What Would Convince Us Christianity is True?

We atheists are asked to imagine what would convince us that Christianity is true. The short answer is this: We need sufficient objective evidence that can transform the negligible amount of human testimony found in the Bible into verified eyewitness testimony. But it does not exist. Given the extraordinary nature of the miracle tales in the Bible, this requirement means the past has to be changed and that can’t be done. Let's explore this.

Consider the Christian belief in the virgin-birthed deity. Just ask for the objective evidence. There is no objective evidence to corroborate the Virgin Mary’s story. We hear nothing about her wearing a misogynistic chastity belt to prove her virginity. No one checked for an intact hymen before she gave birth, either. After Jesus was born, Maury Povich wasn’t there with a DNA test to verify Joseph was not the baby daddy. We don’t even have first-hand testimonial evidence for it since the story is related to us by others, not by Mary or Joseph. At best, all we have is second-hand testimony by one person, Mary, as reported in two later anonymous gospels, or two people if we include Joseph, who was incredulously convinced Mary was a virgin because of a dream--yes, a dream (see Matthew 1:19-24).[1] We never get to independently cross-examine Mary and Joseph, or the people who knew them, which we would need to do since they may have a very good reason for lying (pregnancy out of wedlock, anyone?).

The Morale of Christian Clergy Is Taking a Big Hit

No surprise, given the mess their religion is in

 

1.     Christians can’t agree on who is right, what god wants

 

When Christians are off to church on a Sunday morning, they might have to drive past a few churches of other denominations. Apparently it never crosses their minds to stop at one of these—after all, “We’re all Christians, aren’t we?” But that’s exactly the problem: Christians have never been able to agree on what Christianity is. They’ve been fighting about this for centuries; the Catholic/Protestant divide is especially pronounced. We can be sure Catholics won’t stop at Protestant churches, and Protestants—with contempt and ridicule for the Vatican—wouldn’t think of stopping at a Catholic church.

Catholic Apologist William Albrecht Says I've Strengthened His Faith!

Is this an honor or disgrace? What is going on in his head? What is the message he's telling others? On his Facebook wall Albrecht wrote:

An atheist that has made me a better theist is John W. Loftus. For atheistic books, it’s hard to top John. John is fierce, brutal, and ruthless in his critique of Christianity. This is what we need. We need our faith battered and hammered. If it can survive this battery and hammering and shine through, then you have further conviction for being a devout believer. It is my firm conviction that a seasoned Protestant debater would be devoured alive by John.

People have asked me if I intend to continue debating John. The answer is a strong and firm: YES. I will continue to demolish my friend in debate after debate until the day he is sat down in Mass as a believer. That would make it all worth it in the end. LINK

Further Discussions with Apologist David Geisler

David Geisler: So John why did you say to me that it could be that God does exist?

Me: Because nonsense might turn out to be right even though it's nonsense.

John, I’m really disappointed. Your answers to me are so much nonsense.

Me: Sorry. You don't know what I know. What I know can be found in my books.

John, yes I read a few. You say something can come from nothing. That’s so irrational and stupid.

Me: What I don't say is that a fully existing triune God has forever existed with three eternal persons, which are inexplicable individually and corporately.

John, it’s illogical to conclude that quantum fields are the cause of everything, and say they do not have intentionality nor morality nor intelligence. Something or someone had to create us because we couldn’t just come from nothing! Now, if something can not come from nothing then the only conclusion you or anyone can come to is that something must’ve necessarily always existed. What’s illogical about this conclusion?

Me: My position is we don't know yet. That's a good enough answer at this point. When we don't know, we shouldn't prematurely jump to any conclusions.

Me: But we can, however, eliminate some answers, complex ones per Ockham's Razor. As I have said, your complex sectarian God-answer is one of the least acceptable answers because of the complex nature of a trinity--with the deified human side of Jesus joined forever at the hip to the 2nd person of the trinity. Your god looks exactly like the invention of ancient superstitious people, who required his people do barbaric deeds like child sacrifice, reigned like an ancient uncaring despot who showed no concern for his subjects as we see in the book of Job, who doesn't show any awareness of any medicinal knowledge prior to us discovering vaccines, pain killers, or antibiotics.

Me: You presuppose your concept of god with everything you write. That is illogical!

Me: Just stop your evangelizing. You are uniformed, illogical, and delusional, no different from other religionists like the Mormons.

The Bible Can Be a Believer’s Worst Nightmare

And it’s a go-to book for sustaining ignorance and intolerance 

In my article here last week, I discussed six Bible texts that qualify as dealbreakers: upon analyzing these carefully, believers would be justified in saying, “Enough already,” and head for the exit. The cumulative impact of these six—and many more—should put traditional belief in the gutter. The feel-good Bible verses preached from the pulpit fall far short of cancelling the far too many terribly bad Bible texts. 

