Joe Holman's Book is Now Available on Amazon

I recommend his book Project Bible Truth. His arguments are rock solid and Biblically based. In it you'll read one of the most complete deconversion stories in print. Get it.

My Debate on the Problem of Evil

I just got back into town and it's after my bedtime on Sunday night, so I'm going to bed now. I realized after I announced this Blog as a place to comment and to ask questions about the debate, that several people in attendence (just over 100) couldn't comment because we don't allow anonymous comments here at DC. I've disabled that function to allow anyone who was at the debate to do so, but please use your real name.

I personally thought it went well. David Wood and his wife are a kind and winsome couple...a joy to know! I'll write more tomorrow. David hired a professional video company to record the event. We'll have to wait till they've produced the video, and I don't know yet what David wants to do with it. A transcript of the debate is being prepared too, but we'll have to wait for that too. I'll let others judge how well we each did, but I'll tell you what my wife said, and I quote: "the only people who will think David won the debate are those who are blinded by their faith, and/or people who cannot deal with arguments." Of course, she's not entirely objective and neither am I. So, like I said, I'll let others decide for themselves, and I'll tell more about our weekend later.

A big thanks goes out to several people who commented on earlier drafts of my opening statement, including Andrea Weisberger, Richard Carrier, Jeffrey Jay Lowder, Ed Babinski, exapologist, Joe Holman, and Daniel Morgan (who supplied my powerpoint presentation with a few pictures).

Both Sides of the Fence

By Joe E. Holman

Having spent roughly nine years of my life as a Christian minister for the protestant fundamentalist sect known as the Church of Christ, I am more than moved to tell my story and assist in the efforts of this fine blog to dispel my former religion, along with it’s many delusions and vices that plague our world.

The freethought movement is growing all over our planet. The clarion sound of liberty’s ring is being heard in places where only savagery abounded years before. Education levels are rising. Cultures are getting smarter and beginning to trust that their minds are good for more than memorizing vulgar prayers and sputtering out chants of flattery to vengeful sky spirits. Despite the best efforts of the religious right, a number of nations of the world are adopting that glorious Ionian spirit of tolerance and the freedom to express new ideas and knowledge.

Little by little, the cobwebs of Christianity are being cleared away and centuries old philosophical junk is being tossed into the dumpster of antiquity where it belongs. The dust, which is the fear, guilt, and oppression of the Christian Cult, is continually being cleansed away, revealing a bright and shiny new surface beneath with each passing century. With Christianity out of the way, Man steps up to the platform boldly to speak and declare his chosen new destiny. He now has nothing to fear, nothing to hold back his progress anymore. The tormenting demons are gone forever.

Many people, wielding many different talents and abilities, make for a lot to offer the freethought movement. My small contribution here stems from having been a minister, educated and trained as a Christian professional, to answer the deep and heart-rending questions of life. Having left the ministry behind, I resolved to take with me what little wisdom I could. The change from minister to atheist was a difficult one indeed, but it made me who I am today, the result being I can now see the world from both sides of the fence - without those disabling and crippling mental defense mechanisms which annoyingly pop up in the mind, subverting objectivity.

I have always said that it is starkly amazing what a naïve, willing mind will believe in, but what is even more amazing is when the individual looks back on his/her life and asks that ever-perplexing question which seems to have no answer, the one that I now ask about my previous adoption of Christianity, “How did I ever come to believe in that?”

(JH)

Joe's Website: ministerturnsatheist.org

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

Edited by John:
Be sure to read Joe's deconversion story: FROM GOSPEL PREACHER TO GOOD ATHEIST

Ionian Spirit Has a Page for DC Posts!

I hope I'm not jumping the gun but it looks like we're ready to go with the new discussion forum for DC posts at Ionian Spirit, which Joe E. Holman started a few years ago. On it there is a page dedicated to commenting on DC posts right here. I've posted a few of the ones you find on the front page so far. This will allow people who don't have Blogger accounts to discuss our ideas. Joe has a dedicated staff there so I expect things will go smoothly. The link takes you to the DC page but don't forget to click on the banner to discuss and/or start threads of your own. To register click on the link in the upper left hand corner. For now we'll also allow comments here at DC for regular Bloggers. This is a test run. See what you think.

