Three Keys To Understand What I'm Doing

Recently on another blog I was sort of dismissed because I don’t have a PhD nor any scholarly articles published. Does this matter? I think not, not when you understand what I’m doing.

I don’t want to write scholarly stuff to get patted on the back by other scholars. While doing so is very important, that’s what they get in return. My goal is to change the religious landscape and you don’t do that by writing for the scholars. You do that by writing for university students and the average intelligent reader.

Three things then are key to understand what I’m doing.

One) As a scholar I understand the scholars. I can effectively engage them. But I “translate” what they’re saying to the intelligent reader. Someone has to do this and I think that’s where my time is best spent if I want to change the religious landscape.

Two) My specialty is in being a generalist. I know that sounds like a possible contraction, but I don’t see this at all. Most scholars specialize in a small little area of expertise in the woods, on some particular tree, and/or a leaf of a tree. My specialty is in being able to see and describe the whole forest. I specialize in the Big Picture. Someone has to do this and it's just as difficult to do as to focus on a leaf on a tree in the forest. But I do this because it's the best way to change the religious landscape.

Three) I focus on Christian theism, not theism in general. The defense of theism in general is a long way from the God of Christianity. To get to the God of Christianity one must defend a whole host of things that cannot reasonably be defended. Christian philosophers delude themselves and others into thinking that by defending theism they can conclude Christian theism is the case. That is one big non-sequitur.

Many people think I’m doing something that few if any atheists are doing. My passion is great about this.

Update: The London Times Literary Supplement will be reviewing my book soon. It’s just a little more influential than a New York Times Book Review. I have also been asked to speak on a panel for the prestigious Society of Biblical Literature's annual meeting in New Orleans this November. [Unlike others who must travel there I must pay my own way]. People see my scholarship; it’s just a different kind.

I'm in the final stages of sending a new work to Prometheus Books for publication. It’s already accepted and due August 1st. I see it as a further extension of my book, WIBA. I wrote four chapters for it and the other 12 are written by Drs. David Eller, Valerie Tarico, Jason Long, Jim Linville, Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier, and Robert M. Price, along with Ed Babinski, Joe E. Holman, Matthew J. Green, and Jeffery Mark. From what I can see as the chapters are being sent my way this will be a very good book. It’s tentatively titled: “Critics Confront Christianity.”

I need your financial help at this time to keep on keeping on, to maintain this Blog, buy important books to review, and attract the kind of firepower we have here. I’m not kidding. Please read this. If you believe in what I’m doing please help. Just about $285 has been contributed with this weekend's push so far. Every bit helps. I'm hoping to raise $500 right now. Thanks for your help!

Let me give a couple of examples of book prices. “The End of Philosophy of Religion” by Nick Trakakis goes for $120 (with 172 pages!). I think some publishers want to rape us. I’m sure it’s a good book though and in a few years I’ll get it. It’s a shame that cutting edge libraries must fork over these costs. It stretches their budget beyond imagining. I have William Hasker’s “Providence, Evil and the Openness of God,” at a pricey $150, (for 236 pages), and Michael Murray’s “Nature Red in Tooth and Claw” for $62 (204 pages), which does represent my speciality, the problem of evil. I also have Edward Adams's "The Stars Will Fall From Heaven," which cost me $109, Just look at the prices of books and you'll know why I need your finacial help (BTW, I spend it frugally).

A Few Links About James P. Holding

James Patrick Holding changed his name to Robert Turkel and changed it back to JP Holding. There are several sites dedicated to exposing his disgusting and depraved tactics, along with the way he dishonestly mischaracterizes his skeptical opponent's arguments. He riles atheists and agnostics not because Holding effectively refutes our arguments, but because he's an obnoxious know-it-all who treats those who disagree with disdain, even credentialed scholars. He's spread his cancerous type of Christianity over at Theology Web where he has been given an area as his own, which he says is his "exclusive place to debate." Any skeptic who dares to challenge his views there will not be able to take the ridicule and abuse he and his followers will heap on him. It will not be a free discussion of the ideas. Expect to be mocked. This is his version of Christianity at its best, and it's ugly. You will feel as though you're back in High School trying to carry on a reasonable discussion with a gang of adolescents who don't care, who mimic their hero J.P. Holding. And Holding likes it this way, because then he doesn't really have to deal with the opposing arguments.

I want to comment about JP Holding's recent Blog he's involved in that is dedicated to personal attacks on me [Edit he now has two, count 'em two Blogs dedicated to Lil ole me. Tee hee. They say you can tell how famous a person is by the number of stalkers he or she has. I have a few of them. But Holding is obsessed with me]. He claims he's focusing on me because of my "entertainment value." Hmmmmm. What's that exactly? And if so, is this a good "stewardship" of his time? The truth is he's being disingenuous, for he later adds that I am an "enemy of the common good." Lot's to say about that one. He cannot honestly or consistently tell us why he's targeting me. No one bothers targeting people who are not influential or important, now do they? Besides, most of what we get from him are ad hominems. He's the one who has entertainment value I think! ;-)

I don't plan on giving Holding much attention here at all. Attention is what he craves for it validates him. In fact, among his ignorant followers they think he's important precisely because he gets some pretty important skeptics to turn our guns on him. His followers conclude he must be doing something right if we go after him. But the truth is that Holding merely annoys us by treating us with such disrespect that we feel compelled to respond. He makes us angry, not because he has great arguments but because of his demeanor toward us.

Dr. Keith Parsons calls him an "idiot loser" and writes: "If you elicit foaming rants from Holding and his ilk, you must be doing your job." "Holding is like the big, fat cockroach that scuttles across your kitchen floor. You just can't resist the temptation to stomp on him."

In one of his diatribes Holding called Dr. Hector Avalos "Dr. Stupid" not long ago. As you'd guess that got a rise out of him. So Avalos powerfully responded to Holding right here. Dr. Avalos points out "A series of self-assured statements (from Holding) that turn out to be false, sloppy, misleading, or outright lies." He continues:

In general, Holding’s review relies heavily on the following types of arguments:

1. Ad hominem argumentation

2. Ad vericundiam argumentation, an “appeal to authority” that is inadmissible in logic, especially without further explanation of why such an authority is correct.

3. Juvenile rhetorical devices usually repeated ad nauseam (“whine” “rant” etc.) that could apply equally to his complaints about my book. These devices serve to deflect attention from the lack of substance in Holding’s posts.

Then there is the case of former DC member, Matthew J. Green, who as a skeptic tried to be Holding's friend to no avail, and finally wrote him off.

One of the most important debates about Holding and his clowns has to do with his Biblical justification for ridiculing and belittling apostates, skeptics and yes, even other Christians he thinks are heretics. Holding’s justification for being obnoxious to people who don't accept the "truth" can to be found here. Most everyone would disagree with Holding on this. He and others like him live in a tiny tiny part of the world. I've weighed in on this matter here. There are Calvinists who think God has predestined people like me to hell and so I deserve nothing from them, not any dignity, respect or truth. So why would anyone trust much of anything these Calvinists or Christians like Holding say about skeptics like me? They have all but admitted I don't deserve being treated charitably with dignity and respect. Holding is a grand master of what is called "terrorist apologetics," and he's focused on me.

Holding hangs out at TheologyWeb. The first time I went online in 2004 Ed Babinski pointed me to TWeb. I didn't know any better. So I went there. All I have wanted to do is to discuss the issues and the evidence for my claim can be found here at DC every single day. But what I found at TWeb were juveniles, hacks, hyenas and jackals who were not interested in an honest respectful debate for the most part. Holding was the ring leader. People there followed his example of "terrorist apologetics." But I stayed because I wanted to see if I could break through to them. And I didn't know where else to go. It's the one forum I emphatically do not recommend if you're looking for an honest and thoughtful discussion of the ideas. They are juveniles. They act like juveniles, think like juveniles, and argue like juveniles, after their juvenile leader, Holding. To deal with the likes of them is to wallow in the mire with pigs.

When I first self-published my book, Why I Rejected Christianity, it appeared on Amazon without any description of the contents inside. So in order to tell readers about it I wrote a description and posted it as a review using my name. In order to do so I had to rate it, so I did what most other self-published authors do, I rated it with five stars. Then when the description of it appeared three months later I removed it from Amazon. Three years later someone on TWeb claimed I wrote a deceptive review of my own book hiding the fact that it was me. I denied it partially because of how this accusation was made. I emphatically did not attempt to deceive anyone. My name was on the review and I said I was the author and that in order to tell readers what was inside the book I had to rate it. I also denied it because I had forgotten that I wrote it. But Holding and company claim I deceived and denied the truth. I didn't. It was the nature of the accusation and the fact that I had forgotten I did it. When shown that I had written it I remembered and admitted I did so.

