Dr. Valerie Tarico On Bible Verses That Atheists Love

She asked some outspoken anti-theists and other champions of secularism what they think are the best verses in the Bible, and why. Here are their responses.

Finally! Sam Harris Responds to the Moral Landscape Challenge

A few months back Sam issued a challenge for someone to prove him wrong. Ryan Born rose to the challenge, as his essay was chosen out of hundreds of responses by Russell Blackford. Here is Ryan's essay. Read it and then read Sam's response Just a brief comment. I thought Sam's response is an effective one. The most interesting and controversial claim Sam makes is this one:

I am, in essence, defending the unity of knowledge—the idea that the boundaries between disciplines are mere conventions and that we inhabit a single epistemic sphere in which to form true beliefs about the world.

Richard Carrier vs Zeba Crook: Jesus of Nazareth: Man or myth?

Richard Carrier has written about it here.

Randal Rauser's Book, “What on Earth Do we Know About Heaven?” is FREE June 5 (eBook only)

The book looks like pure speculation based on the need to believe, but what the hey, see for yourselves, today only.

Three More Blurbs for "Christianity is Not Great"

I've previously mentioned that Richard Dawkins and David Mills wrote blurbs for my new anthology, Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails.Here are three more in the order I received them:

Read more »

The Evolution of Venom: This is How Science Works

All believers denigrate science in at least a few areas. The more fundamentalist the believer then the more that person denigrates science. Methinks they just don't understand how it works. Below is a video showing an example with regard to venom in some animals. Notice that science makes predictions. In this case the prediction was based on evolution that venom must have existed before there were fangs, and further that snake venom was inherited from an earlier ancestor. This prediction went against common wisdom. But the evidence was found. Notice the scientist does experiments looking for evidence rather than believing any authorities. Notice also that this science is helping make our lives healthier by the development of medicines, something you will not find in the Bible, God's supposed wisdom. Seriously, do you see a mad scientist here, someone seeking to destroy people's faith?

Read more »

Why Faith is a Delusion, Case in Point: William Lane Craig

Craig said:

Plantinga talks about intrinsic defeater-defeaters. That is to say, a belief which is so powerfully warranted for me that it intrinsically defeats any defeater brought against it. You don't need another extrinsic defeater to defeat the defeater. You have an intrinsic defeater-defeater in the witness of the Holy Spirit which allows you to retain faith rationally even in the face of unanswered objections.

The context of this quote is as follows:

Read more »

Eleven Kinds of Verses Bible-Believers Like to Ignore, By Valerie Tarico

John Alan Turner wrote this book I'll be reviewing soon (click on the image). Usually though, Christians ignore these kinds of stories and verses. Here's Tarico on it:

Bible-believing Christians play fast and loose with their sacred text. When it suits their purposes, they treat it like the literally perfect word of God, and, in a peculiar twist of logic, they quote the Bible itself to back up their claim. Then, when it suits their other purposes, they conveniently ignore the parts of the Bible that are—inconvenient.

Here are twelve [misprint?] kinds of verses that Bible-believers ignore so that they can keep spouting the others when they want to. To list all of the verses in these categories would take a book almost the size of the Bible, one the size of the Bible minus the Jefferson Bible, to be precise. I’ll limit myself to a couple tantalizing tidbits of each kind, and the curious reader who wants more can go to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible or simply dig out the old family tome and start reading at Genesis, Chapter One....Thank God most Bible-believing Christians don’t actually take the Good Book as seriously as they claim to. LINK.

The Idea of Heaven Seems Strange To Me Now

Now  that I've been out of Christianity for a while, one thing that seems very strange to me is the Christian conception of a Heaven in which, day and night, people will be singing songs to God and telling him how great he is.  For one thing, wouldn't that get old rather quickly?  More importantly though, what kind of person would want people groveling and constantly going on about how awesome you are?  I could see a North Korean dictator enjoying that sort of thing (Kim Jong-un certainly does), but normal people?  No way!  What kind of person needs their self-esteem propped up by that sort of subservient, fawning adulation?   Imagine if when your friends were with you, all they did was bow down before you,  sing songs in honor of you, and constantly shower you with praise.  Wouldn't it make you uncomfortable; embarrassed?  Healthy relationships certainly don't work that way. 

