“Morality Made Me an Atheist”
Even Christians can’t agree on “Christian” morality
Auntie Em—Dorothy’s aunt in The Wizard of Oz—wanted so much to tell off Miss Gulch: “Almira Gulch, just because you own half the county doesn't mean that you have the power to run the rest of us. For twenty-three years, I've been dying to tell you what I thought of you! And now...well, being a Christian woman, I can't say it!” Which means that Auntie Em wanted to live by the Golden Rule, “do unto others…” We applaud her for that, but it’s not uniquely Christian. How do we know exactly what constitutes Christian morality?
Bible Blunders & Bad Theology, Part 3
Merging Easter with Halloween
I’m sure Christian commitment can be rated, perhaps on a scale of 1 to 10. Those whom we would rate as “tens” are fervent, unshakable in their belief: they are the untouchables, the unreachables—in terms of getting them to grasp the incoherence of Christian theology. But then there are those at the other end of the scale, who would earn a “one” rating; even “lukewarm” would be a generous description. They would walk away from the faith—and many probably do—with little hesitation or regret.
There are those in the middle of the scale, the “fives,” who are regular churchgoers, but who admit—at least to themselves—that they have doubts. They go along with it all because church is what they do. But the right argument, or the wrong personal tragedy, might puncture faith, temporarily or forever.
Intro Outline for "The Incompatibility of God and Horrendous Suffering"
Faith and Equivocation
Whenever someone is defending faith, or is arguing that faith and reason are compatible, they should be asked which of three common meanings of the term they are thinking of. If the exact meaning of the word isn't made clear, it is almost a given that their claims will deteriorate into a mess of equivocation.
When challenged to provide evidence for the existence of God, most theists reply that their belief is based on faith. This makes it clear that, in this context, “faith” means belief without evidence. This meaning of the word also applies to the claim that faith is needed when the evidence isn't conclusive. Or in other words, when the believer says that reason can only take one so far, and one must make the decision to believe.
The Biggest Bible Embarrassment of All?
The author who said too much
There are so many Bible episodes that could be in the running for biggest embarrassment. Certainly the story of Noah has to be in the Top Ten. God is so annoyed by human sin he decides to kill everyone on earth except one family—even most of the animals have to die. How many millions of toddlers and babies were drowned? It’s sad that Bible writers thought this was good theology. Who needs a genocidal god with extreme anger management issues? But—there’s a way out: the Noah story didn’t happen, of course. It’s folklore, borrowed from other ancient folklore.
Dr. David Geisler On What Could Change My Mind
Labels: "Christian Scholars", David Geisler
Dumping Normal Rules of Evidence and Inquiry
Theology Gets a Free Pass to Make Things Up
Things We Wish Jesus Hadn’t Said
Text of my presentation at e-Conference on Atheism
We pose this challenge to theists: please tell us where we can find reliable, verifiable data about God—and all theists must agree: Yes, that’s where to find it. This never happens because theists don’t agree. For example, they usually claim that scripture is a source of data about God…but whose scripture? We see no effort on the part of Christians to expand the Bible to include the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon. They refuse to acknowledge that these books qualify as scripture.
Naturally, Christians adore the gospels. But these documents themselves present major problems, just in trying to figure out what Jesus did and said. Rembrandt has given us a portrait of a friendly, amiably Jesus. So my apologies to Rembrandt for puncturing this image in what I’m about to say.
Jim Spiegel, Whom I Previously Debated, Just Got Fired for "Little Hitler"
Labels: Jim Spiegel
Miracle Claims Asserted Without Relevant Objective Evidence Can Be Dismissed!
I recorded a video
talk for two virtual conferences this past Labor Day weekend, for the International
eConference on Atheism, put on by the Global Center for Religious Research, and for the Dragon Con Skeptic Track. I'm very grateful for these two opportunities. That video will be released sometime soon. In what
follows is the text of my talk. Please share if you want others to discuss it with you. Enjoy the discussion!
Today I’m arguing,
along the same lines as Christopher Hitchens did, that “What can be asserted
without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” [God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York,
Twelve. 2007), p.150.] Specifically I’m arguing that “Miracle Claims Asserted Without Relevant Objective Evidence Can Be
Dismissed. Period!”
I think all reasonable people would agree. Without any relevant objective evidence miracle claims shouldn’t be entertained, considered, believed, or even debunked. I intend to go further to argue that as far as we can tell, all, or almost all miracle assertions, lack any relevant objective evidence, and as such, can be dismissed out of hand, per Hitchens.