In complete frustration with the likes of Holding I went on the attack and started a blog about Holding with numerous quotes and links that people who have dealt with him before wrote (what you will find below). Even a cuddly dog can be provoked to take a bite out of you, and I did. Holding is lying when he says that when confronted with it I denied it. I most certainly did not. I admitted it. Prove me wrong or shut up!

There is another guy over there named Nick Peters whom I debated on the problem of evil a few years ago. Why did I debate him? Who knows? When I first came online in 2004 I didn't know where else to go. In any case, every single one of the Christian TWebbers said I had lost the debate to Nick even though he lost that debate miserably. But rather than say anything critical about his performance all he received was unqualified praise for beating me when he didn't. TWebbers basically lied to him. Nick was at the time a college student working at a Walmart. The only thing I could figure out was that these Christians were encouraging Nick despite the evidence and despite the truth. Liars for Jesus they proved themselves to be. Liars to Nick. I really think we should not lie to people like they were lying to him. Christians will do this out of faith. They'll say "yes, you'd make a good minister," only to have such a person fall flat on his ass figuring out years later he should never be in ministry in the first place. That's why I wanted Nick to hear a second opinion, mine, since he was aspiring to be an apologist and showed no signs of being able to comprehend a simple argument in that debate. I said the reason they encouraged him and put him on staff at TheologyWeb is because he has a disability and the staff felt sorry for him.

Now they go around lying about why I said what I said, without the whole context. Maybe Nick will indeed be a good apologist. He certainly has improved himself somewhat over the years. But there is no crime in telling the truth when everyone else he knew was not doing so. You might be able to fault me in the future for being wrong (or blunt in the heated aftermath of a debate). But it is an absolute lie for them to say what I said was spoken out of hate for a man with a disability.

Nick can show himself to be an adult. Rather than doing the right thing and telling people to drop it since it makes no difference now, he's playing the sympathy card: "Poor pitiful me," he's now acting, "look how a big bad atheist told the truth as he saw it at the time." And that is what I thought at the time, although I also said that even if he proved me wrong he can thank me for inspiring him. It's like I must have actually kicked him or something. I didn't. Get over it Nick. Grow up. Do the adult thing. Tell people to drop it. It's over. Move on. But he's learned from Holding. He'll not amount to much of anything so long as he seeks to mimic Holding and that has nothing whatsoever to do with any disability he has.

Holding also lies when he claims I misused Norman Geisler’s 'endorsement' of my book. I did no such thing. What, must I quote everything Geisler said to provide the context for one or more of his sentences and if I don't, I'm misusing the quote? Who in their right mind would ask for that? I quoted him accurately and even included another personal note inside the book from him later, where he states he does not agree with me.

Holding and crew will throw up other accusations at me from when I was visiting TheologyWeb a few years back. All they can show is that when visiting an insane asylum I can act as crazy as the inmates since I was completely frustrated with that forum and the people there. There comes a point when a person can be so frustrated with a group of people who are not interested in a decent discussion that there is nothing left to do but blast them. And I did. I have no respect for them and do not try to have a rational decent discussion with the likes of them any more. They deserve only my disgust.

So now I have a problem. What I know without a doubt is that Holding and his ilk are swine and they continually try to drag me down into the mire with them. If I don't respond then it seems they win. If I do respond I am equated with him.

But I am not like him. He is below me. He dogs my steps with a couple of blogs dedicated to personal attacks on me on a monthly basis, if not more (plus a few sticky posts at TWeb about me up front and center). He claims I'm obsessed with him but if so, why is it I hardly ever mention his name? Remember, it's not me who has two Blogs dedicated to debunking him. He's not worth it. I merely respond to his false and childish accusations once in a long while. If he didn't do this from time to time I'd never even bother thinking about him or his clown followers. [No wonder they hate me 'cause I call 'em clowns. I maintain they are. No one but a clown would be a follower of Holding].

As far as I'm concerned except for this lone post, Holding doesn't exist. This probably bothers him greatly because he craves validation and I refuse to give it to him. That's why he continues to bring up these false and out-of-context accusations in order to get a rise out of me, to see me mention his name again and again. I suppose he'll bring up these old accusations five years or ten or twenty years from now as if they are relevant to who I am. They aren't, not at all.

Until he comes up to the respectful adult world of discourse who treats his intellectual opponents as human beings, and until he displays a greater level of education and thinking skills, I will ignore him.

I call upon his own Christian friends to bring him to his senses. He is the one who initially poured gasoline on the fires on my passion. I warned him about this that as a passionate man he ought not to have done it with me. I am motivated by believers who think they can dehumanize a person simply because he does not believe the exact same way. I dare say that Holding's efforts his whole life will not be in the plus column after you factor in the way he motivated me to go for the jugular vein of the faith that allows him to justify dehumanizing people like me. It's that same faith that led to the burning of heretics. The only difference is that people like Holding do not have the political power they once had.

But he still laughs even though I am dedicated to the destruction of his faith. Evangelicals have him partially to thank.

---------------------------

Here are what others have said about him:

Joe E. Holman wrote:

"Holding is nothing but a balls-to-the-walls, obnoxious prick who thinks the world of himself and exalts his views to the level of the bible which he tries to defend. To have to fight through someone's mockery and disrespect and insults to get to a good debate isn't worth it. I've debated better credentialed people than him who were openly respectful and decent. They were good exchanges -- without the bullshit! That's what we'd prefer."

"Holding has the annoying tendency of many apologists of looking up facts and presenting himself as an authority on the issues he just looked up. He fronts himself and the select group of 'scholars' he considers valid. To him, everyone else is 'stupid' and he says so specifically. No one makes as many ad hominem attacks as this guy. He'll quickly make you want to hit him in the mouth as hard as you can. No kidding."

Jason Long responds to J.P. Holding here, where he writes, 

"He is most notorious for redacting and editing his debates, misrepresenting his opponents, editing his opponents’ responses, refusing to link to his opponents’ responses because 'it gives small-minded people something to complain about,' invoking insults and other ad hominems, outright lying, appealing to authority, dodging questions he cannot answer, constructing absurd rationalizations to make biblical harmonies, and justifying cruelties if carried out in the name of God."

exapologist said... 

I want to take a moment to point out that John's most fundamental point is actually correct, viz., that Holding systematically mischaracterizes the views and arguments of his "opponents", and his argumentation is characterized by strings of ad hominems, non-sequiturs and other sorts of fallacious reasoning. This has can be shown by simply looking at the dialogues themselves in which he has engaged. See, for example, the exchange between Holding and Keith Parsons.

Now this doesn't mean that Holding is incorrigible, that he should be written off forever. If he decides later on that it would be better to listen to people's arguments and characterize them fairly and sympathetically, then we welcome discussion with him. There are plenty of Christians who are very smart, but who are also civil and honest, and who care about following a line of argument wherever it leads. Victor Reppert is an example. So are christian philosophers like John Hawthorne, Dean Zimmerman, Michael Rea, William Alston, etc. We are happy to listen to them, since they're reasonable people who recognize the importance of the free, civil, democratic exchange of ideas in the pursuit of truth. There arguments are also forceful, and worthy of consideration in their own right. But Holding, at least for some time and (apparently), is not in that camp. As long as he's not willing to engage in the civil exchange of ideas, there are principled reasons for not engaging him. For one thing, abusive language is contagious and gets everyone angry, leading to the deterioration of the pursuit of truth and serious discussion. For another, systematically misconstruing the views of others positively prevents the pursuit of truth, and stifles inquiry.

In short, there's not much point trying to engage in serious inquiry with someone who has the goal of shutting it down -- it's self-defeating. Since Holding does this (again, at least he does so now -- if he turns over a new leaf, then things will be different), the only reasonable thing to do is to ignore him. Instead, we'll happily listen to Christians who have the same basic interest of careful, civil inquiry about fundamental questions and hopefully have fun and make friends along the way).

Chris Hallquist sums up the consensus opinion about J.P. Holding, here. Hallquist said, 

"The consensus seemed to be that he was an arrogant, inflammatory, buffoon, not worth taking seriously. I think Matthew in particular nailed him on his ridiculous attempts to belittle the intelligence of scholars who specialize in ancient history/Biblical scholarship, when Holding only has a degree in library science." "Holding has demonstrated that he simply cannot be trusted to accurately represent his sources."

As a former dialogue partner with Holding Matthew J. Green just got fed up with him, seen here. Matthew says,

"My friends, I am sorry I defended Holding. My opinion of him now is that he is an arrogant spin-doctor of questionable honesty who enjoys insulting people and arrogantly scoffing at those who disagrees with him. I cannot believe that I even wrote a response to a blog post on here trying to defend him by asking blog members on here not to take him so seriously. I would like to offer a bit of friendly advice to people here: don't take him seriously at all. He's a sad joke!"

