Science focuses on that which is detectable and its method is doubt. It is the skeptical adult approach rather than the gullible childish approach to an issue that if a god existed he would be pleased with. If God is not detectable and if he cannot be apprehended by such an adult attitude then I can't help him.
Three years ago I challenged Christians to take the Debunking Christianity Challenge. Luke over at Common Sense Atheism developed a very nice Ultimate Truth Seeker Challenge. Luke equally selects the best Christian books for skeptics to read, which is something I don't do because it's for Christians to pick them rather than me. After all, Catholics and Protestants will choose different books as will Protestants and Evangelicals, or Calvinists and Arminians, so I'm not in the habit of giving preference to one professing Christian sect over the others especially since professing Christians themselves can't agree. Anyway, this year I'm proposing twelve college level books, one for each month. Make it your New Year's resolution to read the other side.
I want to thank everyone who donated to help me get a new computer. I bought a tower that cost me $425. It’s a Dell Inspiron 560 with a dual core processor and a dvd/cd writer. It has a whopping 320 gig hard drive! I’m getting it to where I need it, but this is a joy. Thanks so much!
And yes, that's my pool table. $10-$50 a game anyone? I need some more money. ;-)
Ugh... there's just so much wrong with the Jesus story. You have to be indoctrinated, skilled in apologetics, and unwilling to ask yourself a lot of questions even to try and get it to make sense. Link.
This visual guide is excellent. Believers ought to study up on these biases and apply them to their faith. It is a great antidote to faith based reasoning. Follow this link. At the bottom there are arrows to turn the page. You might want to click on "Full Screen" icon too. I think a study of each one of them could be helpful to see how pervasive they are with people who claim to be rational and why the best bet we have for escaping these biases are the sciences.
Anthropological studies show us that religion and culture are almost synonymous. Sociological studies confirm it when we look at the geographical distribution of religion. Psychological studies show we are self-centered gullible people who believe what we were initially taught and that we believe what we prefer to be true. They show us we are ignorant of our own ignorance. The conclusion is that given these scientific disciplines we should all be skeptics. We should trust the sciences even if they are sometimes fallible because there is no other way out of such a morass. The ONLY reason this is controversial is because believers know it undermines the rationality of what they believe. They kick against the goads not to join us and be skeptics.
Vic, you get your "priors" from your upbringing. With different priors you would be defending something else. Link
Admit it Vic. You get your "priors" from your upbringing. This is undeniable. We were all raised as believers. Whatever our parents told us we believed. That's your starting place. Sure, we question them as we go, but we don't upchuck them all.
I'm the one telling you the truth. No, you do not believe what your parents told you anymore. But they did give you your initial priors. Did they teach you to sing "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so," or not!
My claim is that without your Christian upbringing you would not have the priors that make you believe all of the things you do. I want you to think chronologically about your priors. Ignore your upbringing. What would be an adequate defense of your faith starting from your most basic prior? List them in some kind of order. My claim is that there is no way you can assess the historical evidence for the Bible and come away with a "faith prior" because you need faith prior to coming to your historical conclusions.
Now don't get irate with me on this. Think through my questions and answer them.
1) We don’t provide a united front. We are a diversified bunch of people. Some of us support different atheist organizations, subscribe to different atheist magazines, while others don’t support or subscribe to any at all.
2) We have no leaders. While there are certainly some standouts in the atheist community there are always disagreements on who we regard as our intellectual heroes.
3) We cannot agree on anything else but religion. We can’t even agree on what to call ourselves. We disagree on such things as the basis for morality (or lack thereof), on politics, and on whether or not Jesus existed (and if so, what we are to think of him).
4) We have no agreed upon causes. Some focus on the separation of church and state, others on politics, others on science, and still others on specific kinds of religion and/or paranormal claims.
5) We cannot agree about tactics. There are the friendly atheists, spiritual atheists, evangelical atheists, and others who merely want to educate, not necessarily persuade, believers.
We are human beings of every age, shape, gender, skin color, health, wealth, education and social social status. We simply do not believe. We think for ourselves based on solid evidence and good reasons. We cannot be herded like believing sheep. Nor can we be fleeced.
But this is our strength. We are everywhere. We are the wave of the future. There is no turning back the hands of time. We cannot be ignored any more.
She received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from Dan Barker. She's talking about Islam and laughing about it. This is what we do with Christianity. We laugh at it too. Christian, watch and laugh with us and then see why we laugh at you. This is a great talk!
Link. Find "Day One" then click on the word "watch."