Read more »

Quote of the Day, by Robert Ingersoll

Black comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible is in exact harmony with the New Testament, and that the two are “connected together;” and “that if one is true the other cannot be false.” If this is so, then he must admit that if one is false the other cannot be true; and it hardly seems possible to me that there is a right-minded, sane man, except Mr. Black, who now believes that a God of infinite kindness and justice ever commanded one nation to exterminate another; ever ordered his soldiers to destroy men, women, and babes; ever established the institution of human slavery; ever regarded the auction-block as an altar, or a bloodhound as an apostle. [Ingersoll, Debate with Jeremiah Black, theingersolltimes.com]

What is Faith/Belief? Can Believers Even Tell Us?

[A redated post] In David Eller's words, Malcolm Ruel in his book, Belief, Ritual and the Securing of Life,

...demonstrates that the concept of belief in Western civilization and Christianity has evolved, from a kind of "trust" in god(s) to specific propositions about God and Christ to the notion of "grace" based on the personal experience of and commitment to God and Christ to a conception of belief as an "adventure of faith" which does not have any particular destination or make any specific claims. The evolutionary trajectory of belief in Christianity is, then, distinctively "local" and historical--that is, culturally and religiously relative--and not to be found in every religion. Many religions do not have any "creed" of explicit propositions about their supernatural worlds, and many do not mix fact, trust, and value in the English/Christian way. Ruel concludes that the English and Western concept of belief is "complex, highly ambiguous, and unstable" and "is demonstrably an historical amalgam, composed of elements traceable to Judaic mystical doctrine and Greek styles of discourse." [Source: Introducing Anthropology of Religion, p. 33.]

Peter Boghossian and Tim McGrew on the Christian Program "Unbelievable"

There's a lot of blathering about Tim McGrew's so-called trashing of my friend and colleague Peter Boghossian. For the record, I view myself as Boghossian's bulldog and I have posted a few reviews of his book, A Manual for Creating Atheists.Randal Rauser's headline is this: Tim McGrew gives Peter Boghossian an unbelievable public drubbing. On the other side, James Lindsay carefully reviews their debate. You can listen to it on the program Unbelievable right here. I think he did well but McGrew threw him for a loop once or twice.

Read more »

What's the Difference?

As a Total Literary Fraud Filled with Stolen Religious Ideas, the Bible Offers the World Nothing New

It’s simple.  Can anyone name one technological advancement, one scientific achievement, or a single advancement in morals and ethics not already covered earlier and better in a neighboring cultures near Palestine ?  

Read more »

Without A Mythical Jesus, What Has Modern Scholarship Left Us With?

Meet the Son of God:  Jesus

"And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” (Matt. 8: 20)

When Jesus is stripped of all his miracles, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, his descend to Hell, and his accent to Heaven (all of which the majority of New Testament scholars inform us are later theological embellishments), popular modern scholars such as Dale Allison and Bart Ehrman tell us that Jesus was nothing but a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet whose eschatology about the End of the Age was materialize in his own crucifixion.

Read more »

The Case for Naturalism (Sean Carrol)

This is the opening statement by Sean Carroll at "The Great Debate: Has Science Refuted Religion?", sponsored by the Skeptic Society on 25 March 2012.  Other participants in the debate were Michael Shermer, Dinesh D'Souza, and Ian Hutchinson.

You can see the full debate here.

Beyond an Absence of Faith

This project has been a couple of years in the making, but it is one that myself and my co-editor are very proud of. Beyond an Absence of Faith: Stories About the Loss of Faith and the Discovery of Self is a collection of deconversion accounts from people of various worldviews from people from a number of countries.

Read more »

Jerry Coyne Reports: The Adam-and-Eve War Continues at Bryan College

The money quote:

The College is in a ferment over a topic close to my heart: the historicity of Adam and Eve. Even conservative Christians, it seems, have trouble believing that Adam and Eve were the literal ancestors of humanity. That historicity has become increasingly problematic since the appearance of new papers in population genetics, showing that over the last few hundred thousand years, the population of Homo sapiens could not have been smaller than about 12,250 (10,000 who remained in Africa and 2,250 who migrated out of Africa to populate the rest of the globe).

In other words, the human population never comprised only two people. And if Adam and Eve weren’t the literal ancestors of humanity, then a critical part of the Genesis story is wrong: the acquisition of Original Sin. And if there were no Original Sin accrued by a literal Adam and Eve, then all of us—their supposed descendants—aren’t sinful by birth, and Jesus’s return wasn’t necessary. LINK.

My, How the Truth of the Bible Has Fallen!

