Mr. Deity and the Identity Crisis
This is funny!
Jim (aka T & T) Linville on "Can ANYONE be non-religious about anything?"
He begins:
This was the question blogger Rick Wadholm asked in response to a plan for a secular biblical researcher’s special interest group meeting in conjunction with the Society of Biblical Literature (which is the largest academic society in the world dedicated to research into all matters biblical). I wrote this up a few days ago and then decided that I should just ignore these comments but darnnit… some very important points need to be made. Link
Looking for Definitions of God for a Book.
I've been invited to submit some definitions for God which will turn into a book, but having seen the other ones it seems they covered it well enough already. ;-) Any other suggestions?
Announcing A Special Screening of "Creator of God: A Brain Surgeon's Quest"
Lee Randolph's Blog
Some of you have asked me where some of the former DC Members have gone. They are Blogging on their own. Check Lee's Blog out. Look around and comment, it's a good Blog!
The Cosmology of the Bible
Evangelical OT scholar John Walton's commentary on Genesis is available online.
My Three Books:
In case you want to know more about my books here are three links:
1) Why I Became An Atheist (WIBA)
2) The Christian Delusion (TCD)
3) The End of Christianity (TEC)
As you can guess I'm excited and humbled to know they'll help change the religious landscape.
1) Why I Became An Atheist (WIBA)
2) The Christian Delusion (TCD)
3) The End of Christianity (TEC)
As you can guess I'm excited and humbled to know they'll help change the religious landscape.
Labels:
"My Three Books"
The Strongest Argument For Christianity, by Keith Parsons
I like what he said at the end very much and agree wholeheartedly:
My Thoughts On the Poll About My Book After One Day
I'm going to stop it. I've learned what I wanted to learn. Here are the results after a bit more than a day:
Look for the Movie "Creator of God: A Brain Surgeon's Story"
I met neurosurgeon Vivekanand Palavali recently who has made a documentary movie about his quest to find out who God is. See the trailer below. This is gonna be good!
Joe Holman: "The Best Seat in the House"
Former blog member here at DC has his own Blog, like I recommended that they all start on their own. Joe's latest post starts off like this:
Look around and see what you think.
I want to introduce you to my friend Terri. She is a person of simplicity, and yet her depth of character has you looking down and not seeing bottom. Being a complicated person is not what I am talking about. Any chick – any dude, for that matter – can be complicated, conflicted, unpredictable, with “issues.” That’s not what I’m talking about at all. I’m talking about a person who is enough of an individual to have a personality you can nail down. You can predict them, and yet they can teach and surprise you in unforeseen ways. Such a friend is Terri.
Link.
Look around and see what you think.
Are Believers Ever Argued Into Faith, or Argued Out of It?
Eric asked some interesting questions in the com-box of a post of mine. Read my response below.
A Question About the Most Effective Way to Reach Believers and My Response
I was emailed the following question and I responded to it. See what you think:
Robert Price Interviewed About his Book: "Inerrant the Wind"
Ep. 21 The Enlightenment Show: Robert Price interview "Inerrant the Wind" from FreeThought Fort Wayne on Vimeo.
Here's Another Exchange I Had With a Christian Scholar [Edited]
I had told him I was puzzled that he still believes. Here is what he said and my response:
Announcing a Meeting to Discuss a Non-Religious Group Within the Society of Biblical Literature
Read this announcement below. Come join us.
I'm Editing Another Book
There are a few unnamed Christian wannabe apologists out there who viciously attacked me when I first came online before starting this Blog. I was repeatedly told I was stupid, ignorant, and even brain-dead in so many ways it took me by surprise. I was lied about and verbally maligned with everything I said. The treatment I received from them was absolutely appalling. In fact, they still do that to me. But all I just wanted to do originally was to reasonably discuss the issues that separate us. I did not set out to debunk Christianity. I merely wanted to find a place to discuss the issues in a respectful atmosphere. Had they done this I'm almost certain I would not have started this Blog and I would not have become so passionate about debunking the very faith they use to justify their treatment of me. If you want to motivate me call me stupid. I told them that doing so was like pouring gas on the fires of my passion but they laughed some more. Even now they still laugh. I dare say that they would've lit the fires that burned me at the stake in a previous generation. So I got to thinking about the people who died so that I have the freedom to speak out, and I dedicated my life to making sure I did not trample on their blood by not doing so. I also realized that since I had the means to effectively argue against the Christian faith I could not simply walk away from what I've learned without also sharing it with others who can benefit from it. So there is no turning back.