 

The worst nightmare becomes even more obvious when we step back and take a look at the big picture. There is no way the Bible meets the high standards that we would expect in a book written/dictated by a wise, perfect god. For a close look at this problem, check out Valerie Tarico’s article published in January 2018: Why Is the Bible So Badly Written?

On Making Sense of the Rapture

The only way to make sense of the Rapture is to believe in a Flat earth and a heavenly palace of abodes in the sky above.

A Tale of Two Magicians

In Acts 8:9-13, the Apostle Philip encounters The Amazing Simon in Samaria. Simon enthralled the people but Philip baptized Simon, Simon followed Philip, and was amazed by the signs and miracles he saw.

In Acts 13:4-12, Barnabas and Paul, aka Saul, traveled to Cyprus and met proconsul Sergius Paulus who had a Jewish magician friend named Bar-Jesus, aka Elymas, who opposed Barnabas and Paul. Paul temporarily blinded Elymas.

In Acts 24, Paul is brought to trial before Felix the governor. After speaking with Paul, Felix decided to wait a few days until Lysias came. Lysias was the Roman tribune who took Paul into custody.

When Paul was brought back, Felix had his Jewish wife, Drusilla, with him.

Now let's play Bingo with Acts and Antiquities of the Jews.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.7.2 [excerpt] (20.142-144a)

While Felix was procurator of Judea, he saw this Drusilla, and fell in love with her; for she did indeed exceed all other women in beauty; and he sent to her a person whose name was Simon one of his friends; a Jew he was, and by birth a Cypriot, and one who pretended to be a magician, and endeavored to persuade her to forsake her present husband, and marry him; and promised, that if she would not refuse him, he would make her a happy woman.

Acts 8:9 (NRSV)

9 Now a certain man named Simon had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he was someone great.

Acts 13:4, 6-8 (NRSV)

4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.
6 When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they met a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet, named Bar-Jesus. 7 He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and wanted to hear the word of God. 8 But the magician Elymas (for that is the translation of his name) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul away from the faith.

Acts 24:24 (NRSV)

24 Some days later when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him speak concerning faith in Christ Jesus.

A Pop-Quiz for Christians, Number 8

Dealbreakers in the Bible  

Based on my own experience—I was pastor of churches for nine years, and have authored two books critical of Christianity—I’m pretty sure of this: devout folks don’t want to think too much about issues that can undermine their faith. Which means that reading the Bible is almost a No-No. Because there is so much in scripture that should prompt educated people to say, “Well, that can’t be right.” There are so many deal-breaker texts, just in the gospels. So in this Pop-Quiz for Christians I want to focus on some of these really embarrassing texts. How can the faithful read, study, reflect seriously on these patches of scripture—and not head for the exit?

My Response to Dr. David Geisler: "If your god exists at all, he literally only wants fools to believe. Wear that as a badge if you want to, but keep this foolishness to yourself."

I have had a running discussion with apologist Dr. David Geisler for about two years now (just a guess). Initially he reached out to me and said he won't quit me, that he will keep reaching out to me for as long as it takes.

We've met and have an otherwise good relationship. He is a really great guy, friendly, with a good family, good reputation, and all. But like all such discussions I get impatient and tired with delusional and obtuse people who respond with illusion and sophistry. I had sent him this link, which he responded to in part, by saying:

John you say in that article “Since there’s no good reason to believe the virgin birth myth, there’s no good reason to believe the resurrection myth, either, since the claim of Jesus’ resurrection is told in those same Gospels. If the one is to be dismissed, so should the other.[13]” John, if someone has already demonstrated good evidence for the existence of a theistic God, then you cannot rule out the truth of a virgin birth off hand. Certainly, if God can do the big miracle, He can do the little miracles. I noticed that when you attack the historical evidence for the resurrection , you do it indirectly not directly…saying if we can’t believe the miracle of the virgin birth, then we can’t believe the resurrection. But then you only accept the proof of a virgin birth that could be shown in the laboratory! Is that realistic? Can we not know some things to be true even if it’s not proven in the laboratory? I think your standard to determine truth as only those things that can be proven scientifically is too one sided! How do you prove the philosophy of scientism? Furthermore, if miracles are possible, a virgin birth is possible.

I responded as follows:

Take the Selective Attention Test

It's a good test! See how YOU do.

