Krampus, The Christmas Devil
Another Favorite Song of the Season!
Tonight is Friday. Here's another one of my favorite songs of the season! Get your partner and your dancing shoes on!
Live version below, although they all sound live!
Live version below, although they all sound live!
Bart Ehrman and Robert Price to Debate the Historicity of Jesus
This debate is being put on by Mythicist Milwaukee. Since there is a supply and demand feature to anything with a price tag on it, given the ticket costs they expect a high demand (from General Admission of $30.00 to VIP $160.00). Bart will donate his proceeds to charity while it'll be a needed financial relief for Bob. I know a few of us who barely make enough to survive. So that's good for him. The debate will take place as part of a Mythinformation Conference III in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on Friday, October 21, 2016 - 6-9 PM. Earth shattering stuff here folks, sure to convince a Christian one way or another. Or, is this just another example of atheists talking to each other? LINK.
I'm on record as saying debates don't really solve that much. But they are both educational and entertaining. So no one should have any fear if one side or the other loses the debate (although I doubt that will happen). I am curious though, why scientists don't solve their disputes this way. I can imagine it now. One scientist thinks the notion of a holographic universe is nonsense while another thinks otherwise. So they get sponsors and debate the issue. Tickets are costly because there is a high demand for the debate. Afterward both sides declare victory. One college graduate in computer science, who rejects the holographic theory, is unhappy with the debate performance of his guy so he writes a blog post saying his guy does not represent everyone who rejects the holographic theory! [But doesn't every thinking person already know that, which indicates the ignorance of that blog writer? The only reason he would say such a thing is for self-promotion because that's his modus operandi (Just think Jeff Lowder)].
If atheists cannot agree on the evidence then how does anyone expect to convince Christians Jesus never existed? I think we must first approach Christians as Bart Ehrman does before they can be open enough to entertain the idea that Jesus never existed. Yes, a tiny number of Christians have gone from believer to mythicist in one fell swoop, but what kind of believers they were beforehand is another question. This debate is yet another example of people who will eventually find something to disagree with if given enough time. I have witnessed this phenomena myself. People meet. They talk a bit. They agree quite a lot. But eventually they find a disagreement. They almost always do. That disagreement bothers them. They each want agreement so they argue over the disagreement. It eventually leads to anger. They part ways. In my view this is yet another divisive issue among atheists. Granted, I think it's a worthy issue, one that merits careful consideration. But as for me, I'll keep majoring on the majors, the issues that can and do actually help change the minds of believers. Do as you wish though. To each his or her own. Cheers.
I'm on record as saying debates don't really solve that much. But they are both educational and entertaining. So no one should have any fear if one side or the other loses the debate (although I doubt that will happen). I am curious though, why scientists don't solve their disputes this way. I can imagine it now. One scientist thinks the notion of a holographic universe is nonsense while another thinks otherwise. So they get sponsors and debate the issue. Tickets are costly because there is a high demand for the debate. Afterward both sides declare victory. One college graduate in computer science, who rejects the holographic theory, is unhappy with the debate performance of his guy so he writes a blog post saying his guy does not represent everyone who rejects the holographic theory! [But doesn't every thinking person already know that, which indicates the ignorance of that blog writer? The only reason he would say such a thing is for self-promotion because that's his modus operandi (Just think Jeff Lowder)].
If atheists cannot agree on the evidence then how does anyone expect to convince Christians Jesus never existed? I think we must first approach Christians as Bart Ehrman does before they can be open enough to entertain the idea that Jesus never existed. Yes, a tiny number of Christians have gone from believer to mythicist in one fell swoop, but what kind of believers they were beforehand is another question. This debate is yet another example of people who will eventually find something to disagree with if given enough time. I have witnessed this phenomena myself. People meet. They talk a bit. They agree quite a lot. But eventually they find a disagreement. They almost always do. That disagreement bothers them. They each want agreement so they argue over the disagreement. It eventually leads to anger. They part ways. In my view this is yet another divisive issue among atheists. Granted, I think it's a worthy issue, one that merits careful consideration. But as for me, I'll keep majoring on the majors, the issues that can and do actually help change the minds of believers. Do as you wish though. To each his or her own. Cheers.
