My Book is the #1 New Release in Christian Apologetics!
Imagine going to buy a Christian apologetics book to find this puppy! ;-)
Ground Rules for Debating a Historical Jesus
1. Each post will be dedicated
to one specific topic. This topic will
stay up until the evidence is presented and dealt with. Thus, the post comment section will remain
open and can be continued as new arguments arise. So as not to conflate two topics, only the subject listed in the post’s title will be discussed. There will be no set time limit of engagement even
if a new topic is started. This debate
should move slowly to allow research to be conducted if needed. The topics for the post will be opened with
the main thesis followed by its focus.
For example: Facts Used to Support a Historical
Jesus: Josephus
Hemant Mehta's List of the Top Atheist Books in 2015
Mehta lists my new book as one of the top atheist books in 2015, for which I'm thankful.
Unfortunately Dr. Hector Avolos's new book isn't listed.
If I were doing such a list it would be.
Unfortunately Dr. Hector Avolos's new book isn't listed.
If I were doing such a list it would be."Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life: How Evolutionary Theory Undermines Everything You Thought You Knew"
I need to highlight the book by Steve Stewart-Williams, Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life.
The book description is as follows:
The book description is as follows:If you accept evolutionary theory, can you also believe in God? Are human beings superior to other animals, or is this just a human prejudice? Does Darwin have implications for heated issues like euthanasia and animal rights? Does evolution tell us the purpose of life, or does it imply that life has no ultimate purpose? Does evolution tell us what is morally right and wrong, or does it imply that ultimately nothing is right or wrong? In this fascinating and intriguing book, Steve Stewart-Williams addresses these and other fundamental philosophical questions raised by evolutionary theory and the exciting new field of evolutionary psychology. Drawing on biology, psychology and philosophy, he argues that Darwinian science supports a view of a godless universe devoid of ultimate purpose or moral structure, but that we can still live a good life and a happy life within the confines of this view.If you accept evolution you need to honestly address the questions of his book, just as I previously recommended Robert M. Price and Edwin A. Suominen's excellent book, Evolving out of Eden: Christian Responses to Evolution.
A First of its Kind in the Muslim World, a Study Qur’an Produced by Muslims
Ten years in the making, "The Study Quran" is more than a rebuttal to terrorists, said Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Iranian-born intellectual and the book's editor-in-chief. His aim was to produce an accurate, unbiased translation understandable to English-speaking Muslims, scholars and general readers.Jerry Coyne explains in more detail. Count me among the hopeful ones. It must start somewhere so why not here? CNN tells us the book has been endorsed "by an A-list of Muslim-American academics. One, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, called it 'perhaps the most important work done on the Islamic faith in the English language to date.'" And it was partially funded by King Abdullah II of Jordan, "may he escape Allah's Assassins."
The editors paid particular attention to passages that seem to condone bloodshed, explaining in extensive commentaries the context in which certain verses were revealed and written. "The commentaries don't try to delete or hide the verses that refer to violence. We have to be faithful to the text, " said Nasr, a longtime professor at George Washington University. "But they can explain that war and violence were always understood as a painful part of the human condition."
The scholar hopes his approach can convince readers that no part of the Quran sanctions the brutal acts of ISIS. "The best way to counter extremism in modern Islam," he said, "is a revival of classical Islam."
Guy Harrison's Recent Book, "Good Thinking: What You Need to Know to be Smarter, Safer, Wealthier, and Wiser"
Guy Harrison and I am on a quest to spit out book after book. His most recent one it Good Thinking: What You Need to Know to be Smarter, Safer, Wealthier, and Wiser
Here is a review of it by the SanFranscico Book Review. Look like another good one!
Here is a review of it by the SanFranscico Book Review. Look like another good one!Why Does Satan Have a Better Moral Code Than God Himself?
Doesn't seem right does it? Yet he does as told by Dr. Valerie Tarico in her post titled, Seven Satanic Precepts Beat Ten Commandments As Moral Guide.