Matthew J. Green later responds to J.P. Holding, here in these words: 

"Turkel has adopted a style of viciously attacking skeptics and, sometimes, even Christians who have been known to have opinions that differ from himself. I believe that the reason Turkel acts this way is because, frankly, he has a serious ego-problem. I consider his arrogance to be borderline pathological. He resorts to abusive name-calling, treats atheists and other skeptics who disagree with him with the utmost contempt, and goes out of his way to make them feel completely and utterly stupid. His favorite defense mechanism is to dodge criticism by redirecting it at those who make the criticism. Thus if someone criticizes Turkel for his behavior, Turkel will latch onto a fault of that person, no matter how minor, irrelevant, or what-not and dish it out at the person making the criticism. I am continually bothered by Turkel's alarming egoism, the abuse that he continues to dish out at skeptics, and the silly arguments that he will often prop up in support of his faith. I would hope that other Christians who are embarrassed by Turkel's behavior and his fellow Turkelites will join with me and others in denouncing Tekton, Turkel, and others as in need of humility and reform."

Ebon Musings said this about Holding's tactics, here: 

"Mr. Holding's interest in having an honest and open discussion is doubtful at best." And here he says, "Mr. Holding's position is one that will concede no ground and countenance no loss, no matter the evidence or logic arrayed against him, no matter how soundly he is trounced, no matter how hopeless his case is. In such circumstances he will clutch at any argument, no matter how strained, and present it with a belligerence usually inversely proportional to its strength. His repeated use of ad hominem attacks, his sneering demeanor, his contemptuous and dismissive tone, his scorn and derision of anyone who differs from him - such patterns of expression permeate his site, and are often deployed to intimidate opponents and camouflage arguments that are patently weak, faulty, or irrelevant."

Earl Doherty responds to the "style" J.P. Holding, here in these words: 

"The heavy sarcasm, the open derision, the sophomoric recourse to insult, the sneering tone: these are readily recognizable as the all-too-common reaction of those whose cherished beliefs are being threatened or even questioned. His lengthy critique of my site is one vast ad hominem diatribe. To perceive, much less to appreciate, the counter-arguments he offers to some of my ideas, one has to wade through a distracting and distressing overlay of insult, innuendo, scorn and ridicule, delivered with a ‘wit’ and word-play of questionable sophistication. Such heavy-handed invectives often serves to bolster what are weak, or beside-the-point, or even fallacious arguments on his part. This is not the mark of the professional scholar, and I suspect that few genuine members of that category, or even the discerning layperson who is interested in learning something on the subject of Jesus’ existence and the reliability of the New Testament record, would bother to read through much of this overblown exercise in self-indulgence."

J.P. Holding's dishonesty is exposed, here. There we read,

"Robert Turkel uses a number of deceptive and dishonest rhetorical tactics in his efforts to "win" religious debates. Among other things, Turkel will make up answers off the top of his head; he will hide damaging information from his readers; he will take another person's argument, make a caricature of it, and attack the other person on the basis of his misrepresentation; he will distort and misrepresent the writings of scholars and historians to support his position, he will use insults to minimize those who disagree with him (see here); he will employ insults and bluster to dodge troublesome questions; he will respond to questions with questions; he will make unreasonable demands in exchange for answering a question or questions that he does not want to answer; he will rewrite his responses in debates after the other person has already responded; he will claim to have answered a question or to have addressed an issue when in fact he has not; and so on and so forth. Not all of these actions are blatantly dishonest-but many of them are and all of them, taken together, reveal a basic dishonesty in his approach to discussion and debate."

Jim Lippard points out J.P. Holding's dishonesty, here. He says, 

"In Turkel's response to "The Jury Is In," he criticizes me on the basis of arguments I never made, writing that I "botched" three points. I pointed out that I hadn't made those arguments, but rather a different argument that he doesn't address." Then after a response from Holding Lippard says, "He still doesn't get it. No, I don't mean he misunderstood my arguments, I mean he mistakenly attributed statements to me which I did not author and which were not attributed to me by Robby Berry--the error is Turkel's, but it's unlikely he'll ever own up to it, since he doesn't care."

Keith Parsons replies to J.P Holding, here. He says, 

"Apparently, attacking a straw man whenever he pleases is a convenience that Mr. Holding likes to take advantage of."

Farrell Till responds to J.P Holding, here, and here, and here. Till says this of Holding: 

"He has a habit of either removing or revising articles after errors in them have been exposed or he has been caught with his pants down on some issue."

Kyle Gerkin responds to J.P Holding, here. Gerkins writes, 

"Holding starts out with ad hominem attacks, lampooning me as an author in an effort to denigrate my credibility. These are cheap rhetorical tricks, that have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the propositions laid out in my article. This is certainly not the tone of an objective analysis."

Brian Holtz responds to J.P. Holding, here. Holtz wrote:

"In our debate over the Trilemma (that Jesus was liar, lunatic, or lord), Robert Turkel's latest response to me contained no less than 137 polemical blunders, each categorized and separately identified below...."

G.A. Wells responds to J.P. Holding, here. He wrote,

"Most of Holding's article is devoted to appraisal of the pagan and Jewish testimony to Jesus. This is not, and never has been, my position." And he says, "Holding begins his criticisms, as do many of my critics, by questioning my qualifications to say anything on the subject at all. His final dismissal of my views as "the result of a fallen and sinful human nature, and nothing more" is just childish. His case is not improved by his accusations of "outright misrepresentation to get round the evidence", of ignoring "a great deal" of it, and of treating what is left "most unfairly". Characterization of me as "a measly professor of German spouting balderdash dug up from old books by F.C. Baur" well illustrates the abusive and vituperative material that dominates these responses. One cannot expect to find much in such writing that is worthy of serious attention..."

Richard Carrier responds to J.P. Holding, here. In response to Holding's argument Carrier says this, 

"Holding does not make any effort to answer these questions even vaguely. Thus, his conclusion can only be vaguely certain at best." In responding to Holdings' counter argument, Carrier says, "Most of Holding's criticisms worth responding to are not important enough to warrant emending the text of my critique. Rather than identifying actual errors of fact or critical omissions that significantly affect my arguments, or clear flaws in my reasoning or manner of expression, most responses amount to an unjustified misunderstanding of what I actually wrote, or new groundless assertions or even outright false claims."

Thom Stark, a liberal Christian scholar writes the following about JP Holding:

Holding does not trust in his ability to present the facts in such a way that they are able to speak for themselves. He has to employ character assassination, prefacing all his criticisms with assurances that the object of his critique cannot be trusted. In this way, Holding is profoundly disrespectful to his readership; he displays a disdainfully low estimation of their intelligence.

[Please note: I update this post periodically.]

Losing Religion on the Religion Beat: A Review of William Lobdell's book, Losing My Religion

My review follows:

William Lobdell’s new book, Losing My Religion, is a page turner from start to finish. As a former religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times he knows how to write in ways that make us feel and think what he does, every step along the way.

Previously I had said Joe Holman’s book, Project Bible Truth, was the most extensive deconversion story I had ever read. But now I must say Lobdell’s book is the most extensive one.

Lobdell’s book does not focus on the arguments against Christianity, like Holman does, although they are there. Rather he takes us on a journey from his evangelical faith to almost becoming a Catholic to what he describes as a “reluctant atheist” or “skeptical deist.”

Lobdell lost his religion on the religion beat: “Like a homicide detective, I had seen too much.” (p. 253). At first he liked his job and it didn’t affect his faith at all. But his doubt started when covering the scandal of Catholic priest molestations and interviewing the victims who were lied to and ignored by the church. For him the most egregious problem wasn’t necessarily the molestations and the ignored children sired from the affairs the priests had with women, although that was bad enough. No. It was the cover-up that the well-organized Catholic Church had for defending them. He just couldn’t understand, nor should anyone for that matter, why the church hierarchy didn’t do as Jesus wanted them to do in upholding the dignity and rights of the downtrodden and the abused. According to him, “the real story wasn’t about the molester priests, but rather the bishops who covered up for them and caused thousands of additional children to be sodomized, orally copulated, raped and masturbated.” (p. 142).

One missionary priest at St. Michael Island, Alaska, “raped an entire generation of Alaska Native boys.” (p. 215) “Though the Jesuits deny it,” Lobdell writes, “there’s evidence to suggest that the villages of western Alaska served as a dumping ground for molesting priests.” (p. 228) Lobdell called this a “pedophile’s paradise.”

As he reported on these abuses he was preparing to become a Catholic himself, and we see him struggle with this decision as he covers the story. Two weeks before doing so he couldn’t go through it. In his words: “Converting to Catholicism during the height of a horrific scandal felt like an endorsement of the establishment,” (p. 158) something he just couldn’t do.