Reflections On Dr. Randal Rauser's Resigning from Taylor Seminary

I don't know any details of Dr. Rauser's resignation. Was he pushed out? I don't know. But I'm sure he'll still be around, doing his thing.

Sometime in 2011 I was approached by Rauser to co-write a book that was titled, God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions. I had twin goals in co-writing it. The first one was to force Christians to think about what they would believe if the Bible itself was undermined as a source of divine truth. My claim is that they probably won't believe at all. I'm trying to drive a wedge between the Bible and the brain of the believer. The second goal is to show in a cumulative fashion that Randal's God, having the three main attributes most Christians believe in today--omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence--does not exist. Here is an excerpt from my concluding thoughts. Later, Rauser brought me up to Canada to promote our book with a debate. Here is a LINK about our book, the reviews it received, our debate, and more.

Rauser is a knowledgeable passionate apologist, one of the very best as apologists go, if being one is something to be admired. He seeks to effectively communicate the best that apologists have to offer to non-believers. He is also willing to change his mind in defense of his faith. This would be admirable, except that I have said he will say anything to defend his faith. I stand by that. He claims to have an inner witness of a Spirit guide that proves his faith is true, so he can change his mind and still claim his spirit guide is guiding him. I've critiqued such a view as nonsense.

Even though our relationship had deteriorated to the point that he blocked me from his Twitter feed, and prohibited me from commenting on his blog (which in all honesty was my fault due to an utter frustration with his obtuseness!!), I asked Randal to consider writing a blurb for my very last book on the incompatibility of God and horrendous suffering. It was released at the end of 2021. He read it then shocked me with this blurb:

As a Christian apologist, I can say that there is no intellectual objection to Christianity more daunting than the problem of horrendous suffering. In this important new book, John Loftus has gathered a diverse collection of voices that seek to build a comprehensive, multi-pronged critique of Christianity based on this most difficult problem. No Christian apologist can afford to ignore it. -- Dr. Randal Rauser, Professor of Historical Theology, Taylor Seminary.

Rauser also asked me to debate him on the topic, God of Genocide: A Debate on Biblical Violence, of which I only have my opening statement, which I find is pretty good. I wish him well, and hope that sometime in the future his spirit guide (which is in his head, and there alone) will tell him he's defending nonsense.

“Their only hope of being rescued from the hell Hitler has made of Europe”

The ongoing scandal of god’s negligence

It’s not a stretch to say that the Bible is one of Christian theology’s biggest burdens. It portrays a god that theologians have worked so hard to modify and refine; the very rough edges have to be knocked off. Among many other negatives, the Christian god is a terror-and-guilt specialist, because nothing you say or think escapes his notice. This is Jesus-script in Matthew 12:36-37: “I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” The apostle Paul also had an opinion on god getting even: “…on the day when, according to my gospel, God through Christ Jesus judges the secret thoughts of all” (Romans 2:16)—after all, how else would prayer work if god doesn’t know your secret thoughts? Hence devout Christians are confident that their god closely monitors every human being—all eight billion of us.

Seeking to Confirm One's Faith is the Worst Method for Determining Which Religion is True, if There is One.

A Muslim named Bishr Nayal is commenting here at DC, which I welcome. He quoted Quran 30:58 which reads, "In the Qur'an We have explained things to people in myriad ways. But no matter what Sign you bring to them, those who are resolved upon denying the Truth will say: 'You are given to falsehood." But this quote can be used to say other believers in different sects within Islam are wrong too. Nayal, you are seeking to confirm your faith. Almost anyone can do that. Given the prolific number of religions and sects on the planet, you know that they do it. Yet you're doing the same thing! This is the worst method for determining which religion is true, if there is one.

I've written a book for you. It's called, "The Outsider Test for Faith." Read it. If you choose not to do so, then at this point you are not interested in knowing if your religious faith is true. It can be found here on Amazon. Go ahead. What have you got to lose? It's about methodology.

One thing is sure, whether your read my book or not, seeking to confirm one's faith is emphatically NOT the way to know if your religion is true. It's a known cognitive bias. Agreed? If not, why not? See this explained with regard to St. Anselm. Okay, now read the introduction to my book, to whet your appetite.

Suspicious Interpolations, by Greg G.

Bible scholars often have suspicions of interpolations but do not go as far as taking them out of the Bible unless they have old, reliable manuscripts that omit the passage. Here are some passages that were in the King James Version but have been removed, or in the case of popular passages, they are noted as missing in the most reliable old Bibles.

Greg Boyd, Prolific Apologist for God, Is Making Sh*t Up! There is No Doubt About It! Proof It's All Invented From the Beginning Until Now.