Reader Reviews: The Best Things Said So Far On Amazon
Yes, sometimes I do have too much time on my hands! Here's proof: I decided to copy and paste here all the best things said on Amazon about my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist. So far there have been eight reader reviews worthy of notice, plus the blurbs. I think potential buyers should attribute a higher authority to blurbs and reviews by scholars, but we should consider the reader reviews as well.
A Short Note on Two of Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Books
Focus: How Jesus Became God:
The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee and Did Jesus Exist?: The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
An Analogy of the Bible
 |
| Meet the Bible: Not Dead Yet! |
Yet, with the love of her children (the believers) and her attorneys (the apologists) using creative ingenuity (theology) along with the denial of reality (science), she (the Bible) is lovingly supported by the arms and allowed to apologetically shuffle along.
(This is a revised analogy of the Bible I wrote 14 years ago.)
Happy Thanksgiving to All
Today I want to express the gratitude I experience all year long.
I’m grateful for being alive now in this era, rather than in the barbaric past, or what looks like the coming worldwide religious wars, and/or global disasters in the future. I’m also thankful I have been healthy enough to live longer than most human beings have ever lived, and that I have had more wealth than most people on the planet can dream about, and that I’ve never gone a day without the essentials of life. I’m also grateful for my family and personal friends who, like me, have never known the violence we see in many parts of the world today. I’m also grateful to have broken out of the cave of superstition, and knowing I’m one of the lucky few who see the universe and our world as it is, without pretending there is a mind-reading barbaric deity telling us what to do, such that we have the privilege of figuring it out for ourselves, and doing a much better job of it. Yes, I am thankful that the forces of nature just happened to give me and others these wonderful gifts. I’m thankful I’ll have the privilege of dying, since that is the price I must pay for being alive, and knowing that upon dying I’ll return to the same state I was in before being born, rather than suffering eternally because I could not believe in a deity that lacked sufficient evidence.
It's not just me who is thankful. Yes, the godless can ‘give thanks’ — and here is how we do it
I’m grateful for being alive now in this era, rather than in the barbaric past, or what looks like the coming worldwide religious wars, and/or global disasters in the future. I’m also thankful I have been healthy enough to live longer than most human beings have ever lived, and that I have had more wealth than most people on the planet can dream about, and that I’ve never gone a day without the essentials of life. I’m also grateful for my family and personal friends who, like me, have never known the violence we see in many parts of the world today. I’m also grateful to have broken out of the cave of superstition, and knowing I’m one of the lucky few who see the universe and our world as it is, without pretending there is a mind-reading barbaric deity telling us what to do, such that we have the privilege of figuring it out for ourselves, and doing a much better job of it. Yes, I am thankful that the forces of nature just happened to give me and others these wonderful gifts. I’m thankful I’ll have the privilege of dying, since that is the price I must pay for being alive, and knowing that upon dying I’ll return to the same state I was in before being born, rather than suffering eternally because I could not believe in a deity that lacked sufficient evidence.
It's not just me who is thankful. Yes, the godless can ‘give thanks’ — and here is how we do it
Announcing the Audio Book of "Why I Became an Atheist"
Yep, my first book published by Prometheus Books is now available on Audible as an audio book. Just click here to get it, or here. This audio book could be a great gift for the growing number of people who drive a distance to work and back, or who are bedridden, or prefer listening to it while sipping on some wine in the afternoon or in the evening just before going to sleep. It could also be used in discussion groups. This book is my magnum opus, that is, my most important work. Directly underneath the cover photo is a play button to hear a sample from narrator Buzz Kemper. That's all I've heard so far myself, and he does a wonderful job, better than I would have done if I had read it. It's published by Pitchstone Publishing, which was founded by Kurt Volkan in 2003, and has published a number of books by important atheists like Ronald Lindsay, Dan Barker, Sean Faircloth, Herb Silverman, Daniel Dennett, Hemant Metha, Peter Boghossian, Phil Torres, James Lindsay, Greta Christina, Ryan T. Cragun, Dan Arel, Amanda Knief, Matthew O’Neil, myself and others. To see the list of books so far click here, and then click on a book to read more. It's an honor to be a Pitchstone published author just as I'm honored to be a Prometheus Books author/editor. Enjoy.