The Firepower of Debunking Christianity.

I just want to thank the team members and commenters who make DC what it is. There is some real firepower at DC in our common goal. Here we are in alphabetical order:

Edward T. Babinski has edited a book, written chapters for others and is somewhat of an expert in the issues pertaining to creationism and evolution. He seems to have his hands everywhere, a sort of hub for people who leave the fold. He first encouraged me, and I'll always be thankful, I think. ;-)

Dr. Hector Avalos, a Biblical scholar of the New Atheism.

Jason Long has a Ph.D. in Pharmacology and wrote two books, Biblical Nonsense, and The Religious Condition.

Joe E. Holman was a seminary trained minister who is writing a book describing his deconversion and highlighting the many problems there are for the Christian faith. I just read a rough draft of his deconversion story in his book and it's the most comprehensive and complete one I've ever read. Plus he teaches creative writing and this is reflected in his book. He maintains a website and an online forum.

John W. Loftus, me, *ahem* I have the near equivalent of a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Religion, have taught apologetics at a Bible College, and I too wrote a book.

Lee Randolph, is my right hand man in many ways. He's a polymath and dabbles in Comparative Religions, ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean history and Mythology, Argument Analysis, Informal Logic, Cognitive Science, Philosophy, Game Theory and Information Technology. He has a great deal to share, and he helps maintain this blog.

Marlene Winell has a Ph.D. in psychology and specializes in helping people go through the process of deconverting. She wrote a book and she conducts seminars for people who leave the Christian faith.

Valerie Tarico has a Ph.D. in psychology and also wrote a book. Her specialty lies in the area of the psychology of beliefs, how we get them, and why the evangelical faith is so hard to shake.

That’s a pretty well-rounded group.

I am very pleased they have come on board and I greatly value their contributions. Of course, I wish some would contribute more often, but whenever I have a question, or whenever there is a person whom they can deal with better than me, I hook them up.

There are others who comment here, both skeptic and Christian, and I thank them all. Christians who visit here help to sharpen us, and I thank them for this. Skeptics who visit here do the same, and add to our combined knowledge.

I personally think this is a great place to discuss the ideas that separate us. I look forward every day to see what people have said. My aim is to make this a friendly place to debate, and I think that goal is being achieved. I also want DC to be a place where people who struggle with their faith can come to ask questions and learn. There are many such people in the church who dare not express themselves. At DC they can. If the church was more open to their questions they wouldn't have to visit DC to express them, and you all know the answers that we offer.


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

Past Contributors at DC Include:

Andrew Atkinson

Aaron M Rossetti

Bart Willruth

Bill Ross

Brother Crow

Craig Duckett

DagoodS

Dan Barker

Dennis Diehl

Evan

exapologist

exbeliever

Former Fundy

Joseph

Ken Daniels

Matthew J. Green

Robert Bumbalough

S Burgener

Shygetz

Theresa Frasch

Troy Waller

Back in the Stocks: A Short Treatise on Thought and Eternity (Part II of II)

Continuing with the previous observations, when we die, we die and forget it all. And then the cells that made us up disassemble and become a part of the earth again. Just like their dancing little sub-particle components, they dance and shift around and trade partners like some hand-clapping, toothless country folk with stupid smiles on their faces, as they switch partners in some rural dance hall with flickering neon lights seen from a poorly-paved, two-lane highway...

Read more »

Quixtar Jesus

“Do you want to buy this cute little bear? Or how about this pretend green phone? Do you have a son? If so, he would love it!” That’s what the bearded guy next to me said. We were driving around Marbach Avenue trying to find some poor sap to buy a bunch of cheap, useless products we were peddling from a no-name, door-to-door sales company that (of course) was doomed before it began. I was the tag-along new recruit. We had no lives and this job hammered home that fact all too well. It was my first or second week of school. I still think back at how even what few products we had were too shitty to sell.

Read more »

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.

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.]

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.”

