Christians (and a few atheists) get butt hurt when we tell the truth that brain dead cold cadavers stay dead, that there's a zero chance one or more of them have ever come back to life. Here are the facts: 108 billion human beings have been born into the world (per one estimate), all of whom died except those still alive, 7.5 billion of us. Those of us alive will die and our deaths will be permanent just like all other species on the planet, who share with us a common ancestor, along with everyone yet to be born (no known estimates for this figure). I think we can safely say everyone born has died or will die, and never come back to life. While taxes may not always be a permanent state of affairs, death is.
Let me give an analogy. What are the odds I can fly to the Moon and back on my own via self-propulsion without the use of modern technology, not even oxygen tanks? Zero. Again, Zero.
JP415: "What is the Bayesian probability that Muhammad split the Moon in half, or that Hercules killed the Hydra? Sometimes satire is the most effective form of refutation."
In his classic analysis of religion, Treatise on the Gods, H. L. Mencken speculated on how it all began: “There must have been skeptics at the ringside when the first priest performed his hocus-pocus, and no doubt some of them, revolting against its transparent fraudulence, set themselves to find a better way to deal with flood, fire and famine.” But there were far more non-skeptics, those who were duped by the hocus-pocus. It was not Mark Twain who said: “Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool” (I don’t know who did, although Twain often gets the credit))—but it shows his flair for nailing the truth.
As somebody with a degree in mathematics, I look in disgust at every apologist who tries to use Bayes theorem to "establish the likelihood of the resurrection." Bayes theorem requires that we have an established background probability, and as far as I know, the dead stay dead. The background probability of coming back from the dead (after more than a few minutes) is 0.
Ask any school child and they'll tell you that zero times anything is always zero. Just more apologists trying to pull the wool over the eyes of their math ignorant flock.
Establish that people come back from the dead, and we can start talking about Jesus coming back from the dead.
If Lourdes worked there would be no reason for any cancer patient to bother with treatment - just bop over to Lourdes for your miracle. But, believers know that conventional medicine offers real hope, whereas trekking off to Lourdes is what you do when you've abandoned hope. The miracle claims from Lourdes have been analyzed and the Christian church's own attested cure rate is less than the natural remission rate for cancer. Likelihood of dying en route to Lourdes is orders of magnitude higher than the cure rate.
I have an axe to grind with the way Craig, Torley, et al. used Bayes’ Theorem. It just seems like a diversionary tactic. During a debate, they break out an equation and say, “Our methods are objective! See, we’ve even got a math formula to prove it.” But when you look at the formula, you see that it’s stuffed with a bunch of unproven assumptions. They should know better. Maybe they do.
GearHedEd:
They do. Craig's entire career has been an effort to become a "respected Christian Apologist". He was already committed before he went to college. And none of the "priors" that they stuff into their Bayes' Theorem Machine are reasonable. It all comes from poorly evidenced claims in the Bible, and gets a "pass" because of where it was found.
JP415:
Yeah, it's like, "Given our prior background knowledge that Superman came from the planet Krypton, it's entirely likely that he could fly and shoot laser beams from his eyes." You could just put any old thing in there and get the results you want.
I think this analysis is basically correct, and I wish to comment further.
I wish I could get Robert as a Team Member here at DC. Here's a quote for people who insist on following the latest Christian apologetic fad of trying to quantify unique miraculous claims in ancient history using Bayes' Theorem:
I don't know much about Bayes' Theorem, but I know it's August 1, 2017 and Jesus hasn't come back yet.
Here's another one highlighting the fact that faith is pretending to know what you don't know (think of the Sophists in Socrates's day):
Celsus repeatedly noted Christians boldly opine about all sorts of things they don't and can't know, and nothing has changed in the two millennia since. Jesusplaining Christians appear to think their convictions are some kind of "smart pill"--just witness the resident apologists who infest this site with their twaddle and who never cease to pontificate about everything from the ancient documents they read only in translation to particle physics to evolutionary biology.
In order to maintain a high quality of discussion in the comments box, I have made the executive decision to moderate all comments on all posts. This decision is effective immediately.