Boyd is leading evangelicals to fundamentally rethink their faith. This comes as the conclusion of his failed efforts to defend his original evangelical faith as an apologist. He lays out what he now believes in an introductory post, which starts out sounding victorious, even as it announces the defeat of the old evangelical Christian faith he now rejects.

We live at an exciting juncture of history. The traditional triumphant understanding of the church, known as “Christendom,” is crumbling. Out of its rubble is rising a grass-roots global movement of people who are captivated by the vision of a Jesus-looking God raising up a Jesus-looking people to transform the world in a Jesus-kind of way. And as this new kingdom wine is bursting the old wineskins of Christendom, believers and skeptics alike are being forced to rethink everything they thought they knew about the Christian faith and life. LINK.

In a way, I hope he succeeds. If he suceeds more evangelicals will be brought closer to the truth, closer to those us who don't believe at all. I've written about this phenomena before. See my posts Honest Evangelical Scholarship is a Ruse. There is No Such Thing!; and also The New Evangelical Orthodoxy, Relativism, and the Amnesia of It All.

Come to the GCRR Virtual Academic eConference on ReligiousTrauma!

Are you suffering from religious trauma? I did, and still do (see below). Visit this virtual academic eConference live on Zoom, hosted by the Global Center for Religious Research, on June 10-11th. It will bring together clinicians, researchers, and survivors from all over the world to discuss the latest research on religious trauma.

Here's a 15% off coupon code. Go to THIS LINK, buy a ticket to the eConference, and use the promo code LOFTUS at checkout. Thanks to the work of Darren Slade for this event and the code!

Teaching of Jesus that Christians Dislike and Ignore, Number 5

They just say NO to their Lord and Savior

A few years ago, a devout Catholic woman was kind enough to read an early version of a chapter that ended up in my 2016 book, Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief. Her willingness differed from the response I got from other churchgoers—those who refused because they were Christians; they were afraid that their faith might be damaged (i.e., I don’t want to think about it). In the chapter she read I discussed Jesus-script about his coming on the clouds to bring god’s kingdom. I was surprised—but not surprised—by her reaction: “I didn’t know Jesus is supposed to come back.” How could she not know this? —because it’s right there in Jesus-script: this would be the finale of his story, his eventual triumph, initiating the kingdom. I was not surprised, however, because I have yet to meet a Catholic who has been encouraged to read the Bible. As I’ve often pointed out, the gospels are a minefield, and the clergy want to avoid having to defend them. This minefield includes 292 not-so-great Jesus quotes—well, that’s my tally, and the list can be found on the website for my book, Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught.

Daniel Mocsny, On The Need Not to Test One's Faith Lest it Fails

A lot of intelligent and thoughtful people comment here at DC. On this thread Daniel Mocsny offers a good comment. He responded to an aspiring apologist named David Pallmann, who has probably not seriously considered any alternative religion given his education. [See Pic] He said, "John W. Loftus hardly. We all try to rationalize our own belief systems first and seldom try to rationalize belief systems which we seldom (if ever) encounter. That's not a double standard."

Double Standards and Hypocrisy!!

Christian apologists aspire to be experts at excusing their god from ineptitude, ignorance and incompetence, when they would never consider doing the same with other gods with whom they don't agree. Am I right, or am I right?

The reason this is wrong, since I was asked, is that it's using double standards and hypocrisy in the quest for which religion is true, if there is one. Aspiring apologist David Pallmann responded:

John W. Loftus hardly. We all try to rationalize our own belief systems first and seldom try to rationalize belief systems which we seldom (if ever) encounter. That's not a double standard. This is, perhaps, the lamest objection I've seen from you yet. 🙄

But David Pallmann, you say what an alcoholic says who claims we are all alcoholics. For surely I just introduced you to the multifaceted number of religions you reject, but refuse to consider, even after learning about them. This is another exercise in hypocritical excuse making.

Two Fantastic Quotes from Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll: On Willful Disbelief & A Designer In Need Of Design

#1 On Willful Disbelief: Can we control our thought? Can we tell what we are going to think tomorrow? Can we stop thinking? Is belief the result of that which to us is evidence, or is it a product of the will? Can the scales in which reason weighs evidence be turned by the will? Why then should evidence be weighed? If it all depends on the will, what is evidence? Is there any opportunity of being dishonest in the formation of an opinion? Must not the man who forms the opinion know what it is? He cannot knowingly cheat himself. He cannot be deceived with dice that he loads. He cannot play unfairly at solitaire without knowing that he has lost the game. He cannot knowingly weigh with false scales and believe in the correctness of the result.

