Yep, that's what I've concluded. Theirs is a faith that must dismiss the tragedy of death. It does not matter to them who dies, how many people die, or what the circumstances are when they die. It could be the death of a mother whose baby depends upon her for milk during the first few months of life. It could be a pandemic like cholera that decimated parts of the world in 1918, or the more than 23,000 children who die every single day from starvation. These deaths could be by suffocation, drowning, a drive-by shooting, or being slowly burned to death. It doesn't matter to them. Their God is good. Death doesn't matter. People die all of the time.
Sometimes I lose patience when I have to respond to the same ill-informed drivel week after week that I just decided to make a post about it. It's claimed that since Prometheus Books is an ideologically driven publishing house it's not an objective publisher and should be regarded as inferior to some other publishers. Let's think about this, okay?
It's curious to me how often most Christians just do not think about some things. Has it ever occurred to you how human beings first learned what killed us? Take lead poisoning for instance. Do you know that people had to die before we could figure it out? Then think about all of the poisonous plants and venomous creatures. People had to die from eating certain plants and being bitten by certain creatures before we knew what not to do. Take polluted water. Same thing. Read the book, The Ghost Map and see for yourself. You see, there was no other way. None. And if a good God existed and put us in this environment he didn't do us any good. At best a good God would've told us in advance to avoid the kinds of things that will kill our daughters, fathers, husbands and wives. But he didn't. So he knew in advance people would have to die tragic and sudden deaths before we could figure it out.
It started just like many religious sectarian wars do. One blogger who regards himself as a “true” biblioblogger accused another blogger of being a “false” bliblioblogger. In this case the true biblioblogger is supposed to be Jim West, who first issued the accusation, and the false biblioblogger is supposed to be John Loftus. John Loftus responds that West is just afraid that a secularist is fast gaining ground in the biblioblogosphere. Who is right?
Since I don't have a doctorate and the title to my blog is an attention getter some Christian scholars don't think much of me when they first hear of me. Don't misunderstand me. I do have some credentials. To see them just click on my profile page (later Dr. Hector Avalos is going to compare my credentials with those of Jim West). As an atheist I have been honored to speak at a Midwest regional meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and was a panelist for the annual Society of Biblical Literature last year. In February I'm debating Dinesh D'Souza at the University of Illinois. So this should all say something I'd guess. But to those still unpersuaded let me show you the respect I have gained from some Christian scholars because of my arguments. I have regularly engaged Christian philosophers and apologists here at DC, some of whom you know.
Well, I did it folks. I bested all but two Bibliobloggers in rankings this month, the other results can be found here. This has caused no small problem for some Bible bloggers, since they just can't stand the fact that a Blog named "Debunking Christianity" outranked nearly all of them. Now some of them are personally attacking me.
Apparently, the list was shut down because of me, one lone secular Bible blogger! ;-) Now they'll attack me because I'm crowing about it. But then there is no bigger rooster than Jim West who crowed about his ranking every single month when he was at the top of the list. If someone starts another list I'll be sure to apply for that one too. Whatever criteria they use to exclude me will exclude others, maybe lots of others, including Jim West himself, if the criteria is changed to say one must have an earned doctorate from a recognized accredited institution! ;-) I didn't mean to cause this much trouble. I just wanted to be included. But it has been fun to see their reaction, that's all. More later...
Yep, Christian Bloggers are upset about the fact that I bested nearly all of them this month, being ranked 4th over most all of them (maybe 3rd if we wait until tomorrow to see). Now come the personal attacks. They'll claim it's because I crowed about this feat, which I did, and that I attacked Jim West's credentials, which you can see both Dr. Hector Avalos and I did, although West attacked my credentials to be a Biblioblogger first. They'll also say it's because I criticized an argument of his, which I did. But the bottom line is that West and the rest just can't stand it. And they're censoring my comments, so in the interests of fairness I'll post what I said for you to judge for yourself whether my latest comment should be censored:
This poll was suggested to me by Craig A. James and it's a good one. This time before starting the poll I'd like your input. I have Ray Comfort, Dinesh D'Souza (a friend of mine I'll admit), James White, Oral Roberts, Ken Hamm, and possibly JP Holding. Were there any high profile scandals I'm missing, or others you'd like to see included? Other nominees can be suggested below. Tell me why you think they should be included.
