David Marshall is not your average bear. I have heard a few people I respect say there is something mentally wrong with Marshall. Not the usual delusionary stuff found among all believers to different degrees, which evangelicals have to the highest degree. Nope, something else is going on. What it is, hasn't been clear to me until now. I've wondered if it's because Marshall has lived in the Orient so long he thinks like an oriental person rather than an occidental one like ourselves [Readers can disambiguate these differences in the comments if they so desire]. He doesn't think like the rest of us, that's for sure. At the very least Marshall is another liar for Jesus, a person who is unjustifiably certain his faith is true and has mentally absorbed a whole host of lies as truths because of a false assumption he was raised to believe despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. With him the force is additionally strong, since there's no doubt he also suffers from the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Maybe though, he's just a boldfaced unashamed liar?
Philosophy revels in argument substitution, according to which, whenever there isn't sufficient evidence then philosophers can substitute an argument instead. This must stop. If there isn't enough evidence to say one way or another, then an argument on behalf of one way or another is a waste of time. Making an argument without the requisite evidence is unnecessary and earns philosophy its recognized irrelevance and subsequently its derisiveness. Where there isn't sufficient evidence for an idea then a truly wise lover of truth would simply say "I don't know" and not write an article on it. It's this lack of authenticity among philosophers that galls so many non-philosophers, especially when believing philosophers muck up the discipline by writing in defense of their sect specific religious beliefs that by their very virtue have little or no evidence for them.
I hope the next year is better than the last year. I especially hope for the continuing secularization of the world. Place links and comment below on the the best of 2015, and with it the hopes you have for the future. Have at it. Hope is good.
Kenneth Winsmann responded to a really bad post objecting to the arguments in my book. With people like him I don't have to respond myself, which is a relief since more and more Christians are doing so.
This rebuttal is awful. Appealing to the historical setting and culture is meaningless. These laws were inspired by God. They should embody perfect justice. Killing a rape victim for not crying out? Forcing her to marry her attacker? A woman loses her hubby in war, but don’t worry! The God of the universe is with the conquerors and he has incredible moral guidelines. As a favor to the widow, she will be forced to marry whoever chooses her! How polite! What if no one chooses her? Oh. Too bad. God won’t get around to making women equal for another few thousand years. Can’t you see why these responses are so weak? God’s inspired word should transcend culture, place, and time. Gods laws should be the standard for all civilization. There should be absolutely no way to improve upon them. Epic fail. LINK.
I was asked this question by Stephen J. Bedard: "Hello John. I am writing a column on Jesus mythicism. I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on why atheists seem to be more and more attracted to this theory? My interest is on what drives skepticism about God to skepticism about Jesus. Even a couple of sentences would be great."
Well, I'm always honored when someone wants my opinion, so I obliged him. I wrote:
Atheists all agree that the miraculous Jesus we read in the gospels never existed. His virgin birth was not unlike Hercules and Plato, and his life had a very striking resemblance to Apollonius of Tyana. In addition there is no corroboration of Jesus found in contemporaneous writers, nor of events at his birth like the Star of Bethlehem, or events at the end of his story like eclipses and earthquakes and saints being resurrected with him.
So it stands to reason atheists would doubt his existence.
My guess is that eventually agnosticism about Jesus will become the dominant atheist view. This is what Ralphael Lataster and Hector Avalos think, that we can’t know whether the man behind the myths existed or not, even though I’m still of the opinion he did.
He probably won't use everything I wrote but here it is. Could you do better? Can you document what I wrote?
The Guardian tells us about it. Keith Preston on Facebook told me about it. He said Lemmy "was an outspoken atheist, and this is one of his songs with the lyrics. I consider this to be a true atheist anthem." Indeed!
It took me until the middle of the song to like it, then I listened a few more times. It's now my new favorite song! Here's a link to their top ten songs. It's not my style of music but I do admire his outspokenness as an atheist.
In what follows is a smack-down of the entire edifice of David Marshall's apologetics (not that he will be convinced of course). Christian apologist David Marshall has repeatedly argued that "All scientific knowledge depends upon human testimony." He does so to put the vinyl siding of scientific respectability over the rotting wood of his faith. He rhetorically asks, "How many eyewitness testimonies were confirmed by DNA evidence?" His point is that DNA evidence doesn't confirm eyewitness testimonies, but rather that the human testimonies of scientists confirm the DNA evidence. That's because they saw it and they interpret it for the rest of us. This is crucial for Marshall's defense of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus, and the claims of miracles in today's world. Human testimony is what both science and his faith depend on for truth. If we can know from the human testimonies of scientists the truth about the world, then we can also know from human testimonies the truth about the Easter Event and miracles in the modern world.
What's there not to understand atheists? Checkmate!!
Religion is associated more closely with societal dysfunction than societal health. Although religionists imagine themselves and their spawn as being more moral, tolerant, and generous-- when you actually measure such things, you find that the opposite is true. Again and again, the more secular the society, the healthier... the religious are only moral in their minds.
If you want to know what is actually true, you might try getting your information from scientists and other peer reviewed sources-- not people who imagine themselves saved for what they believe: Contrary to the views of many conservative pundits and the Christian Right, the least religious countries in the world today are not full of chaos and immorality, but are actually among the safest, healthiest, most well-educated, prosperous, ethical, and successful societies on earth.