Why Atheists Must Assert Jesus Never Existed
In the Afterword to Raphael Lataster’s
latest book, Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists, Richard Carrier addresses the Academic
Biblical Academy: “With this book,
Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate
Among Atheists, Raphael Lataster has certainly demonstrated at the
very least one thing; the entire field of Biblical Studies should be taking
this question seriously; yet they have not.
This has to stop. They need to either
build a more defensible case for historicity, one that does not violate logic
or rely on non-existent evidence, or they need to officially recognize, at the
very least, that historicity agnosticism is a credible response to what little
evidence there is. The Academy needs to
stop lying about the evidence or about the argument of peer-review experts who
challenge historicity. They need to
address those arguments as actually made, and the evidence
as actually presented.
And Lataster has shown that this isn’t what the experts are doing. So what should they do?” (Quoted from Jesus Did Not
Exist: A Debate Among
Atheists, p. 417)
Quote of the Day, by Dan Parks in Defending the Hebrew View of the Universe With Discussion
I’ve found it interesting that it is very similar to that of ancient native Americans, thousands of years before the time of Abraham. It was the old world “science” of that time of the writings of the ancient Hebrews. Now, if Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a protohistorical-polemical-calendrical-liturgical composition of old world scientific non-revelatory conceptions of origins (received by the learned men), infused with revelatory conceptions (received by supernatural modes), then the Bible could reasonably be considered by faith to be trustworthy concerning creation because: (a) the divinely-revealed revelatory conceptions (that God created the cosmos, humans, animals and vegetation) have not been debunked by science, as it is not inconsistent with God to create over a vast amount of time or create humans that evolve from less complex animals (and I’ve built an argument that God is more likely create an OEC world versus a YEC world); and (b) such a view of Scripture (infusion of the human and the divine) is consistent with plenary-verbal inspiration and a qualified inerrancy (2 Tim. 3:16) that takes into account the divine objectives of progressive revelation, divine hiddenness in order to bring about a greater good.
New #1 Book In Atheism: "Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World"
Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World
was written by Tim Whitmarsh, Professor of Greek Culture at the University of Cambridge. I like the blurbs, especially this one:
was written by Tim Whitmarsh, Professor of Greek Culture at the University of Cambridge. I like the blurbs, especially this one:If you have ever wondered about premature skeptics who questioned beliefs held sacrosanct in their own time--such as religion or slavery in the ancient world--this is the book for you. In plain English, classics scholar Tim Whitmarsh explores the minds of those who doubted the existence of gods more than 2500 years ago and got into trouble because of their doubts. It is a pure delight to be introduced to people who questioned the supernatural long before modern science provided physical evidence to support the greatest insights of human reason. —Susan Jacoby, author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.I taught introduction to philosophy classes and was always curious how some people in the ancient world could question the existence of god, or gods, without the scientific evidence we have in today's world, or the scientific method itself! This book is now on my wish list.
I Present to You the Universe as Conceived by Ancient Hebrews
So Christian, tell us again why you believe anything else that was said in the Bible about creation, rather than trust modern science? LINK.
Salon: "Sanders explained his democratic socialism in a speech last week that should be a wakeup call for America"
"The two political parties, who for decades have been neoliberal parties serving the interests of the capitalist class first and foremost, seem to be moving further apart. Since the ISIS attacks on Paris, some Republicans have started to sound increasingly like their fascist forbearers, while also talking about the importance of freedom. But the only candidate who offers the real freedom that so many great Americans have advocated in the past, it seems, is Bernie Sanders." LINK.
Why Isn't the Universe a Necessary Being?
This is in response to Plantinga's type of ontological argument. I ran into one today on Facebook. If I grant that a necessary being is possible then God cannot not exist and the Christian theist wins the day, it seems. So here's a challenge. I guess I like issuing them. ;-)
Show me why the universe is not a necessary being. I'm not sure you can rule that out as quickly as you think. Philosophical arguments are okay. Only the hard evidence matters. The universe is nothing like anyone would expect prior to Darwin, Einstein or quantum mechanics. So why would we think a philosophical argument prior to the available evidence should hold any weight at all?