Then he is perpetrating a sham, trying to push himself and his work off as a credible scholar from a recognized institution. A comment from Dr. Hector Avalos alerted me to this. Sounds like Jim "protests too much" doesn't it? Here is what I found:
Jim West just can't take it, 'cause that means he can't crow anymore about his monthly rankings. Sorry Mr. Bible Belt, but you just got roped in by this cowboy. Your time is over, you has-been. So now he's resorted to slamming me not just once, but twice. For the record, I'm now ranked in 4th place among Bibliobloggers at Alexa, coming in at 223,352, overtaking the prolific James McGrath, who's definition of a miracle includes such a feat. No wonder they don't want to do the list anymore, 'cause who wants it known that a site called "Debunking Christianity" beat out most Bible Blogs. This is a smack down, I'd say, and I was only getting started. ;-)
Derren Brown is a skeptic who tried to get various religious leaders to embrace and endorse his spiritual powers. The episodes I recommend here have to do with Derren converting other skeptics with the touch of his hand in front of an evangelical pastor, and he pulled it off! What the hell went on here? Who are we as human beings? This stuff puzzles me to no end. Is it just the era we live in, or the human mind that has a transcendental temptation? See for yourself, especially episodes 2-4 below.
Here is what I think as I went through the archives. See what you think. It seems as though I lean heavily toward later posts because they are fresh on my mind, but then again maybe it's because I keep getting better and better! Here's the countdown:
Here at DC I try to carry on a reasonable discussion with people who disagree with me. In the interests of fairness, what do you think of Pat Condell's approach below? I agree with him that Christian beliefs are ridiculous. And I know many Christians think atheism is ridiculous. What if both sides in this debate approached each other as Condell suggests? Many of them do.
If you want to read these testimonies you need to visit or bookmark Ex-Christian.net. They're coming from a wide variety of backgrounds. And they're doing so for a wide variety of reasons because there are so many reasons to do so.
Here are the lecture videos from Atheist Alliance International 2009 conference, in descending order of awesomeness as posted by Luke of Common Sense Atheism:
Yep, last month I ranked eighth place over more than 350 Bible Blogs. It annoyed them so much they decided to quit doing the list, especially since they could see I was climbing it this month! Ha! One lone secular Bible Blogger shut it all down! They could see me coming and we can't have that, now can we? Jim West decided to do one himself anyway and among the top ranked Blogs from last month DC climbed to 6th place! Here's who made it to the top 15 (notice West couldn't bring himself to list the names of our Blogs, 'cause who wants it known that "Debunking Christianity" beat out so many of them):
Who do you think is doing this? Christians, that's who, evangelicals. This is the mind of the believer where no evidence is required except an accusation:
I can prove I'm sitting at my computer, that I have children, that I have a wife, and that I wrote a book. I can prove all sorts of negative claims with regard to these things. I can prove I am not sleeping or playing ball right now (negative claims). I can show you I'm not doing these things by having an online chat right now on my computer. I can prove I am not childless. If you ask me to prove I'm not childless, then birth certificates and DNA evidence should do the trick. I can prove I am not single. If you ask me to prove I am not single I can show you my marriage certificate, and my wife. I can also prove I am not a non-author (notice how I phrased it?). That is, I can prove a negative, plenty of them, easily.
"A debate before a packed house at the University of Hawaii with Professor of Physics Victor Stenger in which Craig and Stenger square off on such issues as the Big Bang and the beginning of time, the odds of the fine-tuning of the constants and quantities requisite for life, evil and moral values, religious experience, and many more."