Karen Armstrong's "The Case For God": An Intellectual Feast But in the End Very Little Help to the World's Problems
To read what I wrote about her book click here. As announced earlier, if you think this is a helpful review then a positive vote would be appreciated.
Ian Boyne of "The Jamaica Gleaner" Claims That Atheists/Agnostics are Winning the Debate
He's read my book along with several others and writes:
Dr. Jim Linville's Blog is Fast Becoming a Favorite of Mine
He's funny and intelligent. Recently he called for An Atheist and Agnostic Academic Association Affiliated with the Society of Biblical Literature. He also wrote about my work as well. Why wouldn't I like such a guy? ;-) Thanks Jim!
Iron Mike Tyson's Life Shows There is a Real Incompatibility With an Omniscient and a Wrathful God
That's my claim. I watched his interview on the Oprah show Monday, and while I think he'll continue to struggle with his past, I thought he was a complete jerk before watching it. He describes his life and I honestly felt for him deeply. He said that he's tired of failing and I believe him. There's a movie about his life that looks interesting. But here's my point. Once we understand someone and what made that person who he is, we can love him. If I only understood everything about a person and every experience he has ever had that made him who he is, then I could love him completely. An omniscient God supposedly has that understanding of all of us. Hence an omniscient God can never be angry with us. Q.E.D.
A Devastating Critique of the Penal Substitutionary Model for the Atonement
[Edited for Pulliam's newest post today where he comments on the discussion in my book]. Dr. Ken Pulliam is providing this on his blog (read his posts from the bottom up). Link.
Luke Over at Common Sense Atheism Hails My Book at the Best Atheist Book of the Decade
Whether it is or not you should be the judge. As you would guess I am flattered to no end and feel undeserving of anyone saying such a thing. Link.
An Initial Response to Timothy Keller's Book, The Reason for God
I have much more to say about this book than what you'll read below. These are my initial thoughts. How would you respond?
Timothy Keller, Pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York, claims: “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternative beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B.” Writing to skeptics he claims that “The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B. Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith.” (p. xviii). Faith, according to him, is anything we accept that is unprovable. As such, “All of us have fundamental, unprovable faith commitments that we think are superior to those of others.” (p. 20). Then by defining religion as “a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing,” he goes on to argue that even the most secular pragmatists have an “implicit religion.” Why? Because skeptics, just like religious believers, have “set of faith assumptions about the nature of things.” (p. 15-16). So he argues that skeptics likewise “must doubt your doubts.” [The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Riverhead Books, 2008), p. xix].
But even if I grant for the sake of argument that faith is what we have when we cannot prove something, then what method does Keller propose to distinguish between that which is provable from that which is unprovable? Surely he doesn’t mean to say that if we cannot be absolutely certain of something all we have left is blind faith, or that everything that is unprovable has an equal epistemological merit. Christians like him want to claim that skeptics too have beliefs which cannot be proven, and then try to drive a whole truckload of Christian assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice. If that’s what he’s doing then a Mormon or a Muslim could have written the same things he did, and then driven a whole truckload of Mormon or Muslim assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice too. And we would still be in no better position to judge between faiths, even granting that skeptics also have faith assumptions. What I’m proposing with the Outsider Test For Faith is a way to distinguish between what we should accept from what we should not. I’m arguing there isn’t a better test when it comes to religious beliefs. So again, what better method is there?
And even if I grant Keller’s definition of religion for the sake of argument such that everyone has one, including skeptics, then once again what better method is there but The Outsider Test to decide which one of them is correct, if any? When we all apply it to our respective religions we should all be agnostics about all metaphysical claims, all of them. We should all be agnostics. We should all doubt our doubts. Agnostics already do this. This double negative way of expressing things does not lead to faith. It leads to agnosticism.
Keep in mind that the choices in front of us are emphatically NOT between any one particular situated cultural form of Christianity and atheism. The choices are Legion. This fact makes agnosticism the default position. Anyone, and I mean anyone including myself, who leaves the default position and affirms an answer, any answer, has the burden of proof. The denial is the easy part. We deny the beliefs of nearly everyone else, sometimes without even considering them. The hard part is in affirming the correct set of beliefs. I am an atheist because that’s the direction agnosticism pushes me. My atheism is due to the process of elimination. One supernatural entity, being, or force after another was rejected by me leaving the only reasonable answer to be atheism.
But in fact, I do not accept Keller’s definition of faith or of religion. He’s manipulating the debate by using a language game in his favor here. I refuse to play this game. I know as sure as I can know anything that there is a material world, and that I can trust my senses. Therefore I know the scientific method is our only sure way for assessing truth claims. Words like hope and faith and trust just don’t do these things justice. The word faith must be reserved to apply in this context to beliefs about that which cannot be sensed or empirically tested, like ghosts, angels, demons and gods. And likewise the word religion must be based upon beliefs about those kinds of entities if it’s to have any separate meaning at all.