Back in the Stocks: A Short Treatise on Thought and Eternity (Part I of II)

“My hair is really starting to thin on top,” I say to myself as I’m tiredly leaning over the sink, having already noticed my “crow’s feet.” “My nads are hanging down further,” yet another indication of my age, I think. “And why is the hum of that vent so pleasing when taking a dump and you just woke up?” These are natural thoughts, along with: “This mouthwash tastes good! Why haven’t I been buying it all this time?” There are no right or wrong thoughts in the downtime of the bathroom, looking at the dried toothpaste stuck to the rim of the sink and those few stray hairs from the clipper still lying around. Just as surely as you are staring at that same oddly cut-off floral design on the wallpaper while doing “number two,” you are contemplating what it all means and why you should get up in the morning in the first place.

Read more »

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).

The Evidential Value of Conversion/Deconversion Stories. Reviewing Mittelberg's "Confident Faith" Part 7

I'm reviewing Mark Mittelberg's book Confident Faith. [See the "Mark Mittelberg" tag below for others].

I want to digress a bit for this post to discuss the value of personal conversion/deconversion stories. [Nomenclature: A conversion story is one which an atheist or nonbeliever becomes a Christian. A deconversion story is one in which a Christian becomes a non-believer or atheist.] In Mittelberg's book, conversion stories seem to play an important role. He discusses the apostle Paul's Damascus Road conversion experience, who was a persecutor of the church then a believer. Then there's Augustine of Hippo's conversion, from out of the pagan religion of Manichaeism. Jumping to our time he tells us of Lee Strobel, an atheist who turned evangelical, and the late Nabeel Qureshi, who was a Muslim but later became an evangelical after discussions with David Wood, who has his own shocking conversion story from atheist to evangelical Christian (which has 825K hits so far!). There is Mark Mittelberg's own story in this book, from a doubter to a confident Christian. He mentions other nonbelievers who became Christians, like Simon Greeleaf, Frank Morison (A.K.A. Albert Henry Ross), C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell. Mittelberg also exploits the late Antony Flew's story (pp. 144-145), who was an atheist philosopher but came to believe in a deistic creator of the universe (but nothing more).

Mittelberg never tells any Christian-to-atheist deconversion stories. He just tells atheist-to-Christian conversion stories (plus Antony Flew's story). Should we fault him for not telling any deconversion stories? Yes, I think so! For it means he's not offering readers any evidence to consider, but rather trying to persuade them to believe based on the conclusions others reached. His faulty line of reasoning goes this: since atheist person X became a Christian, you should too. Why should that matter? He had asked readers to follow the evidence for themselves. But by putting forth several stories of skeptic/atheist conversions to Christianity he's not actually presenting any objective evidence for the readers to consider. Instead, he's presenting the conclusions of others about the evidence, which is arguing by authority, the very thing he questions later. He had also asked readers to follow logic. But by adopting the conclusion of others just because they adopted it is not logical. Why not just present the evidence? The stories are a propaganda technique designed purposefully to persuade.

Read more »

Announcing Joe E. Holman's Book, Project Bible Truth.

Another DC member wrote a great book, Project Bible Truth.

I have been able to read through it prior to publication. It's an excellent book written by a master writer. It contains the most comprehensive deconversion story I've ever read. A must have book. Go to the link and you can preview it.

Carnival of the Godless 53

Welcome to the 53^rd edition of the Carnival of the Godless!

I will arrange the posts by subject tags, but the numbering is arbitrary.

Debunking Theism

1. The God Conundrum, by Sean Carroll from Cosmic Variance: Responds to a review by Eagleton of Dawkins' The God Delusion
2. Fruitful Inconsistencies, by Stephen Frug from Attempts: You may want to scroll down -- the first half of the post discusses the way that contradictions in literature, far from being a blemish, can in fact be a source of literary richness; I then apply the same thinking to religion -- a kind of fiction, after all -- and discuss the ways in which the very contradictions that make it (to atheists) not believable is also a source of its imaginative power
3. Conceptual Time-Capsule Five, by Danieru from The Huge Entity: The post is a backlash to recent secular humanist writings from the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. My submission explores the nature of our 'God-Shaped Hole' and dismisses claims that science can ever fully override religion.
4. The evidence of things unseen, (trackback) by John from Hell's Handmaiden: "Faith is rarely questioned. The unseen evidence of faith is taken as is. It is even worn as a badge of honor. Or taken almost as a proof of itself. I believe, because I believe."
5. ...And This Bird You Cannot Change..., by Akusai of Action Skeptics: A critical look at religious arguments surrounding free will and the nature of God.