She's a great gal, don't get me wrong. But as a good Lutheran with a family that's what she said over the holiday season about the religious questions I raise. She prefers to be ignorant. Ignorance is bliss, right? It's not that she isn't intelligent, because she is. It's not that she isn't educated, because she's a Nurse Practitioner. She knows enough to know that if she were to question her faith it could lessen her faith. She knows enough to know that she doesn't have the time to investigate her faith given her busy life. She knows the struggle it would produce in her to believe. She knows enough to know that. I don't think this position is defensible at all, but at least she's honest. I wonder how many other believers have an ostrich type head-in-the-sand approach to their faith and what would happen if they all decided to become informed?
When I hear this song by Bruce Springsteen I think of my sweetheart wife Gwen. She's wonderful. She's my best supporter and my best friend. There are some Christian people who can boast about being married for 30-50 years or more. But they aren't happy in a loveless relationship. They're just fulfilling a commitment made when they were around 20 years old or so. To everyone at this season I wish you all the love I've found. If men my age only knew her the way I do I'd have to literally fight them off.
This post provides official notification of my intention, on or immediately prior to the 25th of December 2009, to wish readers of my blog a Merry Christmas. If you are likely to find such expression of Christmas greetings/wishes offensive, you are hereby asked to refrain from reading any and all posts on this blog which may have Christmas, Noel, or other synonymous terminology in the title which may be posted between midnight of December 24th and midnight of December 26th Eastern Standard Time. No responsibility is taken for computers whose clock settings may cause them to view a post in this category outside the specified time frame.
The full-blown fundamentalist version of the “Christmas story” is truly pernicious. In the last couple years, I’ve thought about the imagery of Christmas (the child archetype) and the traditions we all enjoy which can be separate from Christianity (See previous articles). This year, I read a piece by Billy Graham called “You can know the Christ of Christmas,” and was reminded of all that is wrong with this religion, and how it can taint so much about life. I felt so sad reading this because as a humanist, it seems so wrong to denigrate who we are as human beings.
I can remember when growing up nearly everyone called July 4th "Independence Day." It wasn't July 4th so much as it had a name. When referring to celebrations on that day we didn't say "have a great 4th," we said "have a great independence day." So at this season when there is a war on Christmas let me say, "Have a happy 25th." Sure, it may not seem to have a ring to it, but then who knows what the future will bring?
I carry on various discussions via emails, blogs and on Facebook. Here's an interesting one that took place recently over at Vox Popoli that I'll pick up in midstream:
December twenty-first is winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. That makes the 22nd the first day of more sun! Let me spell that out. Beginning this week we're on a path toward "sun breaks" and dry sidewalks, a time when people will take their fleeces off for long enough to wash them, a time that pet poop will dry out enough that your kids can scoop it off the lawn. Anyone who thinks that winter solstice couldn't possibly have spawned the rich array of celebrations that we now call Yule and Christmas and Divali and Hannukkah and Kwanzaa never lived in Seattle.
It's not just that we disagree with each other. It's how poorly some people argue for what they think. Some people do not even understand an argument enough to respond to it properly. Therefore I call upon every person who has not already taken a basic critical thinking class to read through this entire entry. Cheers.
[Written by John W. Loftus] When I went to Bible College I was not educated. I was indoctrinated. While other believers will protest that their Christian college was different, I wonder if that's true. In order to test this let me explain my experience, compare it with what a good education is, and see what you think. Okay?
The year 2009 was the international year of astronomy in celebration the 400th anniversary of Galileo's Work. Here's a great video survey of astronomy:
Here's an excerpt from a recent "Release and Reclaim" retreat where former DC Team Member Dr. Marlene Winell outlines 7 steps towards recovering from indoctrination by authoritarian religions.
Carrier argues that Nazareth probably existed in the time of Jesus and that the movie Zeitgeist is "absolute garbage." Don't fall for the arguments to the contrary, especially when it comes to that movie.
