Atheism Sighting: HBO's True Detective.

Existential bleakness runs deep in HBO’s excellent new Louisiana noir crime drama, where damaged cops investigate a murder marked by cultic overtones.  I found this scene to be fascinating, between a cop who believes that religion is useful and necessary, and one who thinks that “If the common good’s gotta make up fairy tales, then it’s not good for anybody.”  (NSFW language throughout.)

Great back-and-forth verbal jousting between the two viewpoints.  You will have had these conversations many times with believers. 

“If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother, that person is a piece of shit.”

“What’s it say about life… Hmm?  You gotta get together to tell yourself stories that violate every law of the universe, just to get through the goddamn day.  What’s that say about your reality, Marty?”

Read more »

Lesson One for Randal Rauser On How to Properly Exegete the Bible or Any Other Book

The hermeneutics required to understand any book are the same. They teach hermeneutics in first year Bible College classes. Randal Rauser must have skipped out on that class or flunked it. Here is a link to several of these college level texts. Rather than rehearse this whole discipline of learning let me highlight just a few questions reasonable people must first ask in order to properly understand a text, any text. We must ask basic questions like, "Who is the intended audience?" "What is the main point of the text?" and "What does the author take for granted?" Here is a listing of others written for college students.

Read more »

How to Deconvert / Deprogram a Christian with Two Simple Demands

1. Demand textual proof that any verse of the Old Testament was written before 200 BCE. (There's 23,145 verses to prove them right or wrong.)

2. Demand historical proof (apart from using the New Testament to prove the New Testament) that Jesus Christ existed. (Let's see absolute truth prove itself.)

Read more »

We're Almost Finished With the Anthology, "Christianity is Not Great: How Faith Fails"

Yes, that's the subtitle Prometheus Books chose for this anthology, simple and to the point. Our book, named after Christopher Hitchens's God is Not Great, shows how faith fails to live up to it's claims. Here is a description of the book. Here is the finalized list of chapters and authors. I'm only lacking six chapters and they should come in over the weekend. The chapters I have seen are absolute killers from superior authors. It's pretty exciting as we enter the final stretch. Here is the dedication:

Dedicated to the memory of Christopher Hitchens (1949 – 2011) journalist, author, polemicist, debater, and the quintessential curmudgeon. Hitchens was a person of candor and integrity, who thought false claims of any sort were not entitled to immunity from criticism. The essays in this book reflect his commitment to unsparing examination of religious beliefs.

“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”

― Christopher Hitchens

Even if the Entire Testimony of Josephus on Jesus is Authentic, It’s Apologetically Worthless

Josephus composed his four works in thirty volumes in while in Rome and in Greek. These are chronologically: the Judean War (ca. 79 CE), the Judean Antiquities (20 volumes) & his Life (93 -94 CE) and finally Against Apion (ca. 98 CE) , but in this vast amount of literary work, only a short paragraph mentioned the Jesus of Christianity; thus the theme of my post.

Read more »

Snake Handling Preacher Jamie Coots Dies of Snakebite

Read more »

The Ten Commandments of Rational Debate

Today at 4 PM CST Dr. Hector Avalos Will Be Debating Creationist Juan Valdes

As announced earlier Dr. Avalos (who blogs here at DC) will be debating Reverend Juan Valdes on the question: "Is Genesis 1-3 a scientifically reasonable account of the origin of our world?” You can watch it live at YouTube Countdown where the countdown has begun. Comment here as it takes place.

Bill Nye Scolds GOP Congresswoman On Global Warming

See this LINK.

Bill Nye to Debate a Climate Change Denying Congresswoman

Nye will continue his crusade against misinformation this Sunday on "Meet the Press" with a debate against proud climate change denier Marsha Blackburn, the Republican congresswoman who serves as the vice chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

The host of the once popular after-school staple "Bill Nye the Science Guy" took on committed creationist Ken Ham earlier this month in a debate over the origins of humanity. LINK

Nye is my new hero! One wonders if Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, or PZ Myers thinks this is a bad idea too!