He described going to a “survivor’s meeting” and concurs with Thomas Doyle, a leading advocate for victims of clergy sexual abuse, that molesting priests and their superiors were committing “soul murder.” (p. 105) As he recounts it, the church “acted more like Mafia bosses than shepherds.” (p. 119). And he asked himself this question: “If an institution is corrupt, does that have any bearing on God?” (p. 135). He thinks it does. In fact, he started to see that “religious institutions are MORE susceptible to corruption than their secular counterparts because of their reliance on God, and not human checks and balances, for governance.” (p. 161)

Lobdell covered stories about the Mormons and their lifestyle, which were “mesmerizing.” (p. 122), although their beliefs were “nutty.” (p. 124). He recounted their strange beliefs, despite the fact that scientific evidence from DNA shows us “descendants of American Indians came from Asia, not the Middle East.” (p. 280) And he asks: “what’s so strange about Mormonism compared to traditional Christianity?” (p. 126). He himself didn’t see the disconnect at this stage in his faith journey, but he said, “I just happened to have grown up with the stories of the Bible. I was more used to them.” (p. 127) Indeed, that's the only difference.

Lobdell covered some evangelical TV Evangelist scandals, like Robert Tilton, whose ministry placed the donation checks in one pile and the prayer requests in the dumpster; and Benny Hinn, who raised funds for an alleged $30 million healing center in Dallas, Texas, which was never built; and Trinity Broadcasting Network founders Paul and Jan Crouch, who covered up Paul's homosexual tryst, and Paul's forcing a woman to have sex with him. (pp. 173-197). Lobdell asked himself why his faith “had so few people of principle.” (p. 187).

Lobdell reveals the mental gymnastics of believers in defending their faith and institutions when criticized. After he wrote about TV evangelist Robert Tilton’s financial abuses Tilton subsequently used this criticism by claiming he must be doing something right because Satan (i.e. Lobdell) was attacking him, and donations kept coming in. When a Catholic priest resigned after admitting he had “inappropriate contact” with a child 19 years previously, some parishioners suggested naming the new church wing after him for his years of service in the 19 years since then, failing to realize that pedophiles will only admit to the evil deeds they were forced to admit. Pedophiles usually have many more victims, as Lobdell told them. When the DNA evidence showed the Mormon faith was false, the defenders went on the attack against science and him.

After coming out of the closet in a personal piece written by him detailing his deconversion, one criticism levelled at him was that he only had “witnessed the sinfulness of man and mistakenly mixed that up with a perfect God.” Lobdell writes, "I understand that argument but I don’t buy it. If the Lord is real, it would make sense for the people of God, on average, to be superior morally and ethically to the rest of society. Statistically, they aren’t. I also believe that God’s institutions, on average, should function on a higher moral plain than government or corporations. I don’t see any evidence of this. It’s hard to believe in God when it’s impossible to tell the difference between His people and atheists.” (p. 271).

We see Lobdell struggling, really struggling, to maintain his faith in the midst of his reporting. He attended a weekend retreat. He had an email exchange with a good friend and pastor. He looked into studies of prayer to find evidence that prayer works. He did a study to find if believers are any better morally than non-believers. All to no avail.

This is a very good book written by a credible person. While I doubt believers entrenched in their faith will be caused to lose their religion from reading it, Lobdell still stands as a credible witness against religion and the mental gymnastics of believers who simply choose to believe against the evidence.

Preacher Dane Eidson Declares Himself an Atheist!

Dane credits Joe E. Holman for giving him the courage to do so and he recommends my book.

Dane wrote:

Many of you know me as the Rev. Dane Eidson. Others of you know me as the former President/CEO of a 501(c)3 non profit Organization "Because of Calvary, Inc." Others know me as the former host of a local cable TV program called "Out of the Box" that was seen in the southeastern parts of Georgia and anywhere through the internet.

What I am about to state is honest and not a sudden decision on my part. This has been my belief for years. I been living and preaching what I knew was a lie. I have denied and ran from my belief because I was scared to admit this publically. I was afraid of hurting my family and friends and did not want to face what my family would think of me. I was afraid of what could be the consequences of making public my belief.

Okay...Here's the "big announcement." I am an atheist. I do not believe in God or any other type of diety. I do not believe in a Supreme Being. I once did. But no longer. There is no God, there is no afterlife, there are no spirits. We exist purely by chance and by accident. We are the products of an evolution of a great event, "The Big Bang." Evolution is a fact and belief in a god is the product on man himself.

Scot McKnight and Conversion Theory: Why Apostates Leave the Church

[Written by John W. Loftus] Evangelical New Testament scholar Dr. Scot McKnight has written a very interesting book on conversion theory, called Finding Faith, Losing Faith: Stories of Conversion and Apostasy (with Hauna Ondrey, one of his “finest students”). Here is my review of it: In this book the authors have written four detailed chapter length studies of people who have converted: 1) away from the church to agnosticism/atheism; 2) away from the synagogue to the church, 3) away from the Catholic church to evangelicalism; and 4) away from evangelicalism to Catholicism. McKnight argues that all conversions go through the same process, and even if none of them are identical, they fall into similar patterns. (p.1). His goal is to describe the conversion process with hopes that the patterns that emerge can be used to explain them, with the further goal that scholars and pastors “will work out the implications of conversion theory in the pastoral context.” (pp. 231-236). He writes: "If mapping conversion theory shows anything…it shows the need for grace, humility, and openness to one another as we listen to and learn from one another’s stories. The sincerity of each convert’s (often opposite) experience underscores the need to learn from one’s another’s experience rather than denounce the other’s experience.” (p. 236) While most of us here at DC describe our leaving the faith as a “deconversion,” (which is the usual nomenclature) McKnight argues instead that leaving the Christian faith follows the same pattern of conversion itself. Deconversion stories are about "leaving from," instead of "coming to," but a deconversion follows the same process as a conversion. He writes: “All conversions are apostasies and all apostasies are therefore conversions." McKnight quotes approvingly of John Barbour in his book, Versions of Deconversion, that there are four lenses with which people see their own conversion stories:

"they doubt or deny the truth of the previous system of beliefs; they criticize the morality of the former life; they express emotional upheaval upon leaving a former faith; and they speak of being rejected by their former community.” (pp. 1-2)