The Bible quotes Jesus with having said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” The Christians say that it is the duty of every person to read, to understand, and to believe this revelation – that a man should use his reason; but if he honestly concludes that the Bible is not a revelation from God, and dies with that conclusion in his mind, he will be tormented forever. They say,” Read,” and then add: “Believe, or be damned.” Suppose then I read this Bible honestly, fairly, and when I get through I am compelled to say, “The book is not true.” If this is the honest result, if the book and my brain are both the work of the same Infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and the brain do not agree? Either God should have written a book to fit my brain, or should have made my brain to fit his book. The brain thinks without asking our consent; we believe, or disbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is a result. It is the effect of evidence upon the mind. The scales turn in spite of him who watches. There is no opportunity of being honest or dishonest in the formation of an opinion. The conclusion is entirely independent of desire. We must believe, or we must doubt, in spite of what we wish. --From Col. Ingersoll to Mr. Gladstone

Cruelty, Crime and Abuse in the Name of Jesus

It never seems to stop

How does religion get away with it? It relies on the ignorance, gullibility and, yes, the complacency of those are committed to piety. And the consequences can be calamitous. In an article I posted here in January, Humanity’s Urgent Need to Outgrow Religion, I mentioned the plan to spend big bucks to build what amounts to a theme-park at the supposed site of Jesus’ baptism—but the developers have been careful not to call it a theme park. It’s a scam, a prank, a joke, because nobody knows where Jesus was baptized, in fact the gospel of John omits any mention of Jesus setting foot in the River Jordan. Yes, John the Baptist is there, but mainly to announce that Jesus is the “lamb of God who takes way the sins of the world.”  

 

But a baptism theme-park is a minor offense. We keep being hit with news about the cruelties, crimes, and abuses done in Jesus’ name. Three headlines of recent vintage illustrate the ongoing problem.

Musings of Daniel Mocsny

Lately Daniel Mocsny wrote a few separate comments for us. Here are some of them. Enjoy!

The Genetic Fallacy

Here is an excerpt from my book The Outsider Test for Faith. There are a lot of gems like this tucked away in that book! Enjoy!

A Hugely Defective Gospel Sequel

A high quotient of fake news

 

The red flags in scripture are all over the place, and easy to spot. By this I mean story elements that alert readers to be suspicious. If we came across these in a Disney fantasy or in Harry Potter story, we’d say, “Very entertaining, but not to be taken seriously.” There are so many red flags in the gospels, and they show up in the first chapters of each. In Mark, a voice from the sky tells Jesus, “You are my beloved son”—right after his baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus had sins? A god yelling from the sky doesn’t sound at all like a real-world event.

The Lord's Brother

Let's explore the relationship between Paul and James. First, calibrate your sarcasm detectors for Paul's attitude regarding circumcision.

Galatians 5:11-12 NIV
11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Jeruel Schneider's "The Holy Shit of the Bible" is a Shitty Book! No Shit!

Tom Jump contacted me to blurb a book for which he had written the Foreword. Jeruel Schneider wrote it and titled it, THE HOLY SHIT OF THE BIBLE: A Countdown of the 75 Best Obscenities, Absurdities, and Atrocities. Now THAT got my attention! So I looked into it and indeed I could happily recommended it, saying:

This book is full of shit. God's shit. The Bible is full of it. Two billion or so Christians are ignorant of it. Hopefully this ingeniously conceived book by Schneider will get their attention. He hopes, like I do, that by throwing this shit against the wall of an indoctrinated brain, some of it will stick. But don't be deceived, it's a well-written, well-informed book, concerning 75 well-informed choices of the shit we see in the Bible.

You can get it on Amazon.

In his Introduction Schneider aptly reminds us what Thomas Paine had said: “Any system of religion that shocks the mind of a child cannot be true.” Let's call this type of book the shock genre of counter-apologetics. Remember what Paine said as you read it.

His book is a countdown from #75 down to #1. It's a great bathroom reader! You get to read a little shit while you're, you're, taking one! Here is a sample. Enjoy.

Ciarán Mc Ardle Argues Michael Jones of "Inspiring Philosophy" Should Not Be Allowed to Sit At the Adults’ Table

Ciarán Mc Ardle sends me emails. Here's an interesting one he sent: In a recent video [Link Below], "Inspiring Philosophy" essentially argues that Christians never really believed in Young Earth Creationism until recent times.

In a hundred years time, there will be an Inspiring-Philosophy-esque apologist who will claim that no Christians ever really believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Plenty of quotes could be adduced to prove this. Even in the New Testament, Saint Paul seems only to believe in a spiritual resurrection. Quotes could then be adduced from Popes, saints, church fathers et al, spanning the 2,000 years of Christianity so as to lend credence to the notion that Christians never really believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was always viewed by True ChristiansTM as mytho-history.

