God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of his own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players (i.e., everybody), to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.
If God's existence is so self evident as the christian proclaims, then why on earth have oceans of ink been spilled trying to prove this being? Link.Let me put a finer point on this: If the God of evangelical Christianity exists then why isn't it more obvious to others that he does? Do evangelicals who travel the country and the world even bother thinking about this as they see non-evangelicals everywhere? [Edit: That's non-evangelicals. Everyone who is not an evangelical is a non-evangelical for the logically impaired].
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. Link,
Over the past ten years I have published, in one venue or another, about twenty things on the philosophy of religion. I have a book on the subject, God and Burden of Proof, and another criticizing Christian apologetics, Why I am not a Christian. During my academic career I have debated William Lane Craig twice and creationists twice. I have written one master’s thesis and one doctoral dissertation in the philosophy of religion, and I have taught courses on the subject numerous times. But no more. I’ve had it.
I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position—no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory. BTW, in saying that I now consider the case for theism to be a fraud, I do not mean to charge that the people making that case are frauds who aim to fool us with claims they know to be empty. No, theistic philosophers and apologists are almost painfully earnest and honest; I don’t think there is a Bernie Madoff in the bunch. I just cannot take their arguments seriously any more, and if you cannot take something seriously, you should not try to devote serious academic attention to it. I’ve turned the philosophy of religion courses over to a colleague. Link
John, I guess my question for you is, from your perspective, how should people who hold views like you and I, respectively, proceed in conversation, if at all? The consistent pluralist would say that we should each tolerate each other's perspectives. But you and I are apologists, and you are an evangelist ("de-evangelist?") as well. You aren't content to let Christians believe what they want; you positively want to "deconvert" them and show them how and why their views are delusional. I don't engage in much overt evangelism but I certainly want people who haven't thought about the classic reasons for Christian faith to at least give them serious thought. We can't both be right. We could both be wrong. But the more interesting question for me is how, as two persons who both want to be guided by reason but believe that reason has led us in quite opposite directions, proceed from here? Link
. The first two parts can be read beginning here.Founded in 2008, Patheos.com is the premier online destination to engage in the global dialogue about religion and spirituality and to explore and experience the world's beliefs. Patheos is the website of choice for the millions of people looking for credible and balanced information or resources about religion. Patheos brings together the public, academia, and the faith leaders in a single environment, and is the place where people turn on a regular basis for insight into questions, issues, and discussions. Patheos is unlike any other online religious and spiritual site and is designed to serve as a resource for those looking to learn more about different belief systems, as well as participate in productive, moderated discussions on some of today's most talked about and debated topics.Now they have a link to some key people discussing the future of Humanism.
I am fascinated at the things people are willing to believe. Not the crazy, end of the world sign holding type person, or the I was abducted and anally molested by space aliens type person, but by your average, walking down the street living in the suburbs perfectly ordinary in every way individual. Ask an average person if they believe in Bigfoot. Or the Loch Ness Monster. Most people don’t. They have a hard time believing that these things exist, because of the lack of evidence. People are pretty sure that if a colony of giant hairy men and women (other than hippies or bears) were living in the forests of northern California, we would have found them by now. If a giant fish monster were really living in a lake, someone would have caught one. People like proof. We like explanations that make sense. We prefer to know that things are real before we believe them, because they add stability to our lives. We don’t like the thought of unknown elements, possibly dangerous, running amok in our world, because we like stability and normalcy. But ask that same person, your banker or lawyer, for example, if they believe in god and the bible, the answer is usually yes.
Christians are not bothered in the least that they are risking Allah’s hell by not being Muslims. We all risk the hell of other religions. All I do is risk one more hell than what others do. Once I risk one hell they all look like nothing but empty threats.
Let "a" be the proposition, "A deity exists." Then "~a" denotes its negation "No deities exist." If theism is S = {a}, atheism is the empty set {}, NOT the set T = {~a}.
, seem to come out of the woodwork to poo poo it whenever it's included on a list of recommended atheist books with the deservedly famous New Atheists, as if that's not saying much. While I am indeed happy to be on these lists, this poo pooing happens almost every single time. One such person, who thinks these other New Atheist books are "terrible," argued that Books like "Arguing about Gods" by Graham Oppy, and "Logic and Theism" by J.H. Sobel are light years ahead of Dawkins et al. Being put on a list with them would be something to be proud of.Okay, then take a good look at this list of the best atheist books of the decade. I think the reason my magnum opus tops several lists of popular AND scholarly atheist books is because it's both scholarly and also understandable to the intelligent general reader. That was my goal. But your opinion of it is the only one that counts. Carry on. Sorry for this interruption of your regularly scheduled show.
So, why might I hate Christianity so much? Hmmm, let me see.
Christians are not easily reasoned out of religion since they are not usually reasoned into it. From The Christian Delusion
Emory and Greg, I concede that the Bible is indeed confusing...to both of you! Other people don't agree with you[r or] Greg's thoughts on how confusing the Bible is. Maybe you just need to study harder.This quote is utterly ridiculous to the nth degree. If we study harder then we'd come to Marcus's conclusions, right? Right! With thinking skills like the ones Marcus displays here at DC, no wonder he believes. If Marcus is the example then we need to be almost brain dead to believe.
I grabbed the title to this post from Amazon's description of the book.About one out of every eight adults is an "ex-Christian," a new survey reveals. These include those who left the Protestant or Catholic tradition that they were a part of as a child and who now report being atheist, agnostic or some other faith, according to the Barna Group. Meanwhile, those who switched from a non-Christian faith or non-belief (from their childhood) to Christianity as an adult represent three percent of the American population. Link.American people are leaving Christianity at 4x's the rate they're joining. ;-) Hat Tip: Ed Babinski.