Since he deals with several of the Bloggers here at DC (with some notable exceptions in Dr. Hector Avalos, Joe Holman, and Valerie Tarico) let me focus on this particular chapter of his as an example of what he does in the rest of the book (pp. 7-61). In his first chapter he provides an “anatomy of apostasy,” and he includes most of the recognized apostates and debunkers, including me (who’s story he highlights), Ed Babinski, Ken Daniels, Harry McCall, Charles Templeton, Robert M. Price, Dan Barker, Farrell Till, and many others. McKnight observes there is almost always some sort of crisis for the person. “Each, for a variety of reasons, encountered issues and ideas and experiences that simply shook the faith beyond stability.” “Guilt,” for instance, “drove Christine Wicker, a journalist, who covers the religious scene in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from the faith (seen in her well-written memoir, God Knows My Heart). For us apostates there was also a crisis of “unnerving intellectual incoherence to the Christian faith," and he quotes me as saying: “I am now an atheist. One major reason why I have become an atheist is because I could not answer the questions I was encountering.” There are five major elements that are combined to cause the adherent to question the viability of his or her faith, McKnight claims. One) Scripture became part of the problem for us. McKnight writes of Kenneth Daniels that “while on the mission field, he became convinced the Bible could not be inerrant or infallible, walked away from the mission field and became an agnostic.” Of Farrell Till, he “became a skeptic and at the heart of his departure from orthodoxy was a critical approach to Scripture.” Of Ed Babinski, whom he said is “an indefatigable recorder of those who have left fundamentalism,” his problem “was the Bible’s record of Jesus’ predictions and Paul’s own expectations that he think did not come true that undid the truthfulness of the Bible. He pursued every angle he thought necessary to support his faith but his doubts could not be satisfied. ‘I became,’ he confesses, ‘disenchanted with Christianity in toto, and became an agnostic with theistic leanings.’” McKnight, who is a conservative himself, seems to lay blame for our rejection of the Bible because we held to “a rigid view of Scripture.” When we “encounter the empirical evidence of the sciences, particularly concerning evolution and the origins as well as development of life as we now know it, a rigid view of Scripture collapses….For some the whole ship sinks.” Two) The empirical realities of science also demolish our faith, he notes. Ed Babinski was “completely devoted to a six-day creation theory” but eventually “became disillusioned with Christianity and the Bible because of the lack of evidence for what was considered so central to the faith – the scientific accuracy of a simplistic theory of creation.” McKnight opines that “a simplistic theory of origins, along with special pleading theories that are designed to explain away that evidence, when combined then with knowledge of the ancient Near East parallels to both the creation accounts and the story of Noah’s flood not infrequently are the collision point for many who leave the orthodox Christian faith.” Three) The behavior of Christians is another factor in our apostacy. McKnight: “For many, the failure of Christians to be transformed by the claimed grace of God and the indwelling power of the Spirit obliterates the truthfulness of the Christian claim.” Robert Price gained an insight while attending a lecture by Harvey Cox, McKnight pens. Price is quoted as saying: “As I looked at the secular students gathered there, I suddenly thought, ‘Listen, is there really that much difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’?’ I had always accepted the qualitative difference between the ‘saved’ and the ‘unsaved.’ Until that moment … Then, in a flash, we were all just people.” Four) The traditional Christian doctrine of hell is another factor. McKnight points out that “belief in hell has led some to contend the Christian faith is inherently unjust and morally repugnant,” such that his judgment leads him to think the Christian doctrine of hell is “far more fundamental to those who leave the faith than is normally recognized.” Then he quotes me as saying: “The whole notion of a punishment after we die is sick and barbaric. The whole concept of hell developed among superstitious and barbaric peoples, and tells us nothing about life after death.” Five) Apostates also reject the God we actually find in the Bible, who is vindictive, hateful, racist, and barbaric--my words. There are other reasons, McKnight admits. There is the problem of religious diversity in which it’s hard to dispute that “one’s faith is more shaped by one’s social location than by one’s personal choice.” Then there is the problem of evil which causes many to leave the faith. Of course, I’m surprised that these last two reasons are not highlighted as reasons in their own right, especially since I highlight them in my book. But at least he mentioned them. Another suggested reason for our defection from the Christian faith comes out of nowhere, with no evidence for it at all, and guided more by McKnight’s theological persuasions than anything else. His next suggestion is not helpful to a scientific investigation of conversion theory, which I take it, is one of his aims—to merely describe the conversion process. His next suggestion is based, not on anything he’s read, but on his “own intuition,” and even admits he “did not find anyone speak in this way.” He furthermore does not find this a factor in any other conversion stories in his other three chapters, which shows his theological biases. He suggests that “the demand put on one’s life by Jesus, by the orthodox faith and by a local church’s expectations can provoke a crisis on the part of the person who wants to go her or his own way. I am suggesting that behind some of the stories is a desire to live as one wants, to break certain moral codes that are experienced as confining, and that were either forgotten when telling the story or were an unacknowledged dimension of the experience.” Indeed, “one might summarize the entire process of leaving the faith as the quest for personal autonomy, freedom and intellectual stability. These factors seem present at some level in nearly all the stories I have studied.” Christian professor Ruth A. Tucker who wrote the book Walking Away From Faith: Unraveling the Mystery of Belief disagrees with this. In a talk to a Grand Rapids, MI, Freethought group (which I have also spoken for) Professor Tucker listed five myths about people who have abandoned their faith (note # 4):

1) "They are angry and rebellious." She found virtually no evidence for this. Rather, people felt sorrow, initially. They experienced pain, not anger. 2) "They can be argued back into faith." Because the person leaving his/her faith has carefully and painstakingly dissected the reasons behind this major worldview change, the Christian who proffers apologetics is more likely to convert into non-belief in such an exchange. 3) "Doubters can find help at Christian colleges and seminaries." This is not seen to be the case. 4) "They abandon their faith so that they can go out and sin freely." Tucker pointed out that too many people who profess faith sin more often than non-believers and that this argument was not a motivational issue in de-converting from faith. 5) "They were never sincere Christians to begin with." She has come across example after example of the most earnest and devout of evangelical, fundamentalist believers who became non-theists. Dan Barker was mentioned as just one of these erstwhile believers.

McKnight goes on to discuss the “advocates,” meaning those who go on to debunk the faith they left. He finds in us an “animus” in the “constant diatribes” of ours, from Charles Templeton’s “white-hot prose” to my whole book, to Harry McCall resorting “to caricature,” or even to Dan Barker, whom he claims has much “less rancor but still finding a need to tell that story in Losing Faith in Faith.” “The ‘anti-rhetoric,’ or the rhetoric that is so negatively against what they formerly believed, is both a characteristic of all kinds of conversion but especially those whose ‘conversion’ is leaving orthodox Christianity. Not all, however, are as white-hot in their antipathy to orthodoxy.” Of course, if he actually read my book, or my posts on DC, he should know I have no rancor towards Christians and that I treat my opponents respectfully. I suspect he feels the sting of our arguments rather than those other conversions he details in the other three chapters because he is simply a Christian believer, and we argue against his faith. McKnight does acknowledge people should not minimize the anguish we apostates have when going through our crisis of faith. It is not an easy process. It is agonizing. Quoting Dan Barker he writes: “It was like tearing my whole frame of reality to pieces, ripping to shreds the fabric of meaning and hope, betraying the values of existence. And it hurt bad. It was like spitting on my mother, or like throwing one of my children out a window. It was sacrilege. All of my bases for thinking and values had to be restructured. Add to that inner conflict the outer conflict of reputation and you have a destabilizing war.” McKnight also sees an interrelationship between us. Ed Babinski’s “fine collection of stories of those who have left the faith demonstrates an interlocking relationship at times – Babinski himself was influenced by William Bagley and by Robert Price while others were influenced by Dan Barker. There is presently, then, a connection for those who are reconsidering their faith, a connection that is filled with folks who have already traveled that path, know its rocks and its cliffs and who can guide the pilgrim away from faith.” The internet is also an important facilitator in our apostasy, McKnight understands. While doubts are not to be expressed publicly in the churches, the internet is another matter entirely…”many find their way to the multitude of sites, like Positive Atheism or Debunking Christianity, where one can hear arguments against the orthodox faith and apologies for alternative systems of thought and meaning." In the end, those of us who walk away from our faith find a sense of relief and independence when we finally decide to leave it all behind us. McKnight tells us that at some point we just had to decide, and sometimes it meant giving up our positions in life to gain the needed relief. He writes: “Harry McCall, a biblical scholar who voluntarily chose to leave Bob Jones University…chose to abandon his faith because ‘Jesus is so obviously a product of human imagination coupled with arbitrary faith that I chose to simply acknowledge the obvious rather than remain religious.”’ Robert M Price is an example of someone who found his relief akin to being “born again”: “I had to swallow hard after twelve years as an evangelical, but almost immediately life began to open up in an exciting way. I felt like a college freshman, thinking through important questions for the first time. The anxiety of doubt had passed into the adventure of discovery. It was like being born again.” McKnight finally recommends Lewis Rambo’s book Understanding Religious Conversion as “required reading for every minister and theologian.” This is a good, well researched book. I liked it very much. In one way it shows that those of us who have converted away from Christianity are not alone when we factor in the many other people who are also being converted to different theological positions. People change their minds, that’s all, and many of us do it.

Why I Became An Atheist

I'm John W. Loftus, the author of the book Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity.

It's unfortunate that the subtitle to my book is a bit misleading. Skeptics think "a former preacher" never knew much to begin with, while Christian philosophers think "a former preacher" cannot challenge them. But my book is being recommended by Christian apologists like Drs. Norman Geisler, James F. Sennett, Mark Linville, Dan Lambert, and Richard Knopp. It's being used in apologetics and atheism classes in both Christian and secular colleges.

My book is being hailed as the "best atheist book of the decade," a "tour de force," the "golden standard," containing the "definitive refutation" of Christianity that stands "head and shoulders above all others." It's being described as "mind-blowing," "a 428 page monster of reason and logic," "awesome," "comprehensive," "fresh, audacious and thought-inspiring." Readers are saying it's "a massive and systematic refutation of the claims of Christianity" containing "a crushing cumulative case," which is "invincibly fatal" to the faith.

I don't claim these recommendations are deserved. But that's what readers are saying. If what they're saying is even partially true, then don't let the subtitle mislead you. Just get it and judge for yourself.

Here's what they're saying:

First, a few recommendations from Christians:

 ----------------

Dr. Norman L. Geisler, Christian apologist and author of The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics: "John’s book is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face.”

----------------

Dr. James F. Sennett, Christian philosopher and author of Modality, Probability, and Rationality: A Critical Examination of Alvin Plantinga's Philosophy: "I think his book by Loftus is an important contribution to the current intellectual defense of unbelief and appreciate it for the seriousness with which it takes faith and the intellectual case to be made for it. Scholarly unbelief is far more sophisticated, far more defensible than any of us would like to believe. John W. Loftus is a scholar and a former Christian who was overwhelmed by that sophistication. His story is a wake up call to the church: it's time for us to start living in, and speaking to, the real world."