Dear Christian, Would You Kill Your Kid for God?

Christian parent, I have a question for you.

Would you be willing to murder your child to prove your loyalty to your boss?

Imagine that your boss came to you and said, “Look, I know you are a good employee and all, but I really need to know for sure that you are 100% loyal to my company.  So, next Saturday, I want you to take your son on a camping trip, and while you are in the mountains I want you to cut his throat and burn his body, to honor me as your boss.“

You would look at your boss like he was insane, and refuse to do it – right?  I hope that I am right in assuming that all of you would refuse such a vile request.

Let’s up the stakes a little. What if – instead of your boss – it was your god who told you to kill and sacrifice your child - to demonstrate your faith?

Would you do it, or not?

Read more »

Richard Dawkins Proposed Replacing "Evolutionary Theory" With "Evolutionary Theorum"

I have been arguing that language matters and that scientists should stop using the word "theory" when describing the evolutionary paradigm or research program. What I had forgotten was that Richard Dawkins addressed this question before me in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.If you go to Amazon and click on the book itself you can read what he says on pp. 8-19, with the exception of one page, depending on a random calculation (if you go away and click on it a different time you might see the page missing the first time). Now will you take my proposal seriously? I'm saying the same thing as he did, only I've been suggesting different words to replace the word "theory." In any case, it's time to retire the word "theory" when describing the evolutionary paradigm or research program.

Language Matters: On Not Using the Word "Theory" When it Comes to Evolution

Previously I issued A Plea to Scientists to Stop Using the Word "Theory" When Applied to Evolution. With a dozen "Shares" on Facebook at least some people get it (quotes below).

Let me ask just one question: When do scientists stop using the word "theory" and say instead that a discovery is a fact? In my previous post I quoted Richard Dawkins who said "evolution is a fact." Jerry Coyne said the same thing:

Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about the details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect, supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that only benefit a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth. [Why Evolution Is True]

Read more »

A Plea to Scientists: Stop Using the Word "Theory" When Applied to Evolution

Christians habitually repeat ad nauseum that since scientists describe evolution in terms of a "theory" they will say it is not a fact. Don't you think it's time to retire that language? As Dawkins has said in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution:

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips...It didn't have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact...No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it. (pp. 8-9).

Can it be any more clear? Use phrases like "the fact of evolution," or just "evolution." When referring to how a particular scientific discovery supports evolution, rather than saying "this supports evolutionary theory," say instead, "this adds more weight to the fact of evolution." We don't say "the theory of the solar system," nor the theory of other well-established scientific facts. We need a change in nomenclature, now! If you agree then share this plea with others, especially scientists.

[Edit: To see this defended further here my second post on the same topic.

Does The Scale of the Universe Undercut the Belief in a Tribal Deity?

I have thought about the scale of the universe for some time and talked with other former Christians who said the scale of the universe was a factor in their deconversion. It was for me. I had bought poster photos of parts of the universe and placed them all over my office. Jeffrey Jay Lowder insists there isn't a good argument leading us to this conclusion. I have disagreed.

So let's revisit this using the title to this post. Does the scale of the universe undercut the belief in a tribal deity? Yes, most emphatically. First we have to show that a tribal deity is what we find in the Bible. After that the rest is easy. A god like that, who is only concerned with a small tribe in a very large planet, must not know about the planet. Get it? Such a tribal deity looks indistinguishable from one created by a given tribe. Tribal deities were to be found everywhere tribes could be found. Since all of the rest of these deities were created by tribal people then the odds are that the god of the Bible was created by the Israelite tribe too. What then about Anselm's omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God? What if this is the God who exists instead of a tribal deity? Does it change anything? No, I don't think so, not much anyway, although this is the point of contention.

Read more »

Quote of the Day, by Someone Named Hector

Said with a bit of sarcasm. ;-)

I am utterly baffled that atheists would expect an entity who is said to be omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent to behave like an entity who is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent. What's up with that? LINK.