The Role of the Bible in Destroying Faith

Deceptive translators don’t want readers to see the problems 

There has been a meme floating about on the Internet: “If you ever feel worthless, remember, there are people with theology degrees.” These degrees are granted by a huge variety of religious schools, ranging from fundamentalist Protestant to Vatican-loyal Catholic. So among those holding these degrees—what else would we expect?—there is substantial disagreement regarding what god is like, how he/she/it expects people to behave, how he/she/it wants to be worshipped. This is one of the reasons Christianity has splintered into thousands of quarreling brands.

On Tithing To Receive Back

The whole process of tithing in order to get back is rife with problems. I have a dear Uncle who swears that by sending his tithe of $200+ per month to a televangelist his life has improved greatly in the last year or so. His eyes well up in tears over it. Apparently, he switched giving his tithe from one of them to the other. And he doesn't go to church since none of them are good enough. He gives. He gets. The proof is in the results, right?

There must be a few million believers like him who prop up these televangelists who have it easy. The believers who donate to them don't care if they're already filthy rich, since it's all about what they get out of giving to them.

My Rejection of Christianity Passed the Threat of Hell.

Christian believers need to know that my rejection of Christianity passed the threat of hell. That means I had to be very sure I was right, otherwise I could find myself in hell when I die. So there isn't a significant objection they can put forth that I haven't considered before.

The problem is that blog posts, FB posts, essays and papers cannot show them this, otherwise they need to be 500 to 1000 pages long. My detractors are just uninformed about what they read from me, and I cannot show them this is the case since it requires reading a few books of mine, and they won't do that. Discuss please.

"Aliens and Religion" A New Book by Johno Pearce and Aaron Adair!

 

 

Look what came in the mail today!! This is an impressive work! It's an ingenious attempt to reach believers who are otherwise impervious to reason, which has a good chance of succeeding. Bravo Johno Pearce and Aaron Adair! LINK

If It Looks Like a Cult, Walks Like a Cult, and Quacks Like a Cult…

It’s a cult!

 

With well more than two billion followers, Christianity ranks as humanity’s biggest religion, and thus to many it also qualifies as one of the great religions of the world. Look at all it has going for it: 2,000 years of momentum, churches in every city and town—in the countries where it predominates—as well as massive cathedrals that draw vast crowds. From my own experience, I can say that those in London, Paris, Milan, Rome, and Barcelona are indeed magnificent. Some of the great composers have set Christian stories and rituals to music, e.g., Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi. A massive propaganda engine promotes the faith as well: Sunday school, catechism, and professional apologists whose primary goal is to explain away the incoherencies that sabotage Christian theology, i.e., its many claims about god are in jarring conflict, and cannot, in truth, be reconciled. But the apologists are slick enough to make it look good.

Keith Augustine and the Case Against Afterlife Claims

Previously I had written about Keith Augustine's devestating research into afterlife claims, right here. Now Keith has combined his findings into one massive essay at the Secular Web for sharing! Please share! Help end faulty reasoning on behalf of these claims and with it, debunk them, because all apologists can do is use faulty reasoning to defend them.

Paul and James Corresponding

Thank you, John Loftus, for the invitation and opportunity to express some of my ideas.

Dr. Steve Mason has said on a couple of MythVision Podcasts that some of the epistles have passages that seem to be responding to something that has been asked or stated here and uses a telephone analogy to describe it here. He makes a point that this lends authenticity to the epistle, but we can only guess what has prompted the response. This article attempts to show that Paul and James were interacting in that way.

Teachings of Jesus that Christians Dislike and Ignore, Number 4

They just say NO to their Lord and Savior

 

When you’ve been nurtured on ideas since early childhood—they’re a source of comfort and derive from adults whom you trust—it can be hard to see that some of the ideas may be truly weird. This is especially true of the gospels, which remain, for far too many of the faithful, unexplored territory. There may be passing familiarity with gospel stories, based on texts read from the pulpit and heard in ritual. Of course, Christian children’s books have played a major role in making the best Jesus-script well-known, e.g., in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37), and “God so loved the world…” (John 3:16, may or may not be Jesus-script: there was no punctuation in the Greek manuscripts.)

