which will in turn decrease people's need for a god. Now Christian apologists Victor Reppert chimed in, giving me permission to quote him:
If I were an atheist, and only concerned about the credibility of atheism and didn't care about the country, I would say go for four more years of Donald Trump. That is because evangelical Trump apologists follow him, and they do more damage to the credibility of Christianity than atheists like John Loftus. I seem to spend more time arguing with Trump apologists than atheists these days, because even though they don't know it, they're shooting Christianity in the foot.
This is an interesting proposal, but we do care for people and our country so we cannot do that. He's right though, Trump and his evangelical fan-boys are destroying the credibility of their Christian faith.
Julie Carole, a Canadian, wrote this on Facebook. I approve of this message. People are being confused and deceived by the filthy rich class of people to fear what they need not fear.
In May 2018, volcanic eruptions in Hawaii caught the world’s attention. The New York Times described local beliefs about the cause of the destruction, namely the goddess of volcanoes and fire, Pele:
“…in a striking display of the resilience and adaptability of Native Hawaiian culture, the exaltation of Pele has not only persisted through the centuries, but seems to be strengthening with every bone-rattling eruption of Hawaii’s volcanoes.” Said one 71-year old resident, whose house was destroyed, “My house was an offering for Pele. I’ve been in her backyard for 30 years. In that time I learned that Pele created this island in all its stunning beauty. It’s an awe-inspiring process of destruction and creation, and I was lucky to glimpse it.” (The New York Times, 23 May 2018)
"As wealth and power have moved to the top and the middle class has shrunk, more Americans feel politically disempowered and economically insecure. Today's main divide isn’t left versus right. It’s establishment versus anti-establishment."
"In the fall of 2015, I visited Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri and North Carolina, researching the changing nature of work for my book, “The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It.” I spoke with many of the same people I had met two decades prior, when I was secretary of labor, as well as some of their grown children. I asked them about their jobs and their views about the economy. I was most interested in their sense of our system as a whole and how they were faring in it."
"What I heard surprised me. Twenty years before, most said they had been working hard and were frustrated that they weren’t doing better. Now they were angry — at their employers, the government and Wall Street; angry that they had not been able to save adequately for retirement, and that their children weren’t doing any better. Several had lost jobs, savings or homes during the Great Recession. By the time I spoke with them, most were employed, but the jobs hardly paid any more than they had years before."
"The best way for Democrats to defeat Trump’s fake populism is with the real thing, coupled with an agenda of systemic reform. This is what Sanders offers. For that reason, he has the best chance of generating the energy and enthusiasm needed to regain the White House."
"Instead of hand-wringing about Sanders’s electability, maybe establishment Democrats should worry that a “moderate” Democrat might be nominated instead."
[Published 10/19/2015] Bill Curry of the Salon magazine wrote a timely piece on Bernie Sanders titled, Bernie Sanders is right on the big issues, now we must spread the word! Okay, I fudged the last part of his title, but I think Bernie is the man, if for no other reason but that climate change is our most pressing issue, and Bernie Sanders is making it a top priority. But there are many other reasons, not the least of which is that he looks to democratic atheist countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway as the wave of our future. It has been shown that when there is high societal health, where people's needs are being met, the people in those societies don't have a need to believe in God, so they don't. Since I stand against religious faith then I must also stand with Bernie Sanders, regardless of whether he is a believer or not.
I'm tired of ignorant fear-mongering Christian apologists like Victor Reppert telling his readers:
I remember the well-intentioned ideas that launched the French Revolution and the Russian revolution, and remember also where these movements ended: with guillotines and gulags. As a result I am concerned about what is going to happen if the secularist movement today gets a lot of political power. These people started off with combining secularism with a passion for social justice, and look what happened to them. The death tolls of the Soviet Union far outstrip all the "holy horrors" of Christianity, such as the Inquisition. It's not even close.
Look, if you want to know the direction of democratic atheist societies then look to the Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway. They aren't perfect but they are much better than ours, by far. And since the American people stand with Bernie Sanders on the most pressing issues, that makes him electable. I have not spoken much on politics because I have been jaded after decades of seeing little or no change. Nothing ever changes it seems. That's because we need a political revolution and I aim to do my part. I love Bernie's message. I like how Bernie boldly puts it out there. I think he is electable and I think social media can make the difference. Social media reigns over the establishment. It brought down a few dictators in the Middle East and it can bring down the American establishment, if we want it bad enough. So if you don't help put Bernie in the White House then you are part of the problem! No worries. I'll vote for Hillary Clinton if he fails to get the Democratic nomination. After all, the Republicans are all nutcases. I'm throwing my intellectual weight in favor of Bernie Sanders. First and foremost, Bernie is the best candidate for achieving a good healthy society for everyone, one where everyone can take part and live a better life. But secondarily, there is something else. Bernie Sanders is the atheist's candidate!