The following policies are in effect....5) This blog has a philosophical focus; the editors and authors aren’t interested in debating with readers who think philosophy is worthless or cannot understand the value of clearly defined terms. Comments along those lines will be blocked. LINK
Not having been a part of the discussions he refers to, it looks like he's feeling the heat from my book, Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, which mirrors Dr. Hector Avalos's call to end biblical studies as we currently understand them.
Listen, I have blocked people for various reasons, but never because someone merely disagreed with my views. One issue I have debated over the years is the existence of an apocalyptic prophet who was the basis for the Jesus we read about in the gospels. I have never silenced this debate here at DC, yet Lowder just censored a debate over the value of philosophy of religion. Pity, to think he claims to be interested in "genuine inquiry." Hypocrite! This is to be taken as another example of his hypocrisy.
But com’on, is Jesus their best reason for stepping up to the plate?
A young man named Matthew Vines has taken on a big challenge: trying to convince Evangelical Christians that their virulent opposition to homosexuality is wrong. Those very righteous people don’t seem to grasp that their anti-gay rhetoric is mean-spirited, destructive, evil. They may claim that they don’t hate gay people…no, they love them, and want to get them to turn away from sin. But they remain mired in aggressive and arrogant ignorance about gay people. They bring shame to theology.
Miracle claims aren't interesting to me because they cannot be verified. The best we can do is establish that the "miracle" in question was a result of natural phenomena at work. The best the apologist can do is claim that since science can't explain an event, it could be supernatural.
Until the day that some apologist has a reliable method to investigate their "supernatural", miracle claims are nothing more than empty claims, and can be dismissed.
Here is why internet celebrities are divisive. Because they can be. Since I'm against atheist divisiveness I have plenty to do, and in doing it I guess that makes me divisive too. I am against a cookie cutter-mentality, a one size fits all approach to capturing this planet for reason and science. I am against the attitude that we should all do this or think that, and if we don't we are ousted from the atheist ranks of the cool people. This reminds my of High School all over again, but it's happening.
Sometimes I just inadvertently back into these difficulties. Recently I liked this meme of Dr. David Madison's who posted a David Silverman quote. I Tweeted it and said, "Yep. Honesty requires atheists to tell the truth, not placate them, no more than doctors with patients." Controversy ensued.
Here's an accurate description of a faith based cult, per my friend Peter Bighossian's work. Watch up to the 3:15 mark. Listen up apologists, if this is not accurate description then what word would YOU use that best explains all of these similar examples that reject science based evidence?
This is the claim I made in a chapter for my book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist. Whenever an apologist makes an exception for their own faith, that same exception can be claimed by another sect in the Christian household, or another religion. Whenever an apologist uses an argument for their faith, that same argument can be claimed by another sect in the Christian household, or another religion.
They say Christianity is unique. Aren't all religions? They say miracles are possible. Don't other religions say that? They say their deity answers prayers. Others claim the same thing. They say they have a subjective experience of their deity. Don't they all? They claim a personal miracle. So do others. They quote their scriptures (or inspired people) as an authority to settle disputes. Don't others? They claim the existence of objective morality shows their god exists. So do others, even ISIS! They claim there is solid evidence for what they believe over all other religions, yet it does not convince others who believe in the supernatural.
They treat their own religion as special, that it has truer truth, and a better history. But in reality they're just more familiar with their own religion. Period! They cannot see what they're doing. They take for granted their faith is the one true one out of the myriads of religions of the past, present and future. Then taking this as the real reason for their faith, they special plead it all the way to market. But by special pleading their case they allow other religious faiths to walk through the same door. It doesn't defend their religious faith from the myriads of others out there, which is arguing fallaciously. This shows how desperate apologists are to defend what cannot reasonably be defended, and why reasonable people cannot believe.
A review of David Chumney’s new book, Jesus Eclipsed
Christians are the huddled, persecuted masses, yearning to breathe free—or so they would have us believe. After all, in the last few years a lot of folks have been ganging up on them. Gay people who want wedding cakes come to mind, but, more seriously, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins scorched Christianity with their bestselling atheist books—and these turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg. And then, of all things, a few scholars grabbed headlines with the suggestion that Jesus might not even have existed; they have published substantial works to make their case that a real Jesus is, well, iffy. Yes or no? Well, are you ready for some homework?