Bill Nye - The Joy of Discovery Drives Us

Hat Tip Jerry Coyne

Dr. Hector Avalos to debate a Young Earth Creationist

The Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate is history. This coming Sunday, another debate on creationism will feature an atheist biblical scholar against a creationist apologist.  It will be interesting to see how different Bill Nye, mostly trained in science, and a biblical scholar, who is also formally trained in anthropology, approach such a debate.

Yes, I will be debating Reverend Juan Valdes on the question: "Is Genesis 1-3 a scientifically reasonable account of the origin of our world?”

The debate will take place at Indianola High School in Indianola, Iowa on Sunday, February 16, 2014 at 4pm CST.

You can tune in live on YouTube Countdown, where the countdown has begun.

Rev. Valdes is a Young Earth creationist, and he is associated with Reasons for Hope, an apologetics organization that has its own announcement of the debate. This is the mini-biography sent by Rev. Valdes:

Juan and his wife Daisy have been married for 25 years and have two adult kids Juan Elias and Jessica. Together they serve in multiple areas of ministry in Miami, Florida.  Juan is the Senior Pastor of a Spanish speaking congregation. He has also been the Middle School and High School Chaplain at Florida Christian School for the past 13 years, where he also teaches Bible and Introduction to Philosophy. Juan has a passion for youth and has worked with young people all of his adult life in addition to being a teacher for over 20 years. Juan also has a passion for Apologetics.  He has done graduate work at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and holds Master’s degrees from both Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Logos Graduate School. He is currently a few months away from completing a Doctorate Degree in Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary. Juan is a veteran teacher of apologetics, and has taught Theology, Bible, and Apologetics at the seminary level in both English and Spanish. He is an influential promoter of apologetics in the greater Miami area and speaks regularly across the country and internationally at Pastor’s Conferences, Youth Conferences, Apologetics Conferences, and local church events. 

Beyond Belief: Conservative Religious Thinkers and Their Intellectual Crusades

LINK.

John Cleese Explaining Stupidity

I've written about this phenomenon before.

Are Christians Either Ignorant or Lying?

I found this comment online by an otherwise anonymous person who expresses what many atheists think. I'll quote it then comment on it below:

It's quite simple: to say that the bible is literally true requires that one be either ignorant or lying. Really. I know that's harsh, but that's what it boils down to. I suspect a very great many evangelicals are lying, including to themselves, bolstering the underlying absurdity of their belief by trying to convert others, 'good works' and so on. But there are plenty, including many high-profile ones, who are obvious untruthers.

It takes a truly spectacular degree of ignorance to actually believe that the universe was created in six days, 6000 years ago; and a level of duplicity that is almost incomprehensible to create a complete pseudo-science to support that; but of course we know why - all that lovely tax-free money.

I do not consider it possible for a person of decent education and sound mind to believe such nonsense. One or the other must be failing.

There is a great deal that needs to be said about this, so it would be too much of a bother to go into great depth here. Nonetheless, my point is that it is not that simple.

Read more »

Another Former Christian Bites the Dust

Here's a man who changed from a Christian studying theology in a Seminary to an atheist. At about the 2:40 mark he mentions my book and my blog. It's more evidence people can be reasoned out of their faith:

Quote of the Day, by Papalinton On Debating Creationists

I have not been one to subscribe to any particular style of discourse, in this case debating, being proscribed as a form of public conversation because it is deemed inimical to progressing the truth of science and the scientific method. For too long scientists and science advocates have relied on the misperception that truth, fact and evidence alone, is sufficient enough in promulgating its message. In an ideal world that might be but it is not an ideal world and humanity is not obliged to 'know' the truth. The truth per se, whatever that term might mean, is not an imperative of humanity's survival instinct, any more than it is for any other animal on this planet. It is possible for all species, even Homo sapiens, to exist on this planet without the kind of scientific information and knowledge that we have accrued over time. The Dark Ages is one such historical example of a period of intellectual dormancy. Life would simply be different. And we are just as likely today as was at any time in the past to readily press the self-extinction button.