My name is John W. Loftus, who says a vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for atheism. I just put the pieces together and will provide more documentation of it in the months to come. I approve of this message. No one paid me a dime to write it. [Click on the tag "Bernie Sanders" for more]
Getting undue billionaire influence out of the political process will be as hard as it was for women to gain the right to vote from an all male Congress. Billionaires will do everything they can to deceive us with complex numbers, by playing to our fears, dividing us over unimportant issues, and bankrolling ignorant pliable politicians. This is our time to take control of our country. Don't let it slip by. Women did it, along with others who cared. We can also do it, with others who care.
Unfortunately, too many people do not care about anyone else but themselves. Be on the right side of history. Every major country has universal health care. Help Bernie Sanders make that happen in the USA too.
Bernie Sanders has said, "No one asks where we're going to get the money to pay for the military budget or for Social Security. People only ask that question when it comes to universal health care and climate change." The fact is there's a strong possibility the changes Sanders proposes will actually save us money!! Now what will his naysayers say? Even if it will cost more, if cost is the only factor then why not do away with the military and Social Security!
The following is an excerpt from a lecture Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899) gave all over the country commending Thomas Paine. It can be found in full right here. To see more of Ingersoll's speeches and writings check out fellowfeather's site, The Ingersoll Times, from whom I first heard of this lecture. In the excerpt Ingersoll hails reason, knowledge, and science while excoriating belief. It's fantastic!
There are Christian apologists who argue that a god exists because reason can only be accounted for, and justified by a god. Even non-believers must acknowledge god's existence, they argue, for by using reason we acknowledge god as its foundation. This is the Argument from Reason, of which Victor Reppert is the leading defender, hitchhiking on what CS Lewis had previously written. What Ingersoll shows us, by contrast, is that Christians denigrate reason, knowledge, and science in favor of belief. Imagine that, there are people who reject reason who ironically argue that reason leads to god! What an astounding amount ignorance and hypocrisy! If reason leads to god they should be the champions of reason and science rather than belief. But they denigrate it every chance they get. They only use it when it suits them in this fallacious argument, but fail to apply reason across the board to the nature of nature, it's behavior, and whether there's a religion that has sufficient objective evidence for its miracles. In other words, to paraphrase accurately from Christian apologist Frank Turek, they steal reason from non-believers since nonbelievers are the people of reason.
For info on the Hindu god Shiva click here. "Shiva is the third god in the Hindu triumvirate. The triumvirate consists of three gods who are responsible for the creation, upkeep and destruction of the world. The other two gods are Brahma and Vishnu." There have been many gods of death and destruction. Here's another photo:
I once asked a super devout Christian woman—she was really into it—where her beliefs came from. Without hesitation, she credited her mother with instilling the faith—who had inherited it, in turn, from her mother. That settled it, as far as she was concerned: the truth of her beliefs was securely anchored. But I had asked the question to find out how much the woman knew about Christian origins. How much did she know about the era and culture in which Christianity had been born?
This is pretty significant as Gary Habermas is probably the reigning evangelical apologist focusing on the resurrection, next to William Lane Craig and Mike Licona. If there is anyone who still fails to appreciate this anthology maybe Habermas might change their minds:
Christians need be aware of what non-Christian scholars are saying. In this thoughtful and stimulating volume, editor John Loftus brings together a number of the most accomplished atheists and other skeptics to deal with the crucial topic of miracles, an issue that is important on all sides. --Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Research Scholar & Chair, Dept. of Philosophy, Liberty University.
Gary tells me he's recommending this book to his students. My hat goes off to all the authors that helped make it such an excellent book!
One of the best stories in the gospels is found in John 8. Jesus defends—and apparently saves—a woman who “was caught in the very act of committing adultery.” The religious busybodies who monitored such things brought her to Jesus, and wanted to know if he endorsed the “law of Moses,” which stipulated death by stoning for the crime. A picture of calm and compassion, Jesus answered, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Famously, he bent down to write with his finger on the ground, and when he straightened up, the accusers had slunk away:
We've seen this same MO before from Christian apologists who must denigrate science to believe, and along with it, the requirement for sufficient objective evidence for their miraculous extraordinary claims. Just look at the posts I've written about it right here. This fact alone, if you knew nothing else, should be alarming and cause you to doubt the healing power of the Christian snake oil they're peddling! In what follows is yet another attempt to sell that snake oil from a PhD named Matthew Flannagan, who fancies himself as knowledgeable when he's not. On Facebook atheist activist Tom Rafferty posted this meme:
At the request of my friend Fellow Feather, and with Tom Flynn's permission, I'm sharing the entire text of Tom’s recent Op-Ed to Free Inquiry readers. It contains a very interesting challenge, which might be the subject of a lot of discussion in the years ahead. I've asked people for the issues that initially caused them to doubt, which are multifaceted since there are so many reasons to begin doubting. In this new pivot challenge the request is to share the pivot moment when you decided to walk away from your faith. In his Op-Ed Flynn shares his own pivot point along with those of two others, Dale O'Neal and Bart Erhman. Fellow Feather shared with me still more stories, from Robert Ingersoll at the age of 7, from Howard Van Till, who was forced to wake up to a drastically different God, and from Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins. Share your own pivot points in the comments if you wish.