Did the Pope Just Reveal the Secret to a Christian Mystery?
Thanks to a recent circular letter to Catholic bishops, we may be a step closer to understanding a central Christian mystery, the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ—the bigliest nonfake news to come down the pike in two millennia, a landmark revelation that marks an exciting new era in theological transparency that merits the attention of New Testament scholars worldwide.
The Truth about Godby Franz Kiekeben speaks simply yet intelligently to readers who want a good primer for understanding why atheists don't believe. He expertly introduces them to a range of important issues in an easily understandable manner, and that's not an easy task to do. As such, this book fills a very needed gap. It's not so technical that it loses the average reader, nor is it so simple that it becomes simplistic. Well done!
Originally from Portugal, Kiekeben studied philosophy at the University of South Florida (where he was awarded the Undergraduate Prize by the Florida Philosophical Association), and at the Ohio State University, where he then lectured for seven years. He has written for Skeptic Magazine, published academic articles on determinism and on time travel, and blogs on atheism and related subjects at www.franzkiekeben.com.
Brain-dead corpses do not come back to life and fly off into outer space. Once a brain cell is dead it stays dead. This is a scientific fact. The regeneration of dead human tissue is Christianity's core belief, therefore Christianity is false.
It's as simple as that.
There may be an intelligent Creator, but if he exists, he (she, they, or it) has decided that the universe will operate under certain inviolable "laws". One of those laws is that when human tissue dies it stays dead. Your Reanimation of a Dead First Century Jewish Preacher story is therefore false until overwhelming evidence indicates otherwise. Alleged eyewitness testimony of this science-defying claim is insufficient.
In this book Loftus provides some insightful criticisms of arguments by Christian thinkers, including those having to do with the problem of evil.
Dr. Meister is a Professor of Philosophy at Bethel College and author of numerous apologetical works, including, Evil: A Guide for the Perplexed, where this recommendation can be found.
I've challenged this unrepentant believer to read my magnum opus. He is, and he's commenting on it. He thinks of himself as equal to the task of answering my doubts and others here. Can he? He's reading my chapter on prophecy, where I ask how his god has the required foreknowledge to predict the future of human free willed agents with certainty. I examine four different models and Camp defends one. Here's Camp:
Theological. God decrees everything that happens, he can know the future of every human action, since humans don't have the freedom to do otherwise. "Such a theology creates atheists. It, more than anything else, is what motivates me to attempt to demolish the Christian faith." - Loftus
God is outside time. If God is outside of time he would have no problems predicting future human actions since human actions are not actually in the future. God would merely be seeing the present from his perspective. “We have on hand no acceptable concept of atemporal causation, i.e., of what it is for a timeless cause to produce a temporal effect.” - Davis. “If God is truly timeless,” Hasker says, “so that temporal determinations of ‘before’ and ‘after’ do not apply to him, then how can God act in time, as Scriptures say that he does? - Hasker
The Inferential View. On this view, God figures out from the range of options which choices we will make. "If the history of an empire or nation is already part of the divine plan, how can God hold the leaders, and indeed the peoples themselves, accountable for their actions?" then their thoughts and actions are so preordained as to render them devoid of free will. - Callahan. "How, for instance, can anyone living in the year 2000, God or otherwise, innately know what someone will do on January 1, 2050? So the bottom line for me is that if there is no known mechanism or reason given for how a God in time can foreknow future truly free human actions, then I have reasons to reject that God can foreknow such actions." - Loftus
The Innate View. On this view, God has innate comprehensive knowledge of the future. He just “sees it” because he is omniscient. But this isn't an explanation at all.