Recently I wrote on Why I Think The Rapture Madness is Indeed Madness. Now I've learned there is a way for believers who love their pets to buy insurance so that they will be taken care of by atheists after the rapture. Yep, that's right!
Anyone care to count how many of these pictures are about suffering through wars, floods, and the like? Link. Only a Pollyanna can look at this carnage and sing this song. ;-) Play the song while looking at the pictures if you can! I know, I know, believers will say this is not God's fault. Nothing is, right? But if a business was in this much disarray the CEO should be fired (remember, like God, he too must deal with human beings)!
Today is the winter solstice. The sun has halted its northerly trek and is headed back toward the equator for the spring equinox. Atheists, what are you doing in celebration today? ;-) And what do you do on the Summer Solstice (June 24th)? Why celebrate one rather than the other? And why even do it when we no longer worship the sun? I just celebrate having family and friends during this season.
[Written by John Loftus] I want to continue a discussion I started right here and followed up on here, about a time when God blew it on national TV to answer a high profile prayer by three contestants (self described "prayer Warriors") in a reward challenge for food during an episode of CBS's Survivor.
Recently I wrote on this issue here. I've been reading through Doherty's book The Jesus Puzzle since then. It's a great read and very provocative. He does as good as I would expect in arguing there never was a historical Jesus. Nonetheless there is a problem as I see it.
Are Christians kidding me that this universe is fine tuned for life when so much of it is lifeless? Vast areas of this universe cannot support life, probably 99.9999% of it. And are they also kidding me that the whole purpose of creation was to test human souls for entrance into heaven? Why couldn't an omnipotent God who created the laws of the universe and who could also do perpetual miracles need this vast universe? All he needed to do was create a flat earth with human beings on it!
It calls on people to display respect for those with whom they disagree; to debate issues, not demonize opponents; to stop misrepresenting opponents' views; and to stop circulating e-mail messages that "demonize or humiliate persons or groups."
One of the main charges against atheists is that we have no basis for morality. Many early atheists like Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus echoed the same thought. But we are now entering a new era. Sam Harris is a moral realist. So also is Richard Carrier, Link. Michael Shermer seems to be one as well who argues: "Moral principles are provisionally true—that is, they apply to most people in most cultures in most circumstances most of the time." These moral principles are based in the universality of human nature; who we are and what we want. We want to be happy, holistically happy. This is an end in and of itself that needs no further justification. As we figure out what makes us happy we should do it. It can be expressed like this: "Since humans want to be happy we should therefore do X." Here is a follow-up post on this same subject.
If you hold to a pre-incarnate existence for Jesus, then there has been one human in the entire course of history that actually got to choose--before birth--whether he would be predominantly right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. In fact, by holding to a virgin birth, it was absolutely necessary for Jesus to pick out His specific DNA, prior to being born. Could not let the chips fall where they may, because Joseph was not providing any.
Under Christian theology, humans have the free will choice to accept or reject God and to follow or reject the temptation of sin. Assuming this version of reality is true, what happens when you go to heaven? Do you stop wanting to sin? Is it impossible to sin? Or can you still choose to reject God and be sent to hell?
I recently pointed out how a high profile prayer on national TV was not answered by God. I claim this as yet another piece of evidence that God doesn't answer prayers even if he exists, which he does not. So along come the Christian wannabe apologists, and guess what, surprise...
You might try to guess which group put this image up on a Billboard in New Zealand. D'ya think it's from an atheist group making fun? No, not at all. It's from St. Matthew-in-the-City Church. Since I've previously written on how to increase traffic to your Blog or site this is an example of it. It gets attention. So also does the title to this post of mine. Controversy gets people talking. So okay, let's talk about it.
Over the last 5 years National Geographic has conducted “The Genographic Project” to establish human origins. They have tested the DNA of approximately 35,000 people and what they have found will have a profound impact, especially on inerrant bible believing Xtians.