So what are we supposed to be applauding the Christians for again? Is there any measurable evidence whatsoever that they are better, righter, or that their beliefs are more true or useful to society than conflicting religions/myths/superstitions? Because all I find in peer reviewed sources is tons of evidence showing the that religion is associated with dysfunction while secularism is associated with more tolerance and more prosocial behavior.
Miles Mogulescu of the Huffington Post Calls for Debbie Wasserman Schultz's ouster!
It's increasingly clear that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, isn't acting as a neutral party Chair, trying to insure a fair and democratic primary and building the Democratic Party in the states.
Rather, she's acting as a shill for Hillary Clinton, doing everything in her power to ensure that no one will effectively challenge Hillary's coronation as the nominee.
Wasserman Schultz is committing political malpractice and should be removed. LINK
This so-called war is not what you think, according to Jay Michaelson writing for The Daily Beast. It's more likely the declining numbers of self-identifying Christians who aren't necessarily at war with Christianity. They just don't believe for a variety of factors. The demographics look bad for Christianity in the United States:
According to a Pew Research Report released earlier this year, the percentage of the U.S. population that identifies as Christian has dropped from 78.4 percent in 2007 to 70.6 percent in 2014. Evangelical, Catholic, and mainline Protestant affiliations have all declined. Meanwhile, 30 percent of Americans ages 18-29 list “none” as their religious affiliation (the figure for all ages is about 23 percent).
This represents almost 1/4 of people in the United States which would be the second largest denomination by the numbers only. Whose fault is this state of affairs? According to the very first Christian it is his follower's fault. They are not very effective in their job of recruitment. Do Christians still want to complain about any so-called war when they are to blame? Most of these "nones" just don't give a hoot about the Christian faith. They are about as concerned with Christianity as Buddhists in Thailand or Hindus in India would be. So this attitude of theirs shows up in our culture too, in a variety of ways, especially when it comes to Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter.
These changes are taking place for a constellation of reasons: greater secular education (college degrees), multiculturalism, shifting social mores, the secular space of consumer capitalism and celebrity culture, the sexual revolution (including feminism and LGBT equality), legal and constitutional changes (like the banning of prayer in public school, and the finding of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), the breakdown of the nuclear family, the decline of certain forms of family and group identification, and the association of religion in general with nonsensical and outdated dogmas. LINK.
My word of advice to Christians is to learn to live in an increasingly non-Christian culture. Your faith is not to be inexplicably tied up with your culture anyway. In fact, living in a non-Christian culture may be a reason to rejoice--using some twisted kind of logic--for there would be no reason for people to play the hypocrite to gain social rewards from the pretense. As a result, only true believers will remain in the fold. Like the Amish today! Living in their own sect-specific communities! Voluntarily! ;-)
I'm very thankful at this season for the support I've received over the years from my readers in terms of comments from which I've learned from you, and the moral and financial support given. I'm just a starving artist without a job right now, who is trying to change the world and who thinks my efforts are worth the sacrifices I've made, even if few others agree or support my causes. I've sacrificed most everything for what I do and live alone on a pauper's income because of it. If you desire to do so, and can afford it, please consider making a donation to what I do. A few people have done so and it helps.
On Christmas day in 1837, the Africans and Native Americans who formed Florida’s Seminole Nation defeated a vastly superior U.S. invading army bent on cracking this early rainbow coalition and returning the Africans to slavery. Some textbooks such as Holt McDougal’s U.S. History (2012) reference the Seminole Wars. However they classify them not as anticolonial, liberation struggles, but as minor impediments in Manifest Destiny’s "triumphant march." -- from an essay by William Loren Katz.on the history left out of the textbooks.
The answer can be found in an interview The Washington Post did with physicist Aaron Adair, who is skeptical of the supposed star of Bethlehem. LINK. Dr. Adair wrote the book, The Star of Bethlehem: A Skeptical View, and a chapter for my upcoming anthology, Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion. I am doubly thankful for Adair's work. He not only used his expertise in science to debunk the faith-based claim of The Star of Bethlehem miracle, he also took the time to understand both the theology behind the supposed Bethlehem star and the apologetical gerrymandering surrounding that claim. His work is highly recommended.
Believers give lip service to science. Science has been very powerful as an knowledge provider such that they have to dress their faith up in it to give it some semblance of credibility. Wow! Only people of faith who are gullible will like this book. LINK.
Looks like the Kindle edition of my book How To Defend the Christian Faith made it to the front page of Christian Apologetics bestselling books by authors like Timothy Keller, Norman Geisler, Lee Stobel, Gregory Boyd and others. This happened in no small part because of Dawkins linking to it.
The Official Facebook Page for The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science just recommended my book. LINK. For those of you not on Facebook *gasp* I put a screenshot of it below. No doubt there are naysayers (both Christian and atheist) who'll claim Dawkins doesn't know enough about sophisticated theology to recommend my work. Maybe not. But he doesn't need to since he knows Christianity is a delusion from his own field of expertise. And he can read the blurbs from people who do. So about the naysayers I say this: If they had written a book--which they almost never do--wouldn't they be pleased with the exposure this gives their work? It's quite an honor! There is a lot of discussion taking place on his Facebook page too.
I know readers hear me say with each new anthology the latest one is the best one. But that's what I think. Here it is ready to be unleashed on the English speaking world, titled "Christianity in Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion." It's in honor of Victor Stenger. Pre-order it on Amazon by clicking here. I see Prometheus Books put up some blurbs of my other works there. Enjoy.
I see Prometheus Books put up some blurbs of my other works there. Enjoy.