In a published review for the Winter 2010 Stone-Campbell Journal Sennett wrote: "Loftus presents a compendium of well-reasoned arguments (wrapped together nicely in a steadily developed “cumulative case”) against the central beliefs of Christianity. His arguments are not the easily-refuted caricatures so often offered in Bible college textbooks and Sunday school materials. They are the genuine article – clear, well-articulated statements of plausible arguments by one who finds them overwhelmingly convincing. I dare say very few preachers, teachers, and Bible students have its likes on their shelves. And it should be there."

---------------------------

Dr. Mark D. Linville, Christian philosopher and contributor to the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology: “Of the spate of books coming from the so-called 'New Atheists' that have appeared in the past few years—Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al—John W. Loftus’s critique of Christian theism is by far the most sophisticated. Where, say, Dawkins might be found attacking a man of straw, Loftus understands and assesses the arguments of today’s premier Christian apologists and philosophers. Evangelicals cannot afford to ignore Why I Became an Atheist.”

--------------------

Roscoe on Amazon wrote: "I was a Christian for 26 years, two of which I was on staff with Young Life Ministries, after reading this book I willfully set my "faith" down. This book helped me realize that my God was a myth and that the Bible was indeed a product of man and not God. When doubting Christians ask me what one book they should read, I say without hesitation, Why I Became an Atheist by John Loftus. I currently have two of my Christian friends reading his book and they are stumped."

-------------------

By "Fox" on Amazon. This book changed my life: "As a former fundamentalist Christian of 26 years, I shudder to think what my life may have turned out like, had I not randomly spotted this book at my local Good Will. I picked it up, expecting to have a good laugh at the stupid atheist. I never expected it would completely alter my life forever.

When I picked up this book I was 100% certain that the Bible was the infallible word of God. When I finished it, I was 90% on my way to complete Atheism. All it took to get me to 100% were a few You Tube videos about the "big bang" and evolution. Once I realized that these "theories" were actually equatable to scientific certainties, I was a full-on Atheist."

----------------------

By rowley32256 wrote: John's book "is the "Gold Standard for Atheist Apologetics. As a believer, I found this book by far the most impressive justification I had ever read of atheism and commend it to fellow theists who are under the mistaken impression that atheists are necessarily narrow-minded, ignorant or irrational."

--------------------------

The following recommendations are by non-believers :

--------------------------

Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry April/ May 2010: "Doubting Christians beginning to doubt will find this book a juggernaut. If you seek an encyclopedic compendium of arguments against almost any imaginable defense of the Christian faith, this is your book. The reader seeking a comprehensive disproof of Christianity as contemporary evangelicals defend it can do little better than to consult this volume."

----------------------

Dr. Richard Carrier, author of Sense and Goodness Without God: "John's book addresses almost every conceivable argument for Evangelical Christianity in extraordinary and sobering detail. Every important aspect of intellectual Evangelical Christian belief comes in for critique, and often in more depth than you'll find in any other pro-atheism tome. Indeed, unlike, say, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, Loftus is a fully-informed insider who knows what he's talking about. He was fully immersed in making the very case for Christianity that he now tears down. He was trained by the best, is well-read in the field, and gets all the nuances that apologists accuse pop atheists (like Harris and Dawkins) of missing."

"One of the best things that Loftus contributes to the field of atheist philosophy, which I think is required reading for everyone, on both sides of the debate, is his Outsider Test. Given that, and his thorough scope and erudition, I doubt any honest, rational, informed Evangelical can remain in the fold after reading this book. Even though any Christian could pick at bits, the overall force of his case is, IMO, invincibly fatal." To read more see this post.

--------------------------

Dr. John Beversluis, author of C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion: "No review can begin to do justice to an ambitious book of this scope or to the sustained theological, philosophical, scientific, textual, and historical critique of Christianity that it contains. Suffice it to say at the outset that I have never read a book that presents such a massive and systematic refutation of the claims of Christianity, and I have seldom read a book that marshals evidence (from such a wide variety of disciplines) and documents its claims in such painstaking detail."

-----------------

Dr. Valerie Tarico, author of The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth: “What is unusual about Loftus is his breadth and depth of research in defense of the Christian faith before finally rejecting his faith. Loftus applies himself in this book with the same intellectual rigor he had applied to defending the faith, and effectively dissects those very same arguments. I found myself marveling at the impressively contorted reasoning used by apologists through the ages in defense of their received traditions. They are worth reading from the standpoint of cognitive psychology alone.”

-------------------------
Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True wrote:

I want to give two thumbs up to John Loftus’s book, Why I Became an Atheist. Despite its title, it’s far more than the story of Loftus’s journey from Christian minister to outspoken atheist. It’s really a thoughtful and well-documented dissection of religious arguments and theological claims. And there are two nice chapters on the “problem of suffering,” in which Loftus takes on and destroys the pathetic arguments offered by the faithful for why a good and powerful God allows gratuitous suffering. Link

-------------------------

By Johnathan Pearce (on Amazon U.K.): "A tour de force in the world of philosophy and theology. This far outdoes the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens et al, because it argues against theism using a theistic viewpoint. It is a much more capable and thorough approach than work from other such writers and offers serious food for thought. The Problem of Evil chapters are absolute winners, and should be read by anyone who might believe in an omnipotent/scient/benevolent God. Should be on the bookshelf of every critical thinker." 

---------------------------

David Van Allen, webmaster of ex-christian.net: "This book is an absolute 'must have' for anyone who has left the Christian faith or is having serious intellectual doubts about the Christian religion. While the book starts out explaining some of his experiential reasons for leaving Christianity, the volume goes far beyond a mere personal testimony and dives deeply into the elemental contradictions of Christianity. Loftus deals evenly with the issues, carefully explaining the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Loftus' coverage of the problems inherent in the claims of Christianity is comprehensive. Much of what he wrote sounds like an echo of many of my own introspections except expressed through the well oiled mind of an academician."

---------------------------

David Mills, author of Atheist Universe: "John W. Loftus is to atheism what Tiger Woods is to golf, or what Babe Ruth was to baseball. Loftus has provided, in this superb and entertaining volume, the crown jewel of the new atheist movement. As much as I admire and enjoy Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett, Loftus is, far and away, my favorite author on this riveting subject. Loftus' esteemed reputation within the freethought community is indeed richly deserved. But this book exceeded even my highest expectations."

-----------------

Dr. Hector Avalos, Biblical scholar and author of The End of Biblical Studies: “Why I Became an Atheist combines a dose of Augustine's Confessions with a cauldron of unremitting rationalism to yield one of the most potent antidotes to Christianity on the market today. If there is such a thing as the New Atheism, then John W. Loftus is one of the standard bearers. Loftus is a former Christian evangelical apologist who became an atheist, and he tells us why in a detail and a depth worthy of the best atheist writers today. It is a well-written, informed, and potent critique of religion and Christianity.”

----------------------------

Luke Muehlhauser of Common Sense Atheism ranks the book among the best books on both sides of this debate. He goes so far as to say it's the "best atheist book of the decade" which is extremely high praise given that he goes on to recommend books by Graham Oppy and Nick Trakakis.

---------------------

Christopher Hallquist, president of Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: “The Outsider Test for Faith chapter should earn Loftus a permanent place in the history of critiques of religion.”

---------------------

Edward Tabash, Chair, First Amendment Task Force, Council for Secular Humanism: “This is a wonderful book! I believe that there is no ex-theist who has done a better job of profoundly refuting the claims of religion. You are one of the most precious intellectual treasures an otherwise benighted society can have.”

----------------------

Dan Barker, author of Godless: "John has taken the claims of Christianity seriously, diving in with both feet (full immersion atheism!), unflinchingly examining the exact sources that believers urge us to ponder. When you read Loftus's penetrating analyses, you have no choice but to discard the truth claims of Christianity. As a former fundamentalist minister who has followed a similar path from apostle to apostate, I empathize completely with the deep struggle Loftus had to make in order to shed his former cherished beliefs. I respect his scholarship, but more than that, I admire his courage. There are many treasures in this book, as well as provocative and controversial arguments, all presented with a crystal-clear and brutal honesty that is rare in religious scholarship. Loftus is a true freethinker, willing to follow the facts wherever they happen to lead." 

----------------------

Michael Shermer, Publisher of Skeptic magazine, and the author of How We Believe, The Science of Good and Evil, and Why Darwin Matters. "There is trend sweeping American culture today on the God question, with commentators on all sides ringing in with their opinions and theories about whether God exists or not, the origins of morality with or without God, and the origins and importance of religion. What is unique about John W. Loftus's book is his perspective: a one time Christian apologist who changed his mind and became an atheist. Here we get both sides of the debate between two covers, an honest and honorable look into the soul of belief and what it means to be a nonbeliever."