I just want to offer a shout out to the skeptics here who help in answering the personal attacks on me and the arguments of some utterly ignorant Christians. It means a lot to me, really. What buffoons some of them are. I have no clue what they hope to accomplish but they certainly view me as a threat, and of that they are right. It's just that I'm reading what they write and it's completely ignorant for the most part. I would've said that as a Christian professor when I was teaching apologetics. It's a shame that with a Bible in hand they think they can answer us, isn't it? They are unaware how ignorant they are. Is there anyone else out there who can reason with us? Oops, sorry, they're all ignorant.
This Commandment was never intended to prevent envying another's possessions, but rather to avoid the evil consequences of "coveting" in the magical sense. Coveting was not mentioned as an undesirable trait to be avoided because it is unethical, immoral or antisocial; it was recorded and made part of the Decalogue because the superstition prevailed in Hebrew tribal society that envious thoughts would bring ill luck and misfortune, through sorcery and witchcraft, to the person against whose property the "coveting" was directed. Covetous desires, they believed, would call into existence the malevolent spirits of the "evil eye," which by devious and diabolical methods would cause the loss of the coveted possessions. Link.
Christian apologists keep crowing on about their criticisms of positivism as if that ends the matter. What best describes positivism:
Positivism refers to a set of epistemological perspectives and philosophies of science which hold that the scientific method is the best approach to uncovering the processes by which both physical and human events occur.Link
There is something to positivism these apologists have overlooked. We cannot offer a logical DEDUCTIVE proof that science is the only game in town. To criticize positivism as if it did is to knock down a straw man. Yes, the positivists did make sweeping statements so they fell prey to some criticisms. But what we really want to say is that it's very probable science is the only game in town. That cannot be refuted. And that is all we need to say. If they want to continue hanging their hats on what is "possible" time and again, have at it. That's the definition of faith. We will keep insisting on that which is probable not that which is possible.
That's right. I've said this before. Anything apologists can do to denigrate science is what they'll do to defend their faith. That's why there is the science vs religion debate in the first place. That's why creative science had to fight an uphill battle against church censure and threats of violence. Case in point is Victor Reppert in disputing the results of the social sciences which have confirmed several biases we have as human beings, especially cognitive bias which has conclusively shown us we believe what we prefer to believe and when faced with contrary evidence we actually dig our feet in deeper into what we believe, depending on our vested interests. Now why does he feel the need to dispute these findings without offering any counter-evidence? It's because he has faith, that's why. Faith can be used to trump almost any evidence and if not, then just denigrate science--or scientists themselves. Hey, don't believe me? Then read what he said:
Keep in mind I'm talking here about credentialed Christian apologists and not the myriad numbers of hacks out there, some of which are liars for Jesus and certainly ignorant. My informed judgment of credentialed apologists, having been one of them, is what follows. If they are lying to defend their faith they are lying to themselves. This is not impossible to conceive given cognitive dissonance theory which predicts that when presented with falsifying evidence believers will deny it depending on how much vested they have in their belief. And they are certainly ignorant about many things, sometimes willfully ignorant. But none of this is done on a conscious level and for that reason they are not conscious of the lies or their ignorance. After all, only the ignorant are ignorant of their ignorance.
And yet I have known many Christian apologists who are clearly informed about many things. They face our arguments head on, or so it seems to them. Take for example Dr. Victor Reppert. In the following few sentences I don't think I've ever run across such a short yet adequate summation for the case for faith in the resurrection of Jesus:
So to those in the English-speaking world who consider themselves Christians, my recommendation is this: stop complaining about the "de-Christianization" of a holiday that we ourselves stole (sorry, borrowed) from others and successfully hijacked for more than a thousand years. Link.
As I have argued elsewhere (see my essay in The Empty Tomb), I do not think that we have enough information to establish ANY account about what really happened during "Easter Week." If I had to conjecture, I would imagine a scenario (and a scenario is all we can have) something like this: Click here for more.
Taking on a highly volatile subject with admirable objectivity, Eller (anthropology, Community Coll. of Denver; Cultural Anthropology: Global Forces, Local Lives ) has written a thorough academic study of religious violence from an anthropological and sociological perspective. Drawing extensively on examples from the history of various religions around the world, he covers the full range of religious violence, going well beyond the current hot topics of war and terrorism to include sacrifice, self-injury, persecution, and ethno-religious conflict. He even devotes a chapter to nonviolence and religion. Overall, his argument is highly nuanced and avoids any temptation to oversimplify the complexities of human violence and its relationship to religion. VERDICT Eller makes a commendable effort to avoid taking sides or focusing too heavily on one particular religious tradition. Those seeking either a spirited defense of religion or a ruthless attack on it should look elsewhere. This book is ideal for those studying or teaching anthropology, sociology, and religion and looking for a scholarly and objective overview of a complicated subject. Brian T. Sullivan, Alfred Univ. Lib., NY.