Biblical Archaeologist Nelson Glueck 

on the Cover of Time Magazine 1963

A famous quote by one of the 20^th century’s leading Biblical Archaeologist, Nelson Glueck:

“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”  (Nelson Glueck from his 1959 book, Rivers in the Desert)

According to the late George Ernest Wright, Professor at, and Curator of Harvard’s Semitic Museum, “Glueck’s explorations are second to none, unless it is those of Edward Robinson.”

The question is now:  What can be proven historically true in the Bible (if anything)?

Quote of the Day, by Loftus

A god worthy of worship is a god that someone thinks is worthy of worship. As the world got bigger people needed a bigger god to worship. That's about it.

Dinesh D'Souza Pleads Guilty to Violating Campaign Finance Law

Link. He faces up to two years in prison. That's not the only thing he has faced recently.

Are You a Reasonable Christian? Do You Really Have Faith?

Richard Dawkins is a really good wordsmith and he wrote a very nice blurb for my soon to be released anthology, Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails.He wrote, “John Loftus knows from the inside what’s wrong with Christianity. Few people are better qualified to explain to those still in its clutches why they’d do well to leave, and he has assembled a fine team of colleagues to assist him in doing so. This book should convert a high proportion of those with the courage to read it.”

What intrigues me is that he says it takes courage to read such a book. Courage. I like that. I know of Christians who do not have the courage to read books like this one. I keep asking them "what do you have to lose?" Seriously. Wouldn't any reasonable person want to examine his or her faith by reading books from people who don't believe, just to see if there are any good reasons not to believe? If your faith survives then you will have a stronger faith. So, do you want a stronger faith or not? If your faith doesn't survive then wouldn't any reasonable person want to know?

Typically most Christians will only read Christian apologetic responses to books like this one. This is a lazy way to investigate your faith, representing no effort at all. Think on this. When you prepare to vote in an election do you only listen to what campaign headquarters for one candidate says without checking into the rebuttals of the other campaign? You shouldn't. Those running a particular campaign have a vested interest in getting their candidate elected. They are spin doctors if needed. They have a one track mind. They cannot see a middle ground. So I invite Christians who don't read atheist books to read this one. Try it. Even your God, the one who supposedly created reason, would be pleased you're willing to investigate your faith by fearing nothing. If you fear, that is a sign you don't have enough faith.

Quote of the Day, by Loftus

That which creates and sustains all religions is a sense of mystery, fear, guilt and suffering. People want answers so religions have been created to help solve them. The scientific fact of evolution is the best explanation for why we experience these feelings as rational animals, thinking reeds. Hence, there is no longer any need for any religion.

A Brief Thought: Dennis Rodman, Kim Jong-un, and Yahweh

The way that Christians are willing to ignore all the horrible aspects of their god's character and actions (as reported in the Bible), and blissfully cozy up to him reminds me of how Dennis Rodman likes hanging out with sadistic North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-un.  It kind of makes you want to shake  him and say "What the hell are you thinking?!" 

I guess for Christians, the perceived benefits of being buddies with a powerful psychopath outweigh the negatives.

Written by J. M. Green

The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus in a Nutshell

Let's consider the kinds of evidence Christians argue should convince us to believe. Philosophical arguments to their God are special pleading since they don't lead to any specific religious sect. What's left? There's no empirical evidence since we weren't there to witness the resurrection for ourselves. It's not good enough for reasonable people to simply accept someone's claim that he saw some guy come back from the dead, much less someone in the ancient superstitious pre-scientific past. The textual evidence comes from the 4th century, which contains known forgeries. In these texts there is no first-hand eyewitness testimony. Neither Jesus nor his disciples nor anyone who saw or heard Jesus wrote any of them. There is no prophetic evidence, none. There is no prophecy of a Trinitarian God, no prophecy of an Incarnation, no prophecy of a virgin birth, no prophecy of a dying Messiah and no prophecy of a resurrected Messiah. All the so-called Old Testament prophecies are either not predictions at all, or misapplied by the New Testament writers. There is no corroborating evidence of the bizarre unbelievable stories in the Gospels about earthquakes, eclipses, or dead saints who were supposedly raised from dead when Jesus did.

And I'm supposed to believe? Really? Seriously? When I say there isn't sufficient evidence to believe I mean just that. It doesn't matter if the earliest disciples had sufficient evidence to believe. We don't know that they did. All we have is the so-called evidence above. The kicker is that the Jews of that day did not believe this so-called evidence, nearly 8 million of them in the known world, even though they believed in God, his ability to do miracles, Old Testament prophecy, and were there. So tell me once again why any reasonable person should believe? It simply does not add up.