Why? The study has shown that ALL males share the same Y chromosome (Male Y chromosome is passed on unchanged from generation to generation), which traces back to a single male – Adam, in the Garden of Eden, 4,000 BC, right? – No, the East Coast of Africa, 50-60,000 BC (let’s call him Alpha Y).
Last night God blew it. Plain and simple. He had a chance to show the world he answers prayers. But he was a no-show, which is par for the course, again. The episode took place during the reward challenge and starts at 3:30 through 14:40 seen here in this link (sorry about the ads). Natalie and two others prayed to win the challenge, calling herself a "prayer warrior." Watch what happened. Oh, but nothing will change the mind of a believer, right? It just wasn't God's will, right? Failed prayer is always explained away like this. But then what could ever count as evidence against faith?
When apologist type Christians hear our deconversion stories they probe to look at something we didn't say (a precise set of words) or do (like pray the sinners prayer, or baptism) in order to claim we were never Christians in the first place. There are other cases when believers or churches do something terribly wrong that self-proclaimed apologists for the faith will claim these other believers or churches were not true Christians either. Okay then. Below is an article defining once and for all what is a Christian. It's such a quagmire that even believers themselves cannot agree. I find it absolutely hilarious that any of these apologists has the gall to tell anyone else what is a Christian. ;-)
Over at God is for Suckers there is an informative post about the spear that supposedly pierced Jesus when on the cross: Allegories Gone Wild – The Shish-Kebab Of Destiny. Isn't this laughable? The religious imagination is rich isn't it? But it's just one of the reasons I reject such fantasy. It gets worse. Did you know there is one piece of the flesh of Jesus still on earth? Can't guess? Take some time. Think circumcision. Yep! Not long ago Ed Babinski wrote about it: Indiana Jones and the Quest for the Holy Foreskin. These relics have healing power you know. Who wants to kiss the Holy Foreskin? Apparently many do. Step right up and get in line. Yeeeeeach! Now if we can just know where it is or if it exists. [Hi Tyro ;-)]
I never cease to be amazed by how little the Bible-believing Protestants, who constitute most of the soldiery in the Christmas wars, know about their own tradition.
Oral Roberts was a kook. What better person then to be known as a pioneer for what the American church has become! ;-) The problem is that he will never realize he was wrong since he will never wake up from the dead. In any case here is a news item summarizing his life:
It's simply amazing that Christians accept the findings of science in every single area except the few having to do with their ancient holy book. That's one of the reasons why David Eller argues there is no debate between science and religion. [Read and vote on my review of his book right here]. The debate is rather between specific local religions and specific scientific claims. Why the duplicity? Why the double standard? Why not just throw out all science in order to maintain faith? Why not?
"Andrew J. (Jack) Good, author of The Bible: Faith’s Family Album (Chalice Press 1998), is an ordained pastor of the United Church of Christ. Educated at Boston University School of Theology, the Maxwell School at Syracuse University (International Relations), and the Lancaster Theological School, Dr. Good has practiced his socially oriented theology in pastorates for over forty years. He has lived in villages in Pakistan and Bangladesh and has, through these and other experiences, formed a great respect for other cultures and other ways of worshiping God." Here's a great review of his book The Dishonest Church:
I had started in September with what I call the Argument From Ignorance, Part I of which can be found here. This is Part II, the final part. Sorry it took me so long.
There are different types of critiques of Christianity. Each one of them stresses something different coming from different areas of expertise. Some of the major areas of criticism come from 1) The sciences, especially evolution and brain science; 2) Biblical and historical criticism; 3) Philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion; 4) Archaeology; 5) Cultural anthropology; 6) Psychology; and, 7) Social and moral criticism of the Bible and the church. There are others. Which one do you think is more effective? Christian which one gives you the most trouble?