My anthology The Christian Delusion has been out for awhile. Based upon the Christian responses I've seen on Amazon and other blogs, here are the top ten ways to deal with it:
Pardon me here. I'm not bragging. I'm just astounded that what I do is making a difference against the overwhelming odds, as I wrote about earlier. It's encouraging to me personally. Here are three such stories:
Well, I am (was) a five-point Calvinist, Reformed Baptist type, who recently lost my faith thanks to the two books by John Loftus (see? I didn't make it very far into the challenge). Losing your faith hurts a lot, and frankly, has made me angry because it feels like something very precious has been taken away from you. Then you think about it more, and it makes you even angrier and ashamed to be deceived into believing something so totally false and unworthy of the time and talents wasted on it. Then after some time, anger leads to depression. But I see a bright, glorious light at the end of the tunnel, and as far as I can see, it is not an oncoming train like the theists assured me I needed to fear. So, thank you, Mr. John Loftus. It's hurt like hell, but so far it's all been worth it! Link
Christians have developed so many ways to escape the force of the evidence that it’s frustrating to those of us who are trying to reason with them. I’ve written about several of them before. There is the big one I call The Omniscience Escape Clause. Another one I haven’t quite developed yet I call The Faith Trump Card, which is leaping beyond the actual probabilities of the evidence itself. No reasonable person can leap beyond what the evidence calls for. If Christians conclude it’s 51% probable Jesus arose from the dead then they simply cannot conclude they know he did. That’s an unjustified leap. If I thought it’s 51% probable the Colts will play in the Super Bowl and win it this year (fat chance) I would be ignorant to say I know this will happen, especially enough to bet all my meager life savings on it (which is zilch).
One day I was at a Barnes and Noble browsing around. I got to the Philosophy section, and picked up The Christian Delusion. Part 2 of the book is titled "Why the Bible Is Not the Word of God." After reading about some historical, scientific, and moral errors I went to the Christian Inspiration section of the store to get a Bible so I could read the context of each verse. Finally, hours later I renounced my faith. Link
It appears that American evangelicalism is finally coming into its own as a subject of social research and academic attention well beyond the scope of those who identify with it as insiders...Yet as soon as evangelicalism becomes a subject, it splinters and splits. Indeed, taken together, recent studies by more-or-less outsiders show there is no such thing as evangelicalism. The term represents a broad range of significantly different theologies, practices, and religious movements within Christianity, and there are often tensions among and within them. Which is no revelation at all to most more-or-less insiders, who call themselves evangelicals, however qualified, and who argue as much with others who do the same as with those of us who don't. Link
Apparently even among people who claim the Bible is God's word it's like herding cats!
The last time I said anything here about Holding was almost two years ago in a post I'll link to below. He has recently brought up the same old accusations about me and embellished on them as the time goes by, even though I had already answered them as gross mischaracterizations at best, to outright lies.
The two questions for his Christian supporters are as follows: 1) Why does he continue to repeat these old accusations when I have already reasonably answered them? and, 2) Why doesn't he stick to the arguments? See for yourselves. Sheesh. To answer him drags me down into the sewer with him. Sorry about this.
I want to thank the people who donated for me to get a new suit and a passport. The suit is a Calvin Klein one from Macy’s. The passport is for when I speak in Toronto, Canada, at CFI's Extraordinary Claims Panel Discussion. This means a great deal to me in the midst of the worst financial crisis I’ve ever experienced this past Fall. We’re climbing our way out of it with your help. Now if I could only get enough to pay for a new computer (see the ChipIn widget). Every little bit helps and will be equally appreciated. If not, I still appreciate the wonderful encouragement I’ve received over the years here at DC to continue Blogging.
What a resounding accolade! ;-) Maybe we can place it on the front cover for the next printing? See my response in post #18. 33 people thought this review was helpful, eh? What do you think? I can take justified criticism even though it's difficult, but he's faulting the book for what it wasn't supposed to do. You can see this in his last paragraph as well as his 2 star rating. In other news I finally learned how to herd cats:
Anyone who fails to believe in God by the end of his lifetime does so only by a stubborn resistance to the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing that person to a knowledge of God. On the biblical view people are not like innocent, lost lambs wandering helplessly without a guide. Rather they are determined rebels whose wills are set against God and who must be subdued by God’s Spirit....The unbeliever is like someone dying of a fatal disease who refuses to believe the medical evidence concerning the efficacy of a proffered cure and who rejects the testimony of his doctor to it and who, as a result, suffers the consequence of his own stubbornness. He has no one to blame but himself. Question 191.