Barbara Walters 10 Most Fascinating People of 2015
Barbara Walters 10 Most Fascinating People of 2015 airs tonight on ABC (check times in your area). One of them is Bernie Sanders! Here's a clip LINK. Don't forget to watch the Democratic Presidential Debate tomorrow.
Michael Bolton's Rendition of "Silent Night" is the Best Ever!
Seasons Greetings one and all. I'm going to share a few of my favorite songs for the season. Michael Bolton's rendition of "Silent Night" tops my chart. This CD came out in 1996 and every year since I listen to it. It brings tears to my eyes just as it did the first year, and every year since that time. It recalls the memories and regrets of years gone by. I was in a deep crisis of faith when it came out. I listened to it hoping it could give me hope through my crisis. I liked how he sang it with such conviction, the kind I wanted to have again, but couldn't muster no matter how many times I listened to it, and I listened to it over and over and over again. I really wanted Christianity to be true. I knew nothing else. But it isn't true. I had to admit I was deluded. Everything I had hoped for was dashed. Regardless of my back-story, Bolton's rendition of "Silent Night" is the best one ever made.
Richard Carrier's Lecture On "Acts as Historical Fiction"
[Redated post from March 2014 in light of the recent flurry of comments about the mythicist position].
Last night Richard gave a talk at Purdue in West Lafayette, Indiana, based on his book On the Historicity of Jesus. It's to be published by Sheffield-Phoenix Press in a few months. Professor James McGrath has described Richard Carrier as "the last, best hope for mythicism." He goes on to say that "Having an academic book of this sort published does not prove that one is right. It means that one is approaching a question in a rigorous scholarly manner. And to have a mythicist do that is indeed a big deal. Those of us interested in this question will undoubtedly be delighted to finally have a serious academic work to serve as a conversation partner on the topic." Link. Yes, this is a big deal!
Below you can watch his lecture and see a few pictures of us together. If you haven't encountered the evidence that the Book of Acts is historical fiction you need to see this. [Edit: If you can see the case for Acts as fiction why can't you see the evidence that the Jesus story itself could be fiction?] Here, ladies and gentlemen, Carrier presents some good strong evidence that the author of the canonical book of Acts is another liar for Jesus. Enjoy.
Last night Richard gave a talk at Purdue in West Lafayette, Indiana, based on his book On the Historicity of Jesus. It's to be published by Sheffield-Phoenix Press in a few months. Professor James McGrath has described Richard Carrier as "the last, best hope for mythicism." He goes on to say that "Having an academic book of this sort published does not prove that one is right. It means that one is approaching a question in a rigorous scholarly manner. And to have a mythicist do that is indeed a big deal. Those of us interested in this question will undoubtedly be delighted to finally have a serious academic work to serve as a conversation partner on the topic." Link. Yes, this is a big deal!
Below you can watch his lecture and see a few pictures of us together. If you haven't encountered the evidence that the Book of Acts is historical fiction you need to see this. [Edit: If you can see the case for Acts as fiction why can't you see the evidence that the Jesus story itself could be fiction?] Here, ladies and gentlemen, Carrier presents some good strong evidence that the author of the canonical book of Acts is another liar for Jesus. Enjoy.
Quote of the Day, On Science and Religious Beliefs
Historically scientists didn’t set out to test religious beliefs. They just wanted to understand the world they live in. As they did they discovered evidence that questioned religious beliefs.