For too long scientists and science advocates have timorously shied away from debates. Science historically is a veritable babe in the woods in its level of experience and expertise in this most widely used format. The time is right, now, for scientists and like-minded to develop if not hone debating techniques and strategies that play to its great strengths as an explanatory tool. It is a misguided perception that the truth of science and the scientific method cannot be adequately served by and strongly promulgated through debate. If anything, science lends itself admirably to the formative debating process. Indeed debating is a central feature of the Socratic method of learning and teaching. The method of elenchus, or Socratic debate features cross-examination as a constituent technique for the purposes of refutation and testing the robustness of claims made. It is the fundamental technique of the Socratic method.

The truth and reality of science requires its advocates to confront superstition, magic ritual, supernaturalism and shamanic practice wherever and whenever it bubbles to the surface, head on. Debates provide that opportunity. Use it.

Dr. Matt McCormick On Motivated Reasoning

Oh Dear, I'm a "Union Buster"

I was told in response to this post regarding creation vs evolution debates:

We should be presenting a united front. I'm coming to see guys like you and Bill Nye as union-busters, the sort of people who will cross a picket line.

Well now, just because I have a different opinion doesn't make me a union buster. There are many atheists who agree with my arguments. Almost every atheist has a different opinion about an atheist consensus sometime, so we're all union busters, if there is a union in the first place. Apart from non-belief itself, and along with it the arguments against religion in general, name me one consensus among atheists and I could find some atheists who disagree with it. So? Majorities SHOULD listen to minorities to keep them honest. I do all of the time. But no one should adopt the position of the majority on any issue just because it's the majority. Moreover, as far as I can tell, scientists don't have any better expertise on what changes the religious landscape just because they are scientists than I do. That is a philosophical or strategic kind of question not based on science itself. It's a question about how we can best change the minds of believers, how to get them to trust science over their holy books, and I think I do have some expertise on that. It's my specialty.

On Evolutionists Debating Creationists, Wes McMichael Responds to PZ Myers

In the light of Bill Nye's routing of Ken Ham I had called for more creation vs evolution debates right here. <--- Read why I said that, please! Now along comes another creation vs evolution debate as I announced right here. PZ Myers offers a muted criticism of this debate saying:

Oh-oh. I hope these don’t become more popular. Debates are a great way to seduce a creationist audience into showing up to listen, but they’re awful for presenting a good analysis: you are publicly pitting a scientist up against a proven, expert liar, and committing to allowing lies to be told for half the time of the event. Sometimes they’ll pay off and you’ll get good exposure of the nonsense; sometimes you’ll find the slick fraud on the creation side getting more attention than he deserves.

Given that the debate will take place anyway, PZ offers a suggestion:

Just a hint, though. The title of this debate is “Creation vs. Evolution: A Debate on Origins and the Tree of Life,” which is hopelessly broad. Paul Nelson has carte blanche to babble on in a tuneless song of silliness trying to hit the one chord that will resonate with the audience, and that’s what you’re going to get, and it’s going to be really hard to pin him down on anything. Part of the art of doing these debates, I’ve learned, is to craft a decent structured framework for the discussion, so that you’ve got a clear question to answer and even an audience of biased Christian ninnies will notice when the creationist (or the evolutionist!) goes wandering off topic. I hope it’s not too late to refine the subject a bit.

I'll respond to the PZ's criticism against more debates like these, while Wes McMichael, the person putting this new debate together, responds to PZ's criticisms of this debate itself.

Read more »

Another Creation vs Evolution Debate Coming Up

The creationist presenter, Dr. Paul Nelson, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute (the world’s leading organization promoting Intelligent Design/Creationism), was involved in the Dover Trials in Dover, PA was instrumental in creation of the infamous “Wedge Document”, has been featured in several films about creationism, and is a widely published author on the issue.

Our evolutionist presenter, Dr. Joel Velasco, is the protégé of the world’s foremost philosopher of biology (Elliott Sober), has completed post-doctoral studies at Stanford and Cal Tech, was a visiting professor at Cornell, is currently an assistant professor at Texas Tech, has published very widely in the field, and is considered one of the most promising young professionals in the philosophy of biology.