[Written by John W. Loftus] Being a philosopher of religion specializing in the analysis of ancient religions and a biblical scholar to boot, Dr. Gericke has written what can be considered a refutation of Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology. "The trouble with Craig and and Plantinga," he tells me, "is that their philosophy of religion conveniently ignores the problems posed for their views by the history of Israelite religion. They might as well try to prove Zeus exists. People sometimes forget 'God' used to be Yahweh and it is possible to prove from textual evidence that 'there ain't no such animal.'"
Previously I posted an amazing deconversion story written by Dr. Gericke right here. Then I posted something from him on how he got over his angst at leaving the Christian faith right here. In what follows he writes on the issue of cognitive dissonance (used with permission):
One of the most important tools for promulgating religion is fear, and one of the biggest sources of fear is the inescapable fact of personal mortality: we're all going to die someday, and we all know people we've loved who have died. Religion steps up to the challenge of death in its usual glib and dishonest way, and promises a mysterious "afterlife," in which you'll get to go on being you despite the inconvenience of your flesh rotting away. None of the proponents of this belief have the slightest scrap of evidence for their claims, other than an appeal to emotion and desire, and sometimes some really bad experiments and sloppy observations of phenomena that vanish when a little rigor is applied.
David Bourget and David Chalmers have released the results of the largest survey of professional philosophers ever conducted. There were 931 respondents from 99 leading philosophy departments around the world. Luke over at Common Sense Atheism tells us some of the results:
I want you to think about it rather than regurgitate the standard pat answers from the Bible itself. Just think about it. I attended a funeral this weekend and my brother conducted the memorial service. In it he warned us that "the wicked will end up in hell." At the funeral dinner I asked him if he thought I was going to be in hell and he responded: "Only God can judge." Now think about this, okay?...and be consistent. Is it just that believers cannot say what their theology commits them to when it comes to a family member? Look your non-committal family members in the eye and tell them they are going to hell. Can't do it? Why? That's what you preach. And then think about this song:
In a mocking YouTube video Bill Craig tells us he wants to debate Richard Dawkins. There is even a petition Christians have set up for this debate to happen and a discussion about it at Richard Dawkins.net. Here's a clip being linked to by Christian sites where Dawkins declines:
C. Michael Patton has come up with a list of essentials that true Christians must believe along with a chart that supposedly distinguishes what is non-essential from unimportant beliefs. Here are the essentials according to him:
This is unbelievably good! Some girl is showing us video clips of Christian rappers and then singing one herself. Way too funny. Christians are repressed sexually. No wonder so many of them are obsessed about it. If you want to skip her intro on sex education then start watching at 2:19.
All I know at this point is that someone is working on it. I do not know if Dr. Craig has been asked or whether he has agreed. I'll leave it to the bookies to take your bets and set the odds. D'ya think there's a chance? Link. Would you like to see it?
This is an appendix to his Ph.D. dissertation written in 2003, which he has granted me permission to share. Dr. Gericke is also writing a chapter for my work in progress. Listen up Christian, does this sound like a person who wanted to reject God? No way in hell! It is the story of us all. We wanted the gospel to be true. We put our whole lives into serving God. It is quite literally life shattering to find out we were wrong. What you'll read below also describes why it's so damned hard to help Christians see their faith for the delusion it is. It's because you want it to be true. It's because it would be life-shattering for you to admit you're wrong.
* Best Atheism Books of the Decade, 2000-2009
* Top 20 Evil Bible Stories
* Top 10 Atheism Blogs
* 6 Responses to Religious Diversity
* Top 10 Atheist Songs
* 100+ Living Philosophers of Religion and Their Best Work
* 50+ Christian vs. Muslim Debates
* 90+ Free Audiobooks About Religion
* 400+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates
In a history of the holidays video, learn about the origins of Christmas. Although many of us only associate the birth of Christ with the holiday, most of us do not realize that many aspects of Christmas come from different winter celebrations. See this link to several "History Channel" videos
It is said that if metaphysical naturalism is true there is no ultimate meaning, ultimate morality, nor is there a basis for the uniformity of regular laws of nature. It's correct there is no ultimate meaning nor is there any ultimate morality, even if there is meaning and there is morality. Meaning and morality do not depend on anything ultimate. I should still love my wife for consequentialist reasons even if there are no ultimate reasons. I even find the notion of "ultimate" to be a bit meaningless. Based on this and as a non-scientist let me throw out one suggestion about the uniformity of nature to see the reaction. In the same way there is no ultimate uniformity of nature either. There is uniformity which we can rely on for science. But there is no ultimate uniformity, whatever that is, because of the quagmire of quantum mechanics. On a microscopic level it's a bizarre world.