Did Jesus Exist? Harry McCall vs James McGrath vs Valerie Tarico
Not long ago Harry McCall wrote a post titled, Why Atheists Must Assert Jesus Never Existed, and proceeded to tell us. Being someone who refuses to march to the beat of any drum unless persuaded to do so, I was disappointed since I was unpersuaded, and still am. Liberal Christian Dr. James McGrath saw Harry's post as yet another example of atheist dogmatism so he highlighted two of Harry's posts on this issue as examples. In the comments I told McGrath I was disappointed. The reason is because the credibility of DC is something I take seriously. Today Dr. Valerie Tarico weighed in on the historical vs mythical Jesus debate in a post reasonably titled, Here are 5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed. I don't think she was aware of the McCall/McGrath exchange. Her post is a much more reasonable one that I can recommend. Readers might disagree with her and still see a big difference in how a scholar like Tarico deals with this issue.
What Does the Islamic State Actually Believe?
By now, many people are aware that the Islamic State is an apocalyptic death cult that wants to provoke an Armageddon-like battle in a small town in northern Syria. A profusion of articles have been written about this aspect of the Islamic State's mission since it rose to prominence in the summer of 2014. In fact, the most read article ever published in The Atlantic, by Graeme Wood, dedicates considerable space to the apocalyptic motivations behind the largest and best-funded terrorist organization in human history. The Islamic State actively wants the world to end, because this is what it believes the prophet Muhammad said is supposed to happen.
Stop Being a Victim. Stop Being Offended. Grow Up.
Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start World War III … to Speed Up the Second Coming!
In my day we worried about communism leading to Armageddon.
Abundant evidence makes clear that millions of Americans — upwards of 40 percent, according to some widely publicized national polls — do, indeed, believe that Bible prophecies detail a specific sequence of end-times events. According to the most popular prophetic system, premillennial dispensationalism … the Islamic world is allied against God and faces annihilation in the last days. That view is actually a very ancient one in Christian eschatology. Medieval prophecy expounders saw Islam as the demonic force whose doom is foretold in Scripture. LINK
Eureka! A Square Circle!
For decades I've bought the line that we cannot create a square circle, for to do so would be logically contradictory. Nope, not anymore. Chuck Johnson drew one and wrote: "Such a circle has some of the characteristics of a circle, and some characteristics of a square. But on an absolute basis, it is neither a square nor a circle." And herein lies the rub. Whether or not we can create a square circle depends entirely on the definition of a square and a circle. Language matters. In my opinion the drawing in red is a square circle. It's likewise the case that A does not equal A.
Answering Two Objections To My Book
In a rambling review of my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist,
titled, "Who's brain should I trust?", two objections were leveled at it. The first objects to statements about free will, where I wrote, "Science is also teaching us that sin and the need for salvation are quite likely based on the illusion of free will...In fact, neuroscience is destroying the notions of free will..." "At the very least neuroscience is making it extremely difficult for believers to still claim that we freely choose to sin, that we can freely choose to be saved, and that there is a wrathful God who will judge us on the last day."
titled, "Who's brain should I trust?", two objections were leveled at it. The first objects to statements about free will, where I wrote, "Science is also teaching us that sin and the need for salvation are quite likely based on the illusion of free will...In fact, neuroscience is destroying the notions of free will..." "At the very least neuroscience is making it extremely difficult for believers to still claim that we freely choose to sin, that we can freely choose to be saved, and that there is a wrathful God who will judge us on the last day."Objection: "What a very confusing statement for someone to make who, I assume, chose to write a book trying to convince Christian apologists to change their minds."My "biggest blunder" he said, is my advice not to trust your brains. "Your brain does not work well at getting to the truth." "The nearer and dearer to your heart then the less you can trust your brain without the hard evidence."
Objection: "I notice that he trusts his brain, which is why he wrote the book...and yet he somehow thinks he has gotten to the truth. How do I determine what the hard evidence is without using my brain which I cannot trust?"Below are my answers. Can you do better?