My Rambling Thoughts On Free Will, Determinism, and Making Choices

I had a nice discussion on metaphysical free will, determinism, and making choices that matter. What follows are my rambling thoughts because it was a discussion, and I was finding different ways to communicate. I just don't want to clear up the repetition. It begins with this quote which I dispute:

My message to you is this: pretend that you have free will. It’s essential that you behave as if your decisions matter, even though you know they don’t. The reality isn’t important: what’s important is your belief, and believing the lie is the only way to avoid a waking coma. Civilization now depends on self-deception. Perhaps it always has.
― Ted Chiang, Stories of Your Life and Others

Since we’re alive we must make choices, even if they are determined ones. So why not make those choices good ones, even though those choices are determined ones? At the time we choose we don’t know which ones are determined to be. So the fact that they are determined doesn’t affect which choices we make. Live then, as if it’s all up to us, knowing it’s not up to us. It doesn’t change how we should live by knowing that our choices are determined.

In other words, an action is not yet determined until we choose to do it. We must choose to act throughout our days. Therefore, we are participants in which actions take place. I don’t know in advance which actions I will choose throughout my days. So I am learning as I choose which actions were determined beforehand for me to make. It’s a discovery we make by making our choices.

Keith Augustine On The Fallacious Reasoning of Christian Apologists In Survival After Death Cases

Keith Augustine is the executive director of Internet Infidels, a mega site of helpful articles, debates, commentary, and book reviews. Their main outlet is The Secular Frontier. Along with Michael Martin, Augustine edited a masterful book investigating the afterlife. If you like my anthologies you will love this one, titled, The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life After Death. Now that Martin has died, Augustine is probably the leading secular expert in after-life claims. If you're interested in life after death cases, you need to be reading what he has to say!

Given that his book is expensive Augustine has written a 3-part blog post (#1 here, #2 here, and #3 here) on 16 items that will be helpful for readers. He begins Part # 1 like this:

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones. — Bertrand Russell, “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish” (1943).

In my critique of the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS) essay competition on the “best” evidence for life after death and my response to the summer and winter commentaries on it, I made reference to striking similarities between the arguments made by Christian fundamentalists and survival researchers (i.e., those who purport to investigate survival of bodily death scientifically). In this three-part guest post, I’d like to highlight or elaborate on fifteen or so examples of how those at the forefront of “scientific” research into an afterlife—or in BICS’ framing, the survival of human consciousness after death—have consistently used fallacious arguments that mirror parallel arguments prominent among fundamentalist Christians.

Reading the Gospels as Informed Adults

Rise above the credulity expected in Sunday School

For many, many people, reading the gospels eyes-wide-open for the first time can prompt serious doubt—and their departure from the Christian faith. It’s awfully hard to divest the gospels of that aura of holiness promoted by the church: the gospels are the greatest story ever told—their authors were inspired by God himself. It’s not uncommon for congregations to stand when the ritual includes a reading from the gospels. 

 

But an adult mentality can kick in, i.e., the assumption that I can “spot a fairy tale when I see one.” For example, eleven verses into Mark, chapter 1, we read that a “voice came from heaven” announcing to Jesus—at his baptism—that he was God’s son. But very few of us believe that gods make announcements from the sky. In Matthew, chapter 1, verse 20, we’re told that an angel of the lord tells Joseph in a dream that Mary is pregnant by the holy spirit. Most of us have weird dreams from time to time, but we don’t believe they’re messages from a god.

Dr. Sy Garte On the Similarity Between Political and God Beliefs

I had heard of Sy Garte before, but never had any contact with him until yesterday on Facebook. I had posted Bill Flavell's Ten Things We Know about Gods, which I thought was very good. Then Sy decided to inform us about some things. I present to you my discussion/debate with Garte:

Sy Garte: Substitute Political beliefs for gods and religion. Or art, Or love. In other words anything human. The ones that still work also work for religion, that ones that don't work, don't work of any of them.

JWL: Let's focus on political beliefs. Science and reason are helping us accept what is probably best for people. Once we strip politics of religious doctrines it clears our heads to reject homophobic, bigoted, sexist views based on Mill's harm principle. Once we also strip politics of religious certainties it also helps us based on Mill's harm principle.

"Why Does Creation Groan?" by John R. Schneider in "Christianity Today" is An Extremely Unsatisfactory Answer to Animal Suffering

I like John Schneider, since he's willing to think oustide the box. But he still defends the indefensible when it comes to animal suffering for a cover article in the evangelical magazine, Christianity Today. In Why Does Creation Groan?, Schneider offers readers a quick glance at a book he wrote on the subject.

Schneider does a lot in his book, arguing against apologists who say there was "only one way" for their God to create the universe, given his divine goals. This is noteworthy, but it's not as if it's a big difference, since Schneider goes on to defend the way his god chose to create the universe after all.