Even Someone As Conservative as Pat Robertson Says Ken Ham is a Joke

Earlier I had predicted that many Christians will see just how extreme Ken Ham's views are: "The debate will marginalize Ham to some extent among Christians themselves. I'm sure of this. So he will lose some respect among some Christians and perhaps even some supporters, even as he gains more respect from others along with their support. I suspect the net gain for Ham at best will be zero, and at worst it will be in the negative column." Link. I think with Robertson's comments Ham's net gain is going to be in the negative column, to say the least.



Since I've written so much on so many topics I'm finding all ideas are but footnotes to Loftus. ;-) So here are some links for Pat Robertson:

It's Possible God Exists Even Though All Life Has Evolved.

Why Creation Science is Pseudoscience With No Ifs Ands or Buts About It.

See also:

God and Evolution Don’t Mix, by Dr. John Shook.

Robert M. Price and Edwin Suominen's book, Evolving out of Eden.

Ken Ham’s ‘Creation Science’ Sham.

Ken Ham’s ‘creation science’ has nothing to do with actual science (which seeks a deeper understanding of the way our world and the universe works).

I mean, think about it.  What recent discoveries have been made by ‘creation scientists’?  

Medical breakthroughs in treating diseases and preventing human suffering?

Technological advances which better our lives?

A deeper understanding of the human mind enabling better treatments for mental illness? 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can’t think of any. 

Zero.  

Read more »

Viewers Poll by Christian Today: Bill Nye Slaughtered Ken Ham

Link

Bill Nye Won His Debate Against Ken Ham: More Evolutionists Should Debate Creationists

After watching Bill Nye beat Ken Ham in his recent debate I would like to see more evolutionists debate creationists. Let's go to them. Most of these Christians live within cloistered cathedral walls within Christian communities. They only hear what their parents, preachers and Sunday School teachers tell them. They do not trust science. They do not trust scientists. They only trust the Bible. They are so indoctrinated they will never read a book on evolution. The only time they might consider thinking outside of the Christianity they were indoctrinated to believe is through a debate like this. The evidence is so overwhelming in favor of evolution it can only be a win for us. Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and PZ Myers are all wrong. I call upon them to change their minds. Yes, evolution is a fact. It is beyond dispute. But if we want to change the minds of deeply imbedded Christians within their communities, who will never consider evolution, then we need to go where they are found. And debates on creation are the perfect solution. We must do it for the children. We must do it for the youths in the grip of this religious indoctrination who can see for themselves when watching a debate. Consider it another way to educate the American youths of the future, so we can be a leading nation in the science of the future. If you still refuse to debate creationists then stop hindering other evolutionists like Bill Nye who buck the social pressure you provide. Stop discouraging evolutionists from debating creationists, please!

Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham in Their Debate! Wow!

This is the headline I want to write. But the debate hasn't taken place yet. It's going to take place tonight at 7 PM Eastern Standard Time and you can watch it live at debate.org. Then comment as it takes place in real time back here. If you're early you might want to read the all-time number 1 post at Debunking Christianity on the debate itself. Remember, this debate won't settle the issue. The issue has already been settled in the laboratories, peer-reviewed scientific journals, scholarly books and college classrooms. Evolution is a fact. So relax and enjoy. Watch the gerrymandering, the nonsense, the buffoonery, the idiocy of Ken Ham in action. You will learn something about the deluded mind. That's for sure. [Edit: Bill Nye did in fact beat Ken Ham. Read this for more.]

A Christian and an Atheist Discuss the Reality of God Here at DC

Simon Brown:

Dear Harry H. McCall please please stop blaspheming God. For your own sake. I was once told about two people who did a similar thing. one person kept blaspheming God and eventually died of throat cancer. Another person was also blaspheming God and laughing at his friends for believing in Jesus. He then got on his motor bike and had a head on collision with a lorry. He was decapitated from his head. Please for your own sake have some respect.

Read more »