Show me why the universe is not a necessary being. I'm not sure you can rule that out as quickly as you think. Philosophical arguments are okay. Only the hard evidence matters. The universe is nothing like anyone would expect prior to Darwin, Einstein or quantum mechanics. So why would we think a philosophical argument prior to the available evidence should hold any weight at all?
"The Christian Apologetics Industry Has Met Its Match" a Review by David Madison
This is the title to Madison's kind review of my latest book, which can be read here. It just might be my best book yet. He cites the work of Richard Carrier and yours truly. I could add a dozen other scholars to his list. Added to the six other books I've had published (with the eighth one due out in July) hear him saying, "For any Christians who ARE up to the task of due diligence, this ‘Loftus library’ is mandatory homework." That's my goal, to create a library of books that totally undermine the credibility of Christianity in all of its forms. Enjoy.
Quote of the Day On Science, By Carl Sagan
The reason science works so well is partly that built-in error-correcting machinery. There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths. That openness to new ideas, combined with the most rigorous, skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, sifts the wheat from the chaff. It makes no difference how smart, august, or beloved you are. You must prove your case in the face of determined, expert criticism. Diversity and debate are valued. Opinions are encouraged to contend — substantively and in depth....Science is part and parcel humility. Scientists do not seek to impose their needs and wants on Nature, but instead humbly interrogate Nature and take seriously what they find. We are aware that revered scientists have been wrong. We understand human imperfection. We insist on independent and — to the extent possible — quantitative verification of proposed tenets of belief. We are constantly prodding, challenging, seeking contradictions or small, persistent residual errors, proposing alternative explanations, encouraging heresy. We give our highest rewards to those who convincingly disprove established beliefs. LINK.
Being an Expert Can Make You More Closed-Minded, Now What?
As my readers know, I'm interested in the following kinds of studies. The findings of this recent one "illustrate what's known as the "earned dogmatism" effect -- the tendency to think in a more closed-minded, or dogmatic, way when we consider ourselves to be an expert."
Given these things, and the fact that most Christian experts were raised with their religion in the first place, Christian experts can be blind to the corrective nature of sufficient objective evidence. Sufficient objective evidence is the corrective to anything false we were taught as children. But because Christian experts have a Bible, they allow for argument substitution, where an argument substitutes for evidence. They do this because they are "less open to new ideas and alternative viewpoints."
But look what can be done with argument substitution. Stephen Law warned us about it when he wrote, “Anything based on faith, no matter how ludicrous, can be made to be consistent with the available evidence, given a little patience and ingenuity.” (Believing Bullshit, p. 75). Since this is the case we shouldn't accept any substitute for sufficient objective evidence when it comes to claims of virgin births, or resurrections from the dead, nor when it comes to questions about matters of fact like the nature of nature, and its workings. These findings show that Christians and their experts should do what agnostics, free-thinkers and atheists are already doing when we think exclusively in terms of the probabilities based on the evidence. Am I right or am I right? ;-) Whenever asked what makes for an open-minded person I respond that it's the person who is open to the results of science.
What are you an expert in? Whether it's politics, chemistry or playing an instrument, a new study finds there's one major downside to having in-depth knowledge of a certain subject.The article tells experts how to overcome their "earned dogmatism": "The findings suggest that the best way to be an expert is to work towards achieving mastery while reminding ourselves of how much we still don't know." That's great advice for us all. However, the evangelical minded expert has an answer book, the canonized writings of ancient superstitious men found in the uninterpreted Bible. Their Bible contains the source of all truth. Study it to find out how to raise kids, counsel prisoners, or learn about the origins of the universe, where humankind came from, why we're here, where we go when we die, and so forth. In other words, the antithesis of science.