Anyway, I wrote the editor about his article. Here's an longer version of what I said:

Goddess Timeline

We must go further back in time before patriarchal religions existed folks. The evidence shows women goddesses were worshipped not male gods. Take that Yahweh. Checkmate! Seriously of course. God is/was a woman!

Spanish Translation: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught

Aimed at Catholic, Pentecostal and Evangelical audiences

The church has always promoted an idealized Jesus. Magnificent cathedrals, with depictions of Jesus in stained glass and sculpture, illustrate the success of this strategy. For its first 1,500 years laypeople didn’t have access to the gospels, so they trusted what their clergy told them about Jesus. Even after the Bible was finally widely available—due to the printing press and translations into the languages of the people—careful reading of the gospels doesn’t seem to have caught on. Surveys have shown how little churchgoers read their Bibles.

If We Can't Do Science This Way, We Can't Do It At All.

Emailed to me by Ciarán Mc Ardle: In this video Randal Rauser accuses Ehrman of being “woolly” for not admitting of the supernatural when doing New Testament History, which is why I link this video [below].

Eugenie Scott, when debating Kent Hovind on the radio defined science as a limited field of inquiry with limited scope.

Science assumes, for the sake of enquiry, that all phenomena are natural and that all phenomena are the result of natural causes. Only this way can science proceed.

God’s Bad Habit of Oversleeping

And the Christian bad habit of being OKAY with it

On Saturday, 10 June 1944—four days after the Allied landing at Normandy—the rural village of Oradour-sur-Glane, in Vichy occupied France, was surrounded by an SS Panzer division of German soldiers. They rounded up all of the residents, forced the men into barns and stables, the women and children into the church. Then, with machine guns and fire-bombs, they murdered all 643 of them: 462 women and children were killed in the church. The women had felt safe in the church, because, of course, that’s where God is paying the closest attention to those who worship him. So how could a caring, attentive, powerful, competent god have allowed this savagery to happen? “God is good, God is great, but since he works in mysterious ways, he allowed the German soldiers to do their job that day.” Such a response illustrates the all-too-common incoherence of Christian theology: it doesn’t make sense.

In Memorium of Dr. Hector Avalos Written by Dr. Christopher Rollston

A Memorium of Dr. Hector Avalos was written by Dr. Christopher Rollston in the journal he edits, which included Hector Avalos's very last article.

Rollston starts with a personal comment on Facebook, saying,

Two years ago yesterday, Dr. Hector Avalos passed away. He was a distinguished scholar and a cherished friend, and he passed away much too early. In the current issue of MAARAV, I wrote an "in memoriam" regarding him. I have pasted it in below.

In addition, I should like to mention that in this issue of Maarav, one of Hector's final articles (perhaps his final article....I'm not entirely sure) is published, one entitled "By Him" or "Against Him/Them" in El Amarna 364:23?: Implications for the Destruction of Hazor. It's a very fine article and I sort of look at this as a core love of Hector's: history and philology. I'm so glad that this article appeared in Maarav. He had hoped to live to see it in print....this was not to be...but I'm so glad that it appeared within our pages. And again, the full "In Memoriam" is pasted in below.

Ciarán Mc Ardle asks of Randal Rauser, "How is 'Progressive Christianity' Substantially Different from Atheism?"

This came to my attention by my friend Ciarán Mc Ardle. He sends me an email from time to time. Hopefully you'll like his comments below on this interview:

 

David G. McAfee's Review of "The Case Against Miracles" on Amazon

I will be keenly interested in what people say about "The Case Against Miracles" now that a good deal of people downloaded the free book off Amazon yesterday. David G. McAfee reviewed this book a few years back saying;

The Case Against Miracles’ is the Best Anti-Apologetics Book Around!

If you are ever forced to deal with Christian apologists, who spend their lives defending the Christian religion with philosophy and (often incredibly bad) reasoning, then you need this new book by atheist author John W. Loftus.

Let’s start with the obvious: The Case Against Miracles has some of the biggest names in the atheism and skepticism communities. Not only is it edited by Loftus, who also edited The Christian Delusion, but it contains blurbs and essays by Michael Shermer, Dan Barker, Peter Boghossian, David Fitzgerald, and other legends.

Michael Shermer, "How To Think About the Resurrection: Was Jesus Really Raised From the Dead?"

I hope readers are taking advantage of my offer of a free copy of the Kindle edition of The Case Against Miracles. The offer is only for today! Go ahead, make my day!

This morning in my feed was the latest essay by Michael Shermer, titled How To Think About the Resurrection: Was Jesus Really Raised From the Dead? It is a must read essay by him! In it he quotes me and recommends my book. As you should know, Shermer wrote the Foreword to The Case Against Miracles.