Even if God exists…
Even if miracles took place…
Even if Christianity is true…
Even if Jesus was resurrected…
Even if there were eyewitnesses…
There’s no reason for US to believe today!

Would You Have Considered Stabbing a Preacher in the Face with a Pitchfork? (True Story)

A Tool of the Devil?

I was reminiscing yesterday about the time back in 1974 when I was working at a hardware store in Walhalla, SC while I was a Bible Major in college. The owner of the store would often hired people who were unable to pay their bill so they could work off their credit balance while keeping their goods.

One such person I worked with was a twenty year old man named Cecil ((now deceased) who had just lost his job and was working to pay off his debt) who had been once employed with the town of Walhalla.

Read more »

Can We Will Ourselves to Believe?

Q: Do you think that belief is subject to the will? Can one "choose" to believe something, such as religious propositions?

A: Apart from the issue of free will, I do think we can will ourselves to believe. Christians do it all the time. It's the will to believe that blinds them to the evidence. William James and Pascal said that if we have doubts we can change them by attending worship, praying and looking for God. I think that happens. I think atheists can will ourselves not to believe too, because of a tragic event. It is a sticky and complicated subject. At some point though, no matter how much we want to make ourselves believe, we cannot do it. I cannot believe. There is nothing I could do to make me believe.

Quote of the Day, by Loftus

Most Christians cannot be reasoned out of their faith because they were never reasoned into it in the first place. They must first be convinced their faith is impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, which is reversing the standards that reasonable people require.

A Short Note on the Use of Tacitus as a Historical Source for Jesus

A. It would have been impossible for Tacitus (56 CE – ca 118 CE) to have had any firsthand knowledge of a Historical Jesus since Jesus would have already been dead for at least 23 years before Tacitus was born (assuming the latest date of April 33 CE for the crucifixion).

B. The fire in Rome happened on June 19, 64 which would have made Tacitus only 8 years old at the time. At such an age, Tacitus would have likely been much too young to have recorded anything (if he was literate at that age) especially for a child living in Gaul.

C. The distance from Gaul (setting Paris as the central city) to Jerusalem (by land) is about 3,695 miles. How could Tacitus, who was only 8 years old at the time, have any firsthand knowledge of either the Christians in Roman Palestine or even the fire in Rome over 700 miles away?

D. Tacitus published his first work (Agricola) in 98 CE and his Annals around 114 or 115 or 59 years after the fire in Nero’s Rome and 82 years after the death of the so-called Historical Jesus. Thus, the information about “Christus”  (a hapax legomenon) suffering under Pilate shows a confessional belief and not any historical event he knew about. If Jesus is the Christus meant here, then we would expect the Latin “Iesum Christum”.  However, Tacitus is likely simply repeating an established tradition as we learn nothing more than that which is not already stated by Josephus and forms the basis for the Apostles Creed: “ . . . passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, . . . “(suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried;).

 Reference: The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3 rd ed., edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth (Oxford University Press, 1996)

Religion and Violence: Dr. Richard Hess responds to Dr. Avalos

Dr. Richard Hess

Finally available on high quality video is my 2012 presentation on my theory of religion and violence (a summary of Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence [2005) at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.

This particular presentation is notable because  Dr. Richard Hess, a well-known evangelical biblical scholar and apologist at Denver Seminary, responds at 1:06:58, and I respond at 1:26:01 to him and others.

I don’t think Dr. Hess was successful in defending biblical violence, but you can judge for yourselves.

For My Christian Friends Offended By Michael Sam's Kiss

So, I've been seeing some upset and outrage from some of my Christian friends, about the public broadcast of Michael Sam kissing and embracing his boyfriend.  I find it strange that these same people aren't bothered by some things in their Bible.  Consider the following passages:

Read more »

An Update on Richard Carrier's Book, "On the Historicity of Jesus"

The subtitle and table of contents are now available. The subtitle is "Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt." It's scheduled to be published in June of this year with a whopping 700 pages! The hardback list price is $95 and the paperback list price is $35. Below is the book description and table of contents:

Read more »

What About the Origins of Life Itself?

We know that we descended from a common ancestor. We know this. Evolution is a fact. Many believers agree about this, even a growing number of evangelicals. But what about the origins of life itself? The answer is simple. Ready? Since the evolution of life has a natural explanation then so also does the origins of life, we just don't know how yet. Give science time. Don't punt to a god explanation just as believers shouldn't have done before Darwin. Comprende?