Was Hitchens right: Does religion poison everything?
No. But it does far more harm than good
In the end, it is not what you believe that is crucial but who you believe. A person may believe all the doctrine he is taught as a kid in a Christian home and still not be a believer because he is not trusting in the person or the mercy of God.Surely you have heard this said before. I said it. Every ex-Christian has probably said it. So Camp tells us nothing we haven't considered before. Nothing. Yet he may think it's profound. It's not profound at all. It's a mess of words intended to confuse truly inquiring minds and obfuscate (or hide) the truth from minds like Camp himself--who mindlessly wrote them!
It depends on your interest, and/or ignorance, so take a look at my book descriptions and see for yourself.
My challenge to you is to pick one, any one, and read through it. If you come to a book that does not tell you something significant you haven't considered before, then stop reading my books. But if each successive book does tell you something significant you haven't considered before, keep reading them until you're done with them all. If cost is a factor then get them at your local library.
Even if you should choose to read my co-written book, "God or Godless," because you want a Christian apologist to help you think through the issues, that won't help you! As Led Zeppelin sang, when the levee breaks "crying won't help you; praying won't do you no good." ;-)
You have no more excuses.
Be well.
All in all, this volume is a worthy collection of essays to the effect that science interacts with considerable violence against the claims of the Christian religion and, by extension of some of the arguments, against religion more generally...I would rate this book as a must-read for anyone interested in the matter of religion versus science. After all, it is a fundamental schism in human experience. As Bertrand Russell used to say (I paraphrase): In science there is knowledge, but in religion there is only opinion.
Alan Kurdi, a child in a refugee family, died on September 2, 2015 |
Labels: "Avalos"
Seven years ago I challenged Christians to take the Debunking Christianity Challenge and I've been doing so ever since. Just like previous years I'm proposing twelve reasonably priced college level books to read, one per month. You can read them in any order you like but read them!
My challenge is for Christians to read our books and test their faith to see if it can withstand our arguments. As I have argued most believers do not seriously question their faith. Do you want to be different than other believers? Do you want to do what most of them don't do? Then take the 2013 DC Challenge. I challenge you! Hey, what do you have to lose? If the books cause you to become stronger in your faith that's good, right? But if your faith cannot survive our assault then we've done you a favor. No more soundbites. No more reading one blog post at a time. Sit down for yourselves and read through whole books written by the skeptics.
My point about William Bradford was that we have reports of the history of Plymouth Plantation from only a few people, the primary one being William Bradford. Can we actually know anything without trusting Bradford's account - having faith in his report?I ask my readers to answer his questions since they are so easy to do with reference to the Gospels and Camp's god. Have at it. I see he's respectful but there are major differences between these two cases, something he just cannot see because faith blinds him. School him but try being respectful if you can. For my part it's simply unbelievable that this is what it takes to believe in the gospels and/or in Camp's god.
My second question is whether that is real knowledge since the basic evidence would be the journal of William Bradford.
Final question is how we might test the reliability of Bradford's account.
The cigarette industry did not want consumers to know the harms of its product, and it spent billions obscuring the facts of the health effects of smoking. This search led Robert Proctor to create a word for the study of deliberate propagation of ignorance: agnotology.Let me put it to you, my readers. Are Christian apologists purveyors in agnotology? Are they deceivers or the deceived? How many of them aim to deceive, if so? How do we know they aim to deceive, if so? What kind of mental gymnastics do they use in justifying their deceit, if so? If instead they are merely deceived, who or what is deceiving them? Since they're deceived what are the best ways to convince the brainwashed, the deluded and the indoctrinated that they are in fact deceived? Can this be done at all? I'll be testing ideas for my next book/anthology in the coming month or so. Please chime in. Ask others to chime in. The assumption is that Christianity is false to the point of a delusion. Since this is the case what then of Christian apologists?
It comes from agnosis, the neoclassical Greek word for ignorance or ‘not knowing’, and ontology, the branch of metaphysics which deals with the nature of being. Agnotology is the study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win favour. LINK.
Labels: Virgin birth
Labels: Unapologetic
Labels: Virgin birth
Labels: Virgin birth