Debunking Christianity (see bottom for more from this site)

1. Christian Presuppositionalism: A General Response, by Daniel Morgan from Debunking Christianity: Highlights a paper from a philosopher (Prof. D. Gene Witmer) responding to this style of Christian apologetics
2. Prof. Gene Witmer Debates Pastor Gene Cook on Unchained Radio, get the .mp3 here: Prof. Witmer and Pastor Cook lock horns over whether atheism is capable of explaining abstract entities like logic and morality, and the conversation turns to the problem of evil near the end -- very good show. Chris Hallquist has some of the transcript with analysis.
   
3. A Hard Look at Presuppositional Transcendental Arguments, #1, #2, #3, by exbeliever from Not Many Wise (formerly of DC): These three articles seriously examine the sorts of arguments that claim that Christianity is true because atheism cannot "account" for certain metaphysical entities, and clearly demonstrates the lack of substance to these arguments.
   
4. What Does Fact Matter?, by Michael Klaas from Klaas Acts: De-constructing a conversation between and evangelical Christian and his potential convert.
5. Burying the Dead -- Normalizing the Extreme in the Gospels: A Hypocrisy of Homilies, by Jerry Monaco from Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, & Culture: I write an historical explanation of several passages in the Gospel where the character of Jesus urges his followers to to violate kinship norms, family piety, etc. Kinship systems were both the foundation of Ancient Eastern Mediterranean society and were falling apart everywhere. I explain why attempts to normalize or modernize the Gospels must fail historical scrutiny, because in the context of the time the attack on father-son relations and the chiliastic urgency of the Gospels led the Gospel writers to extremist views.
6. Picking and Choosing Belief, by Jeff Hebert from A Nerd's Country Journal: One atheist's method for deciding which parts of a religious text to give credence to, and which to reject

Evolution/Science

1. Religion, Science, and Bigotry, by Alonzo Fyfe from The Atheist Ethicist: Back in my home state of Montana a Republican law maker called Montana's governor a bigot for claiming that the state's education agenda should not promote the view of those who think that the earth is 4,000 years old. This article looks at the concept of 'bigot' and denies the charge that advancing science fact over science fiction represents any type of bigotry.
2. Francis Collins Does it Again!, by Shalini from Scientia Natura: Evolution And Rationality: On the famous scientists' attempt to save God from scientific falsification, rendering the hypothesis impotent
3. Ken Miller, by Mr. R. from Evolving Education: Talks about the difference in the positions of Dawkins and Miller with respect to evolution -- an ongoing debate amongst scientists and the godless everywhere
4. The Sad State of Science, by Daniel Morgan at DC: comment on the 2006 Science and Engineering Indicators, especially reflects the correlation between poor science education and superstitious thought/belief.
5. Groupthink, by Jason Rosenhouse: Who exhibits the 8 classic symptoms of groupthink more clearly: ID advocates or evolutionary theory (mainstream biological science) advocates?

Misc.

1. Famous Atheists - Butterfly McQueen, by Mojoey from Deep Thoughts: Mojoey has started a project to document and highlight the lives of famous people who are oft-forgotten as having been atheists.
2. Second Coming Insurance, by Stuart from Daily Irreverence: A real story about some Catholic girls who bought insurance to make sure that they'd have the resources to raise the next Jesus
3. Elements of Character, By Wenchypoo from Wisdom from Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket: Too often we try to unnecessarily inject the divine into analyses of character
4. The Four Stages of a Truth: Part 1, Part 2, by Francois Tremblay at Check Your Premises: Francois describes human reactions to arguments and facts along the spectrum from acceptance to non-confrontation.
5. Analyzing the Data for Social Trends in Xianity, by Daniel Morgan at GBLoGBB: Is Christianity growing? What are its leaders saying about growth? In what sectors? Are megachurches evidence of growth? What data supports the growth of atheism?
   