Research from Loyola University of Chicago suggests that being an expert can make you more closed-minded -- and therefore less creative -- in your thinking. The study found that people who perceive themselves to be experts tend to be less open to new ideas and alternative viewpoints. LINK.
Given these things, and the fact that most Christian experts were raised with their religion in the first place, Christian experts can be blind to the corrective nature of sufficient objective evidence. Sufficient objective evidence is the corrective to anything false we were taught as children. But because Christian experts have a Bible, they allow for argument substitution, where an argument substitutes for evidence. They do this because they are "less open to new ideas and alternative viewpoints."
But look what can be done with argument substitution. Stephen Law warned us about it when he wrote, “Anything based on faith, no matter how ludicrous, can be made to be consistent with the available evidence, given a little patience and ingenuity.” (Believing Bullshit, p. 75). Since this is the case we shouldn't accept any substitute for sufficient objective evidence when it comes to claims of virgin births, or resurrections from the dead, nor when it comes to questions about matters of fact like the nature of nature, and its workings. These findings show that Christians and their experts should do what agnostics, free-thinkers and atheists are already doing when we think exclusively in terms of the probabilities based on the evidence. Am I right or am I right? ;-) Whenever asked what makes for an open-minded person I respond that it's the person who is open to the results of science.
New Book by Raphael Lataster and Richard Carrier: "Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists"
Back in April of 2012 I wrote a post titled, Did Jesus Exist? An All Out War Is Going On. It's not over but there is less rancor between atheists. The war was at it's worst just after the publication of Bart Ehrman's 2013 book, which was titled, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.
With the publication of Richard Carrier's 2014 book, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, the intensity has subsided.
There were other scholars involved of course, and the war might grow in intensity again if/when Robert Price and Bart Ehrman debate the issue. [I haven't heard for sure if they will]. The reason the war subsided is probably because all the available evidence and arguments have been put forth and discussed. My position is that at the very best, Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet, as I argued in chapter 12 for The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.
Beyond this best case scenario, my claim is that The Jesus in the Gospels Never Existed! and that should be good enough for my purposes, letting bona fide historians tackle the question of his actual existence.
Now a new book by Raphael Lataster and Richard Carrier has come out, Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists.
It's a whopping 420 pages long. The book seems to be a summation and exposition of the debate so far. You can look at its description on Amazon and see inside the book for more. It purports to be written for a lay audience. One thing noteworthy is that Raphael Lataster is agnostic on the question of the existence of Jesus (just like Hector Avalos), whereas Carrier thinks it's a 67% probability Jesus did not exist.
With the publication of Richard Carrier's 2014 book, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, the intensity has subsided.There were other scholars involved of course, and the war might grow in intensity again if/when Robert Price and Bart Ehrman debate the issue. [I haven't heard for sure if they will]. The reason the war subsided is probably because all the available evidence and arguments have been put forth and discussed. My position is that at the very best, Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet, as I argued in chapter 12 for The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.Beyond this best case scenario, my claim is that The Jesus in the Gospels Never Existed! and that should be good enough for my purposes, letting bona fide historians tackle the question of his actual existence.Now a new book by Raphael Lataster and Richard Carrier has come out, Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists.
It's a whopping 420 pages long. The book seems to be a summation and exposition of the debate so far. You can look at its description on Amazon and see inside the book for more. It purports to be written for a lay audience. One thing noteworthy is that Raphael Lataster is agnostic on the question of the existence of Jesus (just like Hector Avalos), whereas Carrier thinks it's a 67% probability Jesus did not exist.Now There is a Zombie Nativity!
Hey, there's a kick-starter for a Zombie Nativity. What will they think of next? Follow the link to see more, buy a set, and/or donate. LINK.
The Second Democratic Primary Debate
Here is the recent Democratic primary debate if you missed it. I'll confess all candidates did very well. But we need a political revolution and Bernie is the man!
{Edit: The debate is no longer available].
{Edit: The debate is no longer available].