Labels: Bayes Theorem, Case against Miracles, ECREE
“Magic Lies at the Very Heart of Christianity”
Jesus: Exorcist, Magician, Lord and Savior
An Audio Edition of "The Case against Miracles" is Now Available!
Bible Blunders & Bad Theology, Part 2
Were the gospel writers incompetent or dishonest?
The Beginning
Why don’t we know more about young Jesus? The earliest New Testament author, the apostle Paul, betrays no interest in the ministry and teachings of Jesus, let alone where he came from.
If the Shoe Were on the Other Foot
“Christian belief,” this professor declared, “does not arise from assessment of evidence, but from stubborn closed-mindedness; it does not have its origin in the desire for knowledge but in arrogance and contempt. Christianity is the suppression of truth by hatred, the outgrowth of small-minded prejudice. In short, it is bigotry that is the mother of belief.”
Even strong atheists might admit that this goes too far. No wonder so many religious individuals feel as if they’re under siege. These days, it really does seem that there’s a war on certain types of belief.
The International eConference on Atheism is September 3-5 !!
When a Good Brain Collides with Bad Religion
…we get a happy ending
Is God Just?
[Another summer re-run.]
We nonbelievers claim that a perfectly good, loving being would never have created hell, but according to most Christians we are simply wrong. God is loving, they say, but he is also just — and justice demands that evil-doers be punished. Without hell, after all, where would the Hitlers, Stalins, and Ted Bundys of this world end up? In heaven?
This is a common argument, which means that many must find it persuasive, but my guess is that those who do simply haven't given it sufficient thought. It's very easy to see the flaws in it.
To begin with, hell isn't only for serious evil-doers: standard Christian doctrine maintains that we are all deserving of eternal punishment and that anyone who doesn't accept God's offer of salvation ends up there. A second thing to keep in mind is that even the worst evil-doers aren't necessarily sent to hell — not if at some point they become sincere believers. Ted Bundy, for instance, claimed to have accepted Jesus before being executed, and if that's true then on the standard view he did end up in heaven.
One therefore cannot justify hell on the grounds that evil-doers must be punished. But more importantly, can one still maintain that God is just given this doctrine? Does it make sense that all of us are deserving of eternal punishment, or that those who accept Jesus are forgiven?
"An Atheist Perspective" An Article I Wrote Just After My Deconversion
Bible Blunders & Bad Theology, Part 1
Everything you know about god(s) is (probably) rubbish
Could My Great Grandfather Tom Loftus Be Inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame? He Should Be!
Labels: Irish Ancestry, Tom Loftus
Jesus Reboot Fail: Resurrection Doesn’t Work
As we can figure out from the Bible itself
“A man ascending vertically from the Mount of Olives, by whatever means of miraculous propulsion, would pass into orbit.” So observed British scholar A. N. Wilson, gently ridiculing the story of Jesus’ departure into heaven described in Acts 1:9, “…as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.” As reported later in Acts 7:55-56, the about-to-be-martyred St. Stephen “…gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.” So, an orbiting Jesus wasn’t part of these fantasies.Yet Another Bible Chapter: More Trouble than It’s Worth
Blending superstition and bad theology
The Gathering Storm: Will Christianity Be Held Accountable?
Enough is enough
This comment was posted recently on one of my articles:“In what year did you become not just an atheist but a crusader against Christianity?
In what year did you acknowledge yourself as a homosexual?”
I found these questions about chronology a bit puzzling, but then it struck me that there was another agenda: to identify me as a zealot, and to make sure people know that I am gay. After all, what could be worse than an outspoken gay atheist?
On Trump, Covid-19, Cognitive Bias, and Evangelicals
Understanding what we’re truly up against — the reign of terror that Trump will almost surely wage the moment he believes he can completely prevail — makes the upcoming presidential election a true Armageddon. Vote as if your life depends on it, because it does.The Atlantic Monthly has put out a few great articles on Trump, Evangelicals, and the Coronavirus. The most important one is a theme of mine about cognitive bias with regard to faith and religion:
My Great Grandfather's Major League Baseball Legacy Has Been Settled!
Labels: Irish Ancestry, Tom Loftus
Sex and the Celibate Priest
Turning religion into an ordeal
“And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” (5:24)