--------------------

Jeffery Amos, Blog owner of Failing the Insider Test: "In the last year I've devoured numerous books on religion. My rankings are based on their relevance to the question “but is it true?” In order of best to worst:

1. Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity– John W. Loftus. Head. And. Shoulders. Above. All. Others. If your book shopping is based on my recommendations, stop reading my blog and go buy it right now.

This is the best refutation of Evangelical Christianity that I have read. Most of his arguments are a one-two punch of philosophy and biblical analysis. The first hit shows how (insert doctrine of choice) is meaningless/contradictory/impossible and the second hit undercuts the support for the idea actually being true. His philosophical analysis is consistently stellar - he dismantles all the little things in theology that you are supposed to learn but not think about. His biblical arguments switch between the rifle and shotgun approach - he spends the better part of a chapter on a few individual problems, and with others issues his gives a long lists of problems with little elaboration." See here to read more.

----------------------

Jason Long, author of Biblical Nonsense,and The Religious Condition: "John's book is the book I wish I could write. It is probably the best comprehensive book of the issues I’ve read. If you’re looking for an in depth scholarly discussion of apologetic views, by all means, read John’s book."

----------------------------

Joe E. Holman, founder of www.ministerturnsatheist.org, and author of Project Bible Truth: A Minister Turns Atheist and Tells All: “The book's central strength lies in its information-rich content. John speaks the language of competent and well-known Christian scholars and apologists of both liberal and conservative affiliation, employing their own words against them, demonstrating that they themselves recognize the grave position they are in when facing the critical eye of a skeptical, modern world. The Outsider Test for Faith is one of those chapters that says what every doubter of religion has always thought but perhaps never said so well. The chapter is an absolute jewel. This work covers some ground that is seldom touched on in other comparable freethought works.”

----------------------

Guy P. Harrison, author of 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God: “John W. Loftus has written an important book that should be read by every Christian who cares about truth and reality. This is not the angry rant of some disgruntled former believer with an axe to grind. Loftus is thorough, fair and convincing. As a former Christian minister and apologist who became an atheist, he knows both sides of the belief question very well. The insights and detailed information contained in this book make for enlightening reading. The chapter on superstition in the Bible was nothing less than mind-blowing. I highly recommend this book."

----------------------

Dr. Frank R. Zindler: "In the cracks between the spaces in time I have been reading your magnum opus and am enjoying it a lot. You produce a crushing cumulative case. Bravo!"

--------------------

Ken W. Daniels, author of "Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary," wrote: "As a former evangelical missionary who lost my faith nearly a decade ago…I believe the process could have been cut significantly shorter if John's book had been available to me years before my crisis finally came to a head. The value of this volume lies…in its bringing together in a single accessible package most of the important criticisms that have been advanced against the Christian faith (and theism in general) since the Enlightenment.

I found Loftus' treatment of the Atonement to be particularly incisive. I have not read a more succinct and effective rejoinder to the penal substitution theory than his.

John's book is an unremitting battery of helpfully organized arguments against orthodox Christianity. Well done, John!

----------------------

Jeffrey Mark, author of Christian No More: "John Loftus is not only a former preacher as the title says, but a trained theologian with advanced degrees. He spent enormous amounts of time learning and perfecting the philosophical arguments that he would later come to refute with this book. Loftus meticulously breaks their arguments down and shows why, when given careful consideration, they fall apart, ultimately leaving no God, no Jesus, and no Holy Spirit. The problem with many atheist vs. Christian debates is that the parties involved have drastically different training. But Loftus, on the other hand, is in a unique position, as he can see eye-to-eye with the Christian theologians. He knows and understands their arguments and can speak their language. This book will change minds. Already many people have let go of their beliefs as a result of this book, and surely many more will."

---------------------

Dr. A.M. Weisberger, non-theistic philosopher and author of Suffering Belief: Evil and the Anglo-American Defense of Theism: Loftus writes with great honesty and candor about his experiences from both sides of the theistic/nontheistic landscape. His chapters on the problem of evil offer a fine overview of the complex historical debate over the obstacle that evil presents to rational theistic belief. His writing is admirable for maintaining conceptual accuracy while engendering accessibility for the non-technical reader. Highly recommended -- both as a valuable sourcebook for all involved in religious debate, and as a good read.

-------------------

Dr. Robert M. Price, author of The Reason-Driven Life, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, and The Paperback Apocalypse. “In this fascinating work you will witness the profound processes that led John W. Loftus out of a deep but finally wrong-headed commitment to Christ and the Christian worldview. There is no way the book will not be of great help with your own journey. For years, apologists have thrown down the gauntlet. Now it is being picked up--by their own students!

 ----------------

Mike Tenenbaum, author of Blessed Assurance? A Demonstration that Christian Fundamentalism is Simply False: "I found this book to be very thoughtful, intelligent, well written, and, what can I say, it was a hard book to put down. I also have written a book critiquing Christianity. But I have to say, if you're going to only read one book on the matter, read John's. If you're interested in a second, maybe check out mine. lol ;) But having been immersed in the faith for myself for many years, and since becoming an atheist, having read many books along these lines, I have to say that John's book sets the gold standard."

 ---------------------

Keith Parsons: "WIBA is a serious book that deals with serious arguments. It is two or three cuts above most of the "new atheist" polemic."

---------------------

Peter Phua, writing for a CFI Blog said my book, "...outlines a comprehensive series of arguments - both philosophical and historical - against the truth claims made by the Christian religion."

"Loftus shows great breadth in the topics he covers, and he discusses the important issues at hand with an appropriate degree of depth, succinctly addressing the best replies to his arguments. The problem of evil is dealt with particularly well. Loftus does not straw-man his opponent's arguments, rather, he summarizes them in their strongest form and takes them head on. It's a book I highly recommend for current (and former) Christians who seek to familiarize themselves with an excellent contemporary summary of the strongest criticisms against the Christian faith."

--------------------------

Jeffery Jay Lowder on the Secular Outpost: "I give this book two thumbs way up. In addition to courageously sharing his personal story, Loftus applies his considerable training and expertise into developing a cumulative case against Christianity and for atheism. I cannot think of another book like it on the market. Loftus is clearly familiar with the work of evangelical apologists like Copan, Craig, Geisler, and Moreland, as his book is filled with references to their work and objections to their arguments. In fact, his book might best be described as a “counter-apologetics” textbook. Anyone who reads this blog (The Secular Outpost) but has not yet read Why I Became an Atheist should do so.

 -----------------

Skeptic Dave wrote: "Loftus has succeeded in giving us a very nice all-inclusive overview of every possible card the Christian apologist will play, and refutes them well. Naturally, would you expect anything less from someone who used to play all those cards?" It is a "428 page monster of reason and logic."

-------------

Dr. William Harwood, author of Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus: “Loftus wrote his book primarily to explain why he ceased to be a believer, but its main value is that it spells out the falsifying evidence that finally cured him and will cure anyone who reads it. Loftus has brought together sufficient evidence of religion’s Achilles’ heel to cause all but the most intransigent believers to ask themselves: Could he be right?”

--------------------------

Fintan Amphlett on Facebook wrote: "I would honestly rank your book alongside the best I've ever read of Hume and Russell."

-------------------------

A. Hawkins: “If there was one book that I would recommend to a Christian to make him see his religion from the outside it would be this. It's written in a language that a Christian would understand. I believe that John's approach is the best and more notably I think it will have the greatest affect on the Christian. The writing and argumentation shows many years of dealing with the debate at the highest level. Come on Christian, read it. You won't encounter a better attack of your faith."

------------------

Jennifer Weisbrodt: "'Why I became an Atheist'" by John W. Loftus is excellent from cover-to-cover. This is one of my absolute favorite books that deals with Atheism and I will continue to suggest it to others and use it as a source-book for my own future reference as well…this book is fresh, audacious and thought-inspiring, and I recommend it to all."

----------------

Sarah Schoonmaker wrote: "Loftus’ book offers the college level a solid introduction to Atheist arguments, while offering thorough responses to popular Christian Theist claims. This resource introduces Atheist objections to Christians, which many have never dealt with them. For even the seasoned Christian apologist, this work still presents a solid challenge.

-----------------

Chris Knight-Griffin: “If you have questions about your faith, read this book. Those nagging questions are addressed and exposed. Every skeptic should have this concise reference book on the desk, dog-eared, tagged, and highlighted. I’ve read Sam Harris' book, The End of Faith, and Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. The other books hit the target but John’s book hits the bulls-eye. I doubt anyone with faith could walk away from this book with that faith intact. Awesome book!!!! It is honestly everything I've been looking for so far in my ‘quest’ for knowledge. Thank you!”