More From Loftus On Science and Morality
Whether science can determine moral truths is being hotly debated in recent years. Most people say science cannot do so. But a growing number of philosophers and scientists are saying otherwise. Philosopher Erik Wielenberg called for an “ethical revolution.” While it’s true he says, that “scientific progress has hardly brought moral progress” it’s also true “that science has not so far been used explicitly for that purpose.” But since science has the ability to help us “live longer and healthier lives than at any point in human history” it consequentially “makes sense to put science…to work in the service…of finding a reliable method of making people virtuous.” (Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (Cambridge, 2005, pp. 129, 155).
Others have supported this type of position, such as the late Paul Kurtz and contributors to his anthology, Science and Ethics: Can Science Help Us Make Wise Moral Judgments? (Prometheus Books, 2007).
The authors in it “maintain that science can help us make wise choices and that an increase in scientific knowledge can help modify our ethical values and bring new ethical principles into social awareness.” Others are saying similar things, such as Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (Free Press, 2010),
Michael Shermer in The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People (Henry Holt and Co., 2015),
and the impressive list of people who have recommended these books with blurbs, including scientists Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, Lawrence M. Krauss, and Bill Nye.
Others have supported this type of position, such as the late Paul Kurtz and contributors to his anthology, Science and Ethics: Can Science Help Us Make Wise Moral Judgments? (Prometheus Books, 2007).The authors in it “maintain that science can help us make wise choices and that an increase in scientific knowledge can help modify our ethical values and bring new ethical principles into social awareness.” Others are saying similar things, such as Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (Free Press, 2010),Michael Shermer in The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People (Henry Holt and Co., 2015),and the impressive list of people who have recommended these books with blurbs, including scientists Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, Lawrence M. Krauss, and Bill Nye.Loftus on Scientism
Christian apologists will futilely try to scare their progeny with the boogeyman of scientism, declaring their faith victorious because they claim her critics think science can test everything, which is a self-refuting claim. But it’s only a self-refuting claim if we say we’re certain science can test everything. For if we leave room for reasonable doubt then it’s not self-defeating to say science can probably test everything, or even that science can test almost everything. For otherwise, how can we test whether or not science can test everything? What kind of experiment could test that? It wouldn’t be an empirical one, as far as we can speculate. Such a conclusion must come from probabilistic reasoning. So I admit there is at least one claim that cannot be tested by empirical science. I don’t know how many others there are, nor does anyone else, but there are probably a few more. What does it feel like to be a bat? What are the contents of someone's subconscious mind? What does an empirical investigation of an event in the historical past tell us? Science probably can't perform tests to answer those questions, at least, I find it hard to think it can. But maybe in the future scientists will be able to do so, by creating a virtual reality bat-like simulator, or finding a way to know the contents of subconscious minds, or by time-travel back into the past. Some say empirical science cannot test conceptual questions like whether or not square circles can exist, for they are known merely by reflecting on the terms involved. But this just means some questions can be answered independently of science. It doesn’t mean science cannot answer them. Scientists can always try making such an object!
Thoughts? Can you say this better? What can be legitimately disputed about what I wrote?
Thoughts? Can you say this better? What can be legitimately disputed about what I wrote?
The Reviews Keep Rolling In. Spread the Word!
It's hard to resist posting these recommendations. I put a great deal of work into my books so it's quite gratifying whenever someone recommends one to others, no matter who does it. If you like my books tell others. Go to forums and tell them. Post links to them in emails and on blog posts. Tell your Facebook friends. Buy one for your Grandma or Uncle this season. Gift one at work gift exchanges. Write a song about them, or a poem. Make a YouTube video about one of them. In one way I feel as if I did my work, and did it well. Now it's your turn. Spread the word!