What Keller is doing is descibing a worldview anyway. Everyone has one but that does not make everyone religious. An atheist worldview is not a religion. That is a language game I refuse to accept. If by denying all religions this makes the atheist worldview a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby!
Timothy Keller, Pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York, claims: “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternative beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B.” Writing to skeptics he claims that “The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B. Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith.” (p. xviii). Faith, according to him, is anything we accept that is unprovable. As such, “All of us have fundamental, unprovable faith commitments that we think are superior to those of others.” (p. 20). Then by defining religion as “a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing,” he goes on to argue that even the most secular pragmatists have an “implicit religion.” Why? Because skeptics, just like religious believers, have “set of faith assumptions about the nature of things.” (p. 15-16). So he argues that skeptics likewise “must doubt your doubts.” [The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Riverhead Books, 2008), p. xix].
But even if I grant for the sake of argument that faith is what we have when we cannot prove something, then what method does Keller propose to distinguish between that which is provable from that which is unprovable? Surely he doesn’t mean to say that if we cannot be absolutely certain of something all we have left is blind faith, or that everything that is unprovable has an equal epistemological merit. Christians like him want to claim that skeptics too have beliefs which cannot be proven, and then try to drive a whole truckload of Christian assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice. If that’s what he’s doing then a Mormon or a Muslim could have written the same things he did, and then driven a whole truckload of Mormon or Muslim assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice too. And we would still be in no better position to judge between faiths, even granting that skeptics also have faith assumptions. What I’m proposing with the Outsider Test For Faith is a way to distinguish between what we should accept from what we should not. I’m arguing there isn’t a better test when it comes to religious beliefs. So again, what better method is there?
And even if I grant Keller’s definition of religion for the sake of argument such that everyone has one, including skeptics, then once again what better method is there but The Outsider Test to decide which one of them is correct, if any? When we all apply it to our respective religions we should all be agnostics about all metaphysical claims, all of them. We should all be agnostics. We should all doubt our doubts. Agnostics already do this. This double negative way of expressing things does not lead to faith. It leads to agnosticism.
Keep in mind that the choices in front of us are emphatically NOT between any one particular situated cultural form of Christianity and atheism. The choices are Legion. This fact makes agnosticism the default position. Anyone, and I mean anyone including myself, who leaves the default position and affirms an answer, any answer, has the burden of proof. The denial is the easy part. We deny the beliefs of nearly everyone else, sometimes without even considering them. The hard part is in affirming the correct set of beliefs. I am an atheist because that’s the direction agnosticism pushes me. My atheism is due to the process of elimination. One supernatural entity, being, or force after another was rejected by me leaving the only reasonable answer to be atheism.
But in fact, I do not accept Keller’s definition of faith or of religion. He’s manipulating the debate by using a language game in his favor here. I refuse to play this game. I know as sure as I can know anything that there is a material world, and that I can trust my senses. Therefore I know the scientific method is our only sure way for assessing truth claims. Words like hope and faith and trust just don’t do these things justice. The word faith must be reserved to apply in this context to beliefs about that which cannot be sensed or empirically tested, like ghosts, angels, demons and gods. And likewise the word religion must be based upon beliefs about those kinds of entities if it’s to have any separate meaning at all.
What Keller is doing is descibing a worldview anyway. Everyone has one but that does not make everyone religious. An atheist worldview is not a religion. That is a language game I refuse to accept. If by denying all religions this makes the atheist worldview a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby!
Ken Pulliam, Former Apologist with a Ph.D. Comes Out of the Closet
Ken was formerly a blogger here at DC under the name Former_Fundy.
He writes:
Here's a link to his new blog.
He writes:
I was "saved"(trusted Christ and Christ alone) at the age of 18 and was baptized in an independent Baptist Church in Georgia. I graduated from Baptist University of America (1981) with a B.A. in Theology. I earned an M.A.(1982)and a Ph.D. (1986) in Theology from Bob Jones University. After graduation, I taught at International Baptist College in Tempe, AZ for 9 years. After a few years of accumulating doubts, my Christian faith evaporated sometime during the course of 1996. I am no longer a believer. If I had to pigeon-hole myself, I would say I am agnostic.
Here's a link to his new blog.
A First Look At My New Edited Book: The Christian Delusion
Below you can have your first look at my new edited book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
DC receives pennies on the dollar no matter what you buy at no extra cost and helps keep me Blogging. There are 