On Godlessness, Goodness and Meaning

1. Thus Spoke Zarathustra -- a Book Review, by Brandon Peele from Generative Transformation (trackback): Pretty self-explanatory
2. Make Your Own "Why", by Dave from Villa Nandes: Finding meaning in a godless life.
3. Thank Goodness!, by Daniel Dennett, posted to The Edge: Dennett talks about his very recent near-death experience, and what it taught him about goodness. One of my favorite posts.
4. Atheist pride, by purplebob: calls for agnostics to come out of the closet as atheists, and to use the label with pride, just as queers did -- I suppose the Brights wouldn't appreciate this effort ;-)
5. Peer-Reviewed Article Researching Deconversions, by Daniel Morgan at GBLoGBB: One of the few published journal articles laying out scientific observations among apostates
   

Politics

1. Playing Dirty for God, by the Dr. from And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: Questions the role of faith in Bush's own life, in his politics, and in the GOP generally, and concludes, "...it’s not just that Bush is running the False God Kool-Aid stand; he’s also a client."
2. Anti-Dominionism is not McCarthyism, by Alon Levy from Abstract Nonsense: rebukes the notion that people like Kevin Phillips and Michelle Goldberg are just hysteric about Dominionism the way McCarthy was about communism.
3. A Letter Sent to the Office of the Archbishop of York, by Alun Salt at Archaeoastronomy: Archbishops have been attacking public Atheism this week. The Archbishop of York has posted online an address to the Diocese of Newcastle in which the Archbishop insists Christianity should not be rammed down people's throats and the best way to do this is insist on people having Christian names on forms, wishing Merry Christmas rather than seasons greetings and restoring free parking to the good Christians of Plymouth.
4. Ted Haggard Shows the Virtue of Hypocrisy, by Jon Swift: Where did this strange idea that hypocrisy is not a moral virtue come from?
5. Jim Benton on Fundies vs. Gay Marriage, by Salto sobrius: The conservative Christian animosity towards gay marriage is most probably rooted in its interpretation of marriage as defined by women's submission to their husbands.
6. Why I will never vote for anyone who says this, By Barry Leiba from Staring At Empty Pages: Politicians who put God above the people are dangerous.
7. Have we got a minyan for the election?, by Barry Leiba from Staring At Empty Pages: Comments on people praying for favourable election results -- doesn't this amount to asking God to "fix" the election?
8. Evangelicals vs. the Religious Right, by Daniel Morgan at GBLoGBB: Pasted article from Newsweek with commentary afterwards on the intrinsic hypocrisy within the RR among those who give money and time towards the RR but not towards charity
   

A Sample of Debunking Christianity, for the interested:

1. Calvinism Explains Everything and Nothing, by John Loftus at DC: a hard look at the logical difficulties within Calvinism and gullibility required to believe it
   
2. Flat Earth Assumptions of Biblical Authors--Edward T. Babinski VS. Dave Armstrong & J.P. Holding, by Ed Babinski at DC: Examines whether or not the case for a flat earth was biblical
3. The Logical Problem of Evil Is Still Very Much Alive!, by John Loftus at DC: A response to the "solution" by Plantinga to the PoE
4. My Encounter With Calvinism, by Ed Babinski at DC: Discusses the degree of credulity needed to embrace Calvinism
5. Was Jesus Left Handed?, by DagoodS at DC: Wrestles with some of the logical absurdities of the Incarnation -- how God could've been tempted "in all points" like we are
6. On the Possibility of a Beginningless Past: A Reply to William Lane Craig, by exapologist at DC: examines the problems in the cosmological argument for God's existence
7. In Defense of Visions: Objection One, by Matthew Green at DC: rebuttals to naturalistic explanations of the stories in the gospels
8. A Corrupt and Scandalous Faith, by Joe E. Holman at DC: cites famous examples of Christianity's atrocities to support the idea that "Christianity is an albatross to humankind"
9. A Bad Taste!, by exbeliever at DC: cites Scripture to explain why some "have left the fountain [of God] with a horrible taste in our mouths?"
10. There is no Jehovah-Rophi, no Covenant, by Daniel Morgan at DC: investigates the promises of the old and new covenants, particularly with respect to health/healing, and concludes that either God is a liar, or there is no Covenant (and never was)

That's it for this edition. Here are the pages for COTG 52 and COTG 54 (Thanksgiving Ed.).