Bernie Sanders Wins Time Magazine's Person of the Year Poll by a Landslide
He won a popular vote on this with two times the number of votes over the second place person. Think they'll make him the person of the year? Not a chance. Time-Warner is just the type of media news conglomerate Sanders speaks against. LINK
"How to Defend the Christian Faith" is An Epic Fail, Says D. Cowie
*Sigh* Take a look. I find Amazon reviews like this to be fascinating, even if they're a bit frustrating. They reveal how someone can read a book and yet brazenly not apply it to oneself. There's a lot of nitpicking to escape the over-all impact of the book. There's a knee jerk reaction to all things atheism. One wonders if he would reject the same advice if a Christian said it instead. If a Christian said we must be honest life-long seekers of the truth, would he reject that? He cannot allow an atheist to say this. Fascinating. Frustrating.
Here's a Rough Draft of My Introduction to a New Anthology
My next anthology can already be found on Amazon, titled Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion. It's scheduled to be released at the end of July. I just finished a rough draft of my Introduction and thought I'll publish it for faithful readers at DC, and to whet your appetites. Perhaps you may want to comment and/or spread the word. As with everything in the book there is a word count and we're already over it, so I kept my intro to a minimum. [Later I may share the paragraphs I had to delete.]
Introduction
This new anthology is the fourth one in a series of books I’ve edited. My first three are named after New York Times bestselling books by the so-called new atheists. This present anthology honors the late Victor Stenger, and his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (Prometheus Books, 2007). My publisher thought this anthology didn’t need to be named after Stenger’s book. However, I still consider it to be part of that same series.
Introduction
This new anthology is the fourth one in a series of books I’ve edited. My first three are named after New York Times bestselling books by the so-called new atheists. This present anthology honors the late Victor Stenger, and his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (Prometheus Books, 2007). My publisher thought this anthology didn’t need to be named after Stenger’s book. However, I still consider it to be part of that same series.
An Interview with Susan Jacoby and Her Choices for the Five Best Atheist Books
When I say I cannot get just any atheist author to write for my anthologies, Susan Jacoby is one of them. When I approached her at a conference she smiled and said to me, "Honey, I make my living from writing. You can't afford me." Then she walked away. Ouch! Regardless, this interview is very good and her book choices are interesting (no, she didn't choose mine). LINK. If I were choosing the five best books on atheism I think I would choose the following ones (no, not mine):
Dr. Stephen Law's Upcoming Chapter On Scientism
Today on Facebook Dr. Law pasted on his wall "a breezy, short version" of his "Scientism!" chapter for an upcoming important anthology on science. He tells us "Theologian John Milbank will be responding in a sort of back and forth...." Here it is:
Refugees "R" US?
Do the GOP Candidates Believe in the Apocalypse?
Last month, Sharyl Attkisson asked the former Republican frontrunner Ben Carson whether the “end of days” is approaching. Carson, a Seventh-day Adventist who believes the Egyptian pyramids were built by the Biblical Joseph to store grain, responded that “You could guess that we are getting closer to that.” He added, “You do have people who have a belief system that sees this apocalyptic phenomena [sic] occurring and that they are a part of it, who would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they gained possession of them.”
Bernie Sanders On Gun Control In the Light of Recent Mass Shootings
Look how Sanders works. He takes positions of the majority of the people regardless of big spending or special interests. I love it. He's not saying these proposals will solve gun violence. He's saying this is what we can agree about. And his proposals are reasonable. Before anyone responds deal with his proposals. No knee jerk reactions this time. What are wrong with his proposals? Stay focused.
A Second Audiobook of Mine Is Now Available
Yep, my book "The Outsider test for Faith" that was published by Prometheus Books, is now available as an audio book. Just click here to get it.
There is a sample located just under the book cover. Matthew O'Neil narrated it and he did a better job than I would have done. This 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.
There is a sample located just under the book cover. Matthew O'Neil narrated it and he did a better job than I would have done. This 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.Has Bart Ehrman Gotten Saved? The Christian Science Monitor Beleives So!
The above review was taken from the back cover of the paperback edition.
(Oddly, in spite of all the mythologizing of Jesus Ehrman has done, he readily admits that his wife still attends church while he sits at home. Interview with Terri Gross on NPR's Fresh Air)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)