By and large the minds of the ridiculous can't be changed. It's their flock we're talking to. But even the ridiculous change under ridicule some respond by getting more ridiculous (and those are the ones who could never be swayed even by the politest methods), but others accumulate shame until they see the error of their ways (I've met many ex-evangelicals who have told me exactly that). Thus, ridicule converts the convertible and marginalizes the untouchable. There is no more effective strategy in a culture war.
This new one-hour HD (High Definition) video chronicles the life of D.M. Bennett, the nineteenth century’s most controversial publisher and American free-speech martyr. Link
Since I'll be debating D'Souza on February 10th at the University of Illinois I'm studying his debates. Check this out. The other parts can be found there as well.
Parents beware! The younger generation is rejecting the faith of their fathers and the rise of the internet is making a great impact on them. Today's music, movies, and video games are also making an impact.
Get over it Christian. Your reign is over. This is a more diverse population. Be happy that your child isn't forced to sing Jewish Hanaka songs. And since you so often want to ignorantly claim that atheism is a religion then be happy your child doesn't have to sing songs written by Dan Barker.
Check out this article that demonstrates the incoherence of the idea of the soul at QuIRP.
Abstract: The concepts of the "Soul" and "Free Will" are tightly coupled and are misunderstandings of emergent properties of complex biological systems due to fallacious causal oversimplifications and are, in effect, a phenomena analogous to a rainbow. In the case of a soul that is separate from the self it would be judged by God for actions it did not condone. In the case of the soul as the self, the soul is locked into the body every night during REM sleep and is catastrophically impaired by malfunctions of the body it resides in. While religions are divided on whether animals have souls and/or spirits, with or without them, animals have some of the same types of cognitive abilities as humans and they get along well within their biological limitations. The philosophical soulless zombie as the null hypothesis for souls fits with established knowledge better than the "soul" described in unauthenticated bronze age "divinely revealed" texts.
Dinesh D’Souza in his book What’s so Great About Christianity takes great effort to misrepresent Darwinian theory and atheism nearly every chance he gets. In this critique I’m going to reveal D’Souza’s bag of tricks, expose his rhetoric, and show how he does a great job of running in circles, shifting the blame, and avoiding having to offer any real tangible answers to the atheist’s inquiries concerning religion. Link
So far I have not been able to get the attention of many skeptics, including Richard Dawkins, and PZ Myers. Yes, I have tried, several times. Sure, they are very busy. But I just learned why I probably haven’t, which is what I had suspected. For the record I have purposely not criticized Richard Dawkins or the other New Atheists, either in my book or on this blog. In fact, I recently defended Dawkins and the other New Atheists, including Bill Maher for his movie Religulous, in a talk I did at the Society of Biblical Literature against a few scholars who thought their arguments lacked substance. You can read what I said here. I also defended Dawkins in a long series of email exchanges that took place last year between skeptic James Lazarus and me, which were copied to Jeffrey Lowder, Steve Hays, David Wood and some others. It got heated since I did not back down in my defense of Dawkins.
Wow! Some theists will go to extreme lengths in order to malign me. They'll even kill in my name. Link. Now I know what God must feel like when believers kill in his name...right? ;-)
John W. Loftus, author of Why I Became an Atheist and a previous visitor to this forum will be debating Dinesh D'Souza at the University of Illinois on February 10. The topic will be "Does the Christian God Exist."