Adam Gopnik on Darwin’s Brilliant Strategy for Preempting Criticism
I've previously recommended Brainpickings before, where Maria Popova sums up books containing good lessons for the rest of us. Here's one lesson she wrote about, highlighting Darwin's mark of genius, as told in a book by Adam Gopnik. What is it? The habit of "sympathetic summary," what we now call the "principle of charity." Gopnik tells us the heart of Darwin's brilliance "illuminates the secret to all successful critical argument":
I know they haven't got the book, since they keep on saying the same damn ignorant things.
A counterargument to your own should first be summarized in its strongest form, with holes caulked as they appear, and minor inconsistencies or infelicities of phrasing looked past. Then, and only then, should a critique begin. This is charitable by name, selfishly constructive in intent: only by putting the best case forward can the refutation be definitive. The idea is to leave the least possible escape space for the “but you didn’t understand…” move. Wiggle room is reduced to a minimum.Over the years as I have engaged Christian intellectuals, I have found that even the best of them cannot do this when critiquing atheism. I have even recommended Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk's book, 50 Great Myths About Atheism, that would help them. But none of them have ever replied, "Yes, I got that book, thanks John, and I intend to read and digest it."
Darwin’s special virtue in this enterprise is that he had to summarize, sympathetically, views contrary to his own that did not yet exist except in his own imagination. His special shrewdness lay in making as large an emotional meal of the objections in advance as could be made; he preempted his critics by introjecting their criticisms. He saw what people might say, turned it into what they ought to say, and then answered. LINK.
I know they haven't got the book, since they keep on saying the same damn ignorant things. Sean Carroll On Six Arguments Used by Science Denialists
Christians must deny or denigrate science at some point to believe, but that doesn't bother them a bit. It's because they feel free to deny or denigrate the science that shows them wrong. How do they do it? Sean Carroll described six arguments used by science denialists that are right on the money!
The six arguments used by science denialists aim to:
1) Cast doubt on science.
2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists.
3) Magnify disagreements between scientists, especially to cite gadflies as authorities.
4) Exaggerate the potential harm coming from science.
5) Appeal to the need and value of personal freedom.
6) Object that accepting science repudiates some key point of philosophy.
Carroll argued the last one is very important. Evidence only matters to people who haven't dug in on that last point.
The six arguments used by science denialists aim to:
1) Cast doubt on science.
2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists.
3) Magnify disagreements between scientists, especially to cite gadflies as authorities.
4) Exaggerate the potential harm coming from science.
5) Appeal to the need and value of personal freedom.
6) Object that accepting science repudiates some key point of philosophy.
Carroll argued the last one is very important. Evidence only matters to people who haven't dug in on that last point.
An Open Letter to Kenneth
Kenneth is a Christian who comments here. After reading his stuff I'd like to challenge him with an open letter. It may seem harsh, but he's been here a while and he can handle it:
You Can Now See Inside My New Book
You can now see inside my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.
I think this is helpful for potential buyers. When I click on this feature I see the blurbs, Dedication, Contents, Foreword, Introduction and the first few pages of chapter one.
I think this is helpful for potential buyers. When I click on this feature I see the blurbs, Dedication, Contents, Foreword, Introduction and the first few pages of chapter one. An Incredible Test Derived From Phil Torres That Can Tell Beyond a Shadow Doubt Whether Believers are Honest People
Phil Torres kindly reviewed my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith, which in my opinion deserves your up-vote. I want you to read again his most substantive complaint about my new book. His complaint is that "it was written 15 years too late!" That's right! He complains my book wasn't available much earlier in his life, when it could have helped him leave his faith. Let me quote him in full and then show we can derive a test to determine whether believers are honest people about their faith. I'll say it this way: Upon reading his challenge and the test derived from it, you can know beyond a shadow of doubt whether you're an honest person about your faith. Now I must come up with a catchy title for this test. Hmmmm, Rumspringa is a rite of passage for the Amish youth, which literally means "to run around." I like Rum, and I like the spring season, along with the letter "a". So I hereby declare this test to be named, the "Coming of Age Test for Faith" or CATF. [Don't ask me how that follows! ;-)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)