And to think, some skeptics here are blasting poor little Debbie for saying the same kinds of things. I wonder where she gets these platitudes? Bill exhibits a stubborn refusal to actually listen to us as real people with real doubts, choosing to believe the Bible instead. What nonsense! Bill is the one who stubbornly refuses to see the truth written on our faces.
Johnnie Terry is a professor of Philosophy and Humanities at Sierra College in Northern California--just outside of Sacramento, CA. He created an Introduction to Atheism course a few years ago that he now teaches to about 60 students every spring semester. This year he's requiring them to read The Christian Delusion. Other required texts are How to be a Good Atheist by Nick Harding, and The Portable Atheist edited by Christopher Hitchens. He'll probably also require students to listen weekly to Dan Barker's and Annie Laurie Gaylor's Freedom From Religion podcast. He tells me he's very excited, as am I.
Welcome to DC. Put your dick away for just a minute. You can get back to it later. Since porn is such a multi-billion dollar industry most of the searches for the words in the title above are done by Christian men. You feel a bit guilty for this but you do it anyway. You may even publicly condemn pornography, homosexuality, lust, and even masturbation, but here you are doing what you're doing. You rationalize your behavior away by thinking to yourself God will forgive. In my opinion Christianity is sexually repressive. God supposedly created you with this strong desire and then forbids you to express it. He wants you to be celibate except in a monogamous heterosexual marriage, even though most people are not in that kind of relationship at the moment. For some Christians there is to be no oral sex, no adult toys, and no contraception.
Sex will be the undoing of Christianity. Here are a few links for you to look at before getting back to business:
Come on Theists, just admit it, you're a little curious. We know it. You know it. You wouldn't be here otherwise.
Just come out and admit it. It's okay. We're not bad... not really. ;) If you're a Theist and are spending time lurking on /r/atheism or Pharyngula or Debunking Christianity or any of the other Atheist websites out there, you're almost one of us already. If you're a Theist and are spending time actually COMMENTING on Atheist websites, you're just a half step away from being a full fledged baby-eating scourge of humanity. Link
I just thought I’d put this out there since I’ve been thinking about these kinds of things for years. By no means are all of the following factors involved in every story of deconversion. But in almost every case at least one of them is true. So here goes:
I am able to reach more people, that's for sure. But I also get a lot of believers who think they can answer me who are best described as Unskilled and Unaware of it. But no, that's not true of these believers, right? They can answer me easily! ;-)
Atheist vloggers MannixThePirate & xCrowMagnuSx sat down with Shirley Phelps-Roper (daughter of Westboro Baptist Church founder Fred Phelps). As you watch this 14 minute video you'll see quite plainly that a person can be intelligent and at the same time delusional (part 1, I'll not bother you with any more). Watch as she answers every query with a quote from the Bible. The Bible says it, that settles it for her. She doesn't trust the sciences, nor anyone else but what she thinks the Bible says. She is absolutely confident in the Bible as she knows it. This sounds exactly like most Christians. Yet she is regarded by most all other Christians today as delusional. If we set aside what the sciences have forced Christians to accept over the last few centuries I'm confident most medieval Christians would agree with her about most things. And I don't see much difference between her and other Christians who quote mine the Bible for answers without thinking, reasoning and learning from the sciences. At that point the only difference is how Christians interpret it. The question is why Christians think she is delusional when they are not.
I've written about my credentials in my book Why I Became An Atheist (WIBA). I earned a bachelor's degree from Great Lakes Christian College, two master's degrees from Lincoln Christian University, a Master's of Theology degree with half of the hours in William Lane Craig's classes at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and then spent a year and a half in a PhD program at Marquette University in Theology and Ethics. Most students who spend this much time in school would have their PhD's by that time. I took classes titled, "Religious Epistemology" (with Stuart Hackett) "Christian Thought Systems," "Analytic Philosophy" (with the late Paul Feinberg), "Religion and Science" (with Bill Craig focusing on the philosophy of science)," "Theism," "Plantinga's Thought" (yep, under Bill Craig in the year 1984)," "Calvin" (under the late Kenneth Kantzer known as the dean of evangelicalism, where we went through Calvin's Institutes), "Philosophers of Religion: Descartes," "The Concept of God," "God as Creator/Redeemer," "Making of the Contemporary Mind" (this class by James Strauss really enlightened me), "19th Century Theology," "Seminar: Word of God," "Philosophy of Language," "Apologetics: Discovering the Christian Mind," "Theology and Hermeneutics," "20th Century Theology," "Historiography of Theories of History," "Advanced Introduction to the New Testament," "Historiography of Physical Sciences," "Major Philosophical Thinkers/Systems," "Historiography of Theories of Mind," "Philosophy of Knowledge," (with