Could we put please all Christians on a Bible-reading regimen? We can ask them to read each chapter of the Bible, then sign off on each one. That is, we’d like them to read each chapter carefully, very carefully, then check a few boxes: (1) Yes, I believe that this is the word of God; (2) Yes, I will let this chapter be a guide for my life; (3) Yes, I really believe this is the way the world works. They could be assured that their answers would remain confidential—to boost chances for honesty. At the end of this experiment, I predict that most of the chapters wouldn’t have checkmarks. There’s a reason that Mark Twain said, “The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible,” and Hector Avalos is probably right that 99 percent of the Bible would not be missed. (“Why Biblical Studies Must End,” The End of Christianity, John Loftus, ed., p. 109)
Christian Apologists Keep on Churning Out Flimflam
I have suggested, in a previous post here on 2 June 2017—that the story of Jesus ascending to heaven, i.e., floating up to exit Earth’s atmosphere—qualifies as the New Testament’s Biggest Lie. Anyone with the least shred of common sense, knowledge of a rotating, orbiting Earth, and any appreciation for the line between fact and fiction/fantasy, knows that no such thing happened. There are a lot of folks, however, for whom skepticism about received religious tradition never kicks in. Compare this with fantasies about Superman; a six-year old may be awed by the Superman comics/movies, but by age ten, chances are, healthy skepticism has kicked in. And from that age on, Superman is enjoyed—using the term of old friend of mine—as “good schoolboy adventure.” Great fun, Yes. History—well, of course not.
I had a discussion about faith with Christian apologist Tom Gilson on Facebook. You need to read it. He blogs at Thinking Christian and edited the book True Reason. *cough* Our discussion began with a video and my initial salvo:
In the clip above forget about Mel Robbins's religiously charged language and whether talk of motivation is garbage. She hits it when she forcefully and eloquently says:
"The way that our minds are wired...is that we are not designed to do things that are uncomfortable or scary or difficult. Our brains are designed to protect us from those things because our brains are trying to keep us alive.....The way our minds are designed is to stop us at all costs from doing anything that might hurt us."
Robbins goes on to say we're just one decision away from having a new life! But our brains keep us from choosing it because it's uncomfortable scary or difficult. When we come upon a new life changing idea we hesitate. That's our brains keeping us from changing our lives.
--------------
I think this is the number one reason why believers don't abandon their faith in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are made comfortable with their myths in a society of believers who reinforce each other, especially when there's a hell to pay if they get it wrong. So because of our evolved brains atheists face a monumental uphill two-steps-forward-one-step-backward struggle. Belief is easy. Doubt is hard. Belief is still socially acceptable. Doubt could separate us from our loved ones.
I have a friend named Mark who attended a lecture I did about six months ago for the FreeThought Fort Wayne group we're a part of where I handed him a copy of my book, "The Outsider Test for Faith." Sheila saw him yesterday. They talked. She asked him if he has read it. He said he's picked it up a few times but got a "weird" feeling about it, so he put it down. That was his brain dong the talking. The reason he won't even read the book is because he doesn't want to doubt. That's because doubt is hard. If he ever decides to read it he'll probably do as another good friend of mine did, named Brenda. I handed her a copy of my magnum opus and she said this prayer every time she opened it: "Dear Lord, don't let me be deceived by what I read today." This was her brain doing the talking. It was keeping her closed-minded while she read it.
So I put it to you. Given this fact about our brains how can we come to know the truth about which religion is true, if there is one? Remember, our brains have a vested interest in keeping us away from the truth, if the truth is something we were not raised to believe. Taken together with another fact, the fact of religious diversity, we know most people, billions of them, have been raised to believe something false. I've proposed we should treat what we were raised to believe with doubt as agnostic outsiders, who require sufficient objective evidence before we accept any religion, or none at all. What's wrong with my proposal? What is the alternative? I'm serious. Be honest
Tom Gilson "overwhelming evidence to the contrary"? Sorry. No.
John W. Loftus: Tom, our brains will even keep us from seeing that there is "overwhelming evidence to the contrary." Clinical studies confirm this.
"Religious freedom will be protected for decades to come."
ephemerol comments:
Since the freedom to practice your religion, at least to the extent that it does not impinge upon the freedom of others, is not now, nor has it ever been under threat, I think what you meant was, "Religious privilege will be protected for decades to come." Religious privilege to expressly impinge upon the freedom of others. Religious privilege to be intolerant and bigoted.