-------------------

Andrew Atkinson: “I have read hundreds of Christian Apologetics books. I have read all of Lewis, all of Schaeffer, all of Peter Kreeft, all of Dr. Geisler’s works along with the writings of Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, J.P. Moreland, Richard Swinburne, N.T Wright, Paul Copan, etc. I was until recently enrolled at Dr. Geisler’s school to study apologetics and philosophy. This year I decided in order to be fair and honest to read all the top skeptical books on religion. John’s book was one of the first I read. It was the first skeptic book I read that made me seriously realize that I could be dead wrong! I think John has written by far the best overall refutation of Christianity in print. John’s book is much more accessible, it covers a lot more arguments, it has the best chapters on the problem of evil you can find, it is more interesting to read, it refutes more apologetic arguments then any other book, and it addresses more central issues.”

---------------------

Greg Meeuwsen: “I have read numerous publications on this topic, but I don't believe I've ever seen as many great reasons to reject religion in one place. John’s arguments are numerous and rock-solid. The level of research and brutal logic applied to the Bible is absolutely stunning, as is the sheer number of examples given. There is "no stone unturned", as Loftus takes on nearly every apologist angle ever conceived. This book will give more insight into scholarly unbelief than you ever thought possible.

------------------------

By D. Weatherford (Spanish Fork, Utah): "This is the best all-encompassing critique of Christianity that I have been able to find so far (and I have read A LOT)....if you want a convincing interpretation of the findings of biblical scholarship, archaeology, and philosophy, this is the book you are looking for...the book is so great that I will likely use it often as a reference for further study. Highly recommended!"

-----------------------

Stephanie wrote: "I have read numerous books regarding the subject matter you covered in your book and by far, John, yours is the best one for Christians to read. There is no drug we can give a Christian to get them to see how irrational Christianity and all other religions truly are. However, in my opinion, this book is next best thing."

---------------

R. Baldwin (Panama City, FL) wrote: "Definitive Refutation." "After reading the slew of atheist works published in the last 5 years or so, I was pleasantly surprised by Loftus' comprehensive refutation of every supposedly rational support of Christian positions. This book saves me a lot of research because of Loftus' knowledge of the Bible, the theological and philosophical arguments of contemporary Christian apologists as well as the great Christian theologians and deist philosophers of the past. Only a former pastor and Christian apologist could have written a work of this depth. Every Christian should read this book and judge for themselves whether their arguments stand up to a true spirit of objective analysis. Every skeptic, freethinker, agnostic or atheist who already observed the fact that agnostics and atheists have the best arguments on their side will enjoy the clarity and power with which their point of view is expressed in this book."

-------------

Kirby Wiese of Vacaville, CA, wrote: "I've been studying religion for most of my life...I've concentrated on Christianity, since that is what I was brought up on, and since I have to deal with it every day in some way living in this country. Having read the recent books by Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al I wanted to let you know that, in my opinion, while those books drive nails into Christianity (and religion in general) your book drops a ton of bricks on it! I think your handling of the problem of evil would convert any CLEAR THINKING person away from the Christian concept of God."

----------------------

Dave Perry (Tampa, Florida): "I recently completed reading Why I Became an Atheist and would highly recommend this book to both Christians and Atheists. Loftus is a brilliant thinker who methodically and poignantly addresses controversial issues regarding the Christian faith. In doing so, he demonstrates courtesy to Christians and their faith as he thoughtfully and painstakingly addresses a myriad of apologetic arguments, acknowledging their merits while at the same time exposing their flaws. The book is truly a scholarly work."

---------------

Stephen St. Clair wrote: "I just completed your book and....To say I found it insightful and worthwhile would be a gross understatement. I have yet to read ONE book that addresses all of the issues more cogently (and accurately in my opinion), and I have read a great deal on both sides of this eternal debate/inquiry. Moreover, I compliment you on your efforts to maintain a writing style that made it “comfortable” read. In short, thank you for taking the time to author what should be required reading for everyone."

---------------------

Matthew J. Green: “This book is one of the best introductory texts on the philosophical problems with Christianity.”

----------------------

Geoff M. Arnold (Seattle, WA): "Loftus is a scribe: the apologist, the teacher. He was the defender of faith against its critics, and with the detailed knowledge that he acquired in this role, he has become the sharpest critic of religious apology...If you have read some of the authorities that Loftus cites - Mackie, Martin, et al - I would still recommend his book, because he pulls all of the threads together in a compact and accessible manner. If you are unfamiliar with the literature, Loftus may be all you need."

---------------------

Anthony Lawson (Kentucky USA): "I thoroughly enjoyed this book and at times just couldn't put it down. John's deconversion story was very moving and I'm sure rings true for a great many that have gone through the heartache of abandoning the Christian faith. John covers a lot of material in as little space as possible. He deals with each topic adequately and gives the reader references for further reading in the notes and bibliography. All in all one of the best books that I have read on the subject and highly recommended."

--------------------------

Paul Harrison: “If you read Christian apologetics, you owe it to yourself to have this anthology of the best arguments against Christian apologetics in your library.”

Objective Traffic

Repeatedly when discussing the posts on this blog, the last refuge of the theist is that without a God, there can be no objective morals. If all we are is bags of chemicals or, in my favorite Star Trek quote, "Ugly, ugly bags of mostly water," then what is the source of our morality? How can we be objective when we are accusing the fictive God of immorality?

Jim Holman, not to be confused with Joe Holman, asks at one point:

It seems to me that the concept of morality depends on all sorts of metaphysical concepts that would have no place in a strictly scientific worldview. These include concepts such as a "person" who has "free will" to do things both "good" and "evil." It depends on the idea that actions can be "right" or "wrong."

But in a scientific worldview, where everything is ultimately reduced to physical components, electrical and chemical interactions, and so on, how would any of these metaphysical concepts have a place?

To me the key answer is in checking what our premises are. Concepts exist in brains. They don't exist anywhere else. So any explanation of metaphysical concepts has to understand that they exist in brains and manifest themselves in the world as communication from one brain to other brains.

When I tell you I have a car, you know what I mean. This is true even though the myriad varieties of car make it very unlikely that the car you are imagining as "car" when I talk to you about my car is actually what my car is. When we walk outside to get in my car, you then change your concept of "my car" to fit the data that looking at my greenish, dusty Mazda 3 hatchback impresses on your brain. If you are blind, you don't make that transition until you get in the car.

Once we start driving I then have a plethora of driving choices I can make. The rules regarding driving are sometimes quite detailed and sometimes quite vague, but they are generally agreed upon within one locality and violations of the local rules regarding driving are frequently commented on by other drivers and occasionally result in punishment ranging from citation to jailing and sometimes to execution.

The rules regarding driving are indeed and in every way objective. They are man-made and they don't relate to anything of any cosmic significance. I drive within a lane that is painted on the road not because it is made of Plexiglas that will destroy my car if I run into it, but because that lane is objectively painted there so it can be my space on the road and other drivers agree to accept it as if it is real. However, I am a fool if I regard the lanes as always real. If one night, on an open road, I see a person stumbling across the street and fail to swerve out of his way because I was obeying the objective facts of the lanes on the road, I am not driving well. In fact I am criminally culpable.

We allow several groups of drivers and other road users to break the rules when they are following instructions or responding to other crises, and we rarely see those who enforce the laws of the road being punished for violations that they punish others for. Yet this does nothing to make the rules of the road any less objective. Just because their enforcement is subjective it does not follow that the rules are.

Therefore, cars exist, traffic rules are objective, and they are all man-made and work not because of some universal proper way they must function but because there are a limited number of ways to utilize the variables that come with driving. We obey the traffic laws and regard things like intersections and lanes as "real" because failing to do so is harmful to us and harmful to others. Intersections and lanes exist objectively, yet they are totally man-made.

In just the same way, people exist, morals are objective, and they are all man-made and work not because of some universal directive but because there are a limited number of ways to make a successful society. We obey the social customs, folkways and moral codes of our society because failing to do so is harmful to us and harmful to others. This doesn't require natural selection. It only requires a group of like beings who view each other as possibly helpful.

Now the objection I imagine that will come from a theist is that traffic laws are simply a subspecies of morality and that Yahweh not only gave us universal objective morals and instructions on what fabrics can and cannot be mixed, but he also planned out the objective rules of traffic laws before the foundations of the earth had been laid.

Yet I think this fails too, because of the variation of rules throughout the world and according to local custom. Traffic laws are in no way universal, even though they are objective, and the only ones that are somewhat universal are those that safeguard people from violence deliberately inflicted with a vehicle, and this again has obviously positive benefits for any society that chooses to enshrine it in law.