In case you missed this, Trump specifically disagreed with Jesus — and did so during the annual National Prayer Breakfast!
That event's keynote speaker, Harvard's Arthur Brooks, argued for more unity in our politically divided country, saying that we need to go beyond mere tolerance and actually “love our enemies.” Which is, of course, something Jesus said. Trump, however, who immediately followed Brooks as speaker, began his talk by saying “Arthur, I don't know if I agree with you.”
This is the same guy who said that he has never asked for God's forgiveness — who in fact said that he doesn't “like to have to ask for forgiveness,” adding that he is “good” anyway.
Franz Kiekeben is a former lecturer in philosophy and the author of two books on atheism, The Truth about God, and Atheism: Q & A. He has also written for Skeptic magazine and published academic articles on determinism and on time travel.
The religious bureaucrats who hovered around Jesus—and conspired against him—suspected that he performed miracles because he had help from demonic powers (Matthew 12:24): “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” Supposedly they knew a thing or two about the hierarchy in the spiritual realm, and they assumed that anyone who could kick out demons had been deputized by Satan. Of course, Jesus didn’t see it that way at all, and got the better of demons whenever he had the chance. He ordered them about, as we find in the dramatic story in Mark 5: he transferred the demons into a herd of swine.
I've already published my debate opener on the virgin birth right here. One of the best things about debates, for me anyway, is that they force me to write debate openers. They are succinct statements of why I don't believe. They will stand the test of time, even if public debates allow for the irrelevancies and non-sequiturs of my debate opponents to muddy the waters.
All that's required is to be born and raised a Hindu in Prayagraj, India! Now please tell me this, how would you persuade these men to reconsider their faith? The best answer is to use The Outsider Test for Faith. So if you use it on them, why not use it yourself? LINK
Last June, here on this blog, Robert Conner spoke the truth: ‘The Bible really needed an editor with a shredder.” Even the most devout (honest) Christians would mutter, “Amen to that, brother.” They have tried to read the Bible cover-to-cover—and many have succeeded—but found it a trial: truly, an endurance test. Only fundamentalists will insist that all of it must, somehow, be the word of God—and that every story, for whatever reason, serves a purpose. Naturally, there are fundamentalist commentaries devoted to defending every last word and syllable.
My debate opponent believes a virgin named Mary gave birth to a divine child named Jesus over two-thousand years ago. The most significant problem is that theologians cannot explain how a human being and a god can be one and the same, that is, 100% human and 100% divine, with every essential characteristic of humanity and divinity included. How can a god be a god if he has a body? How can an infinite timeless god exist in time? Conversely, how can a human be a human if he or she doesn’t have a body? How can a finite human take on eternal godlike characteristics and still remain a human being? How can a human be perfectly good incapable of being tempted to sin, and yet also be tempted to sin? Christians themselves have shown the incoherence of a divine/human being by their 2000 year long disagreements over it.
Make no mistake about it. This is what my debate opponent is aiming at in this debate. The virgin birth is a first step toward claiming Jesus was God incarnate. My aim is to stop him short of this first step, even though his case isn’t done until he tackles the second step by dealing with some formidable philosophical objections to a divine/human being. With no such being there's no virgin birth either.
Let’s start by talking about the kind of evidence we need.
When David Attenborough was asked why he didn’t give God credit for the splendor of creation, he offered a good reason:
"They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."
Attenborough’s suspicion of theism was shared by Charles Darwin, who wrote in a letter to Asa Gray in 1860:
My name is David Kyle Johnson. I am professor of philosophy at King’s College (where I teach, among other things, logic and philosophy of religion) and also a professor for The Great Courses. (My courses include Sci-Phi: Science Fiction as Philosophy, The Big Questions of Philosophy, and Exploring Metaphysics. All cover religious topics.) I am a former conservative evangelical who was liberated from the shackles of religion by philosophy, and am delighted to have been invited to write for “Debunking Christianity.” And for my first article, I’d like to defend an action I recently took: putting my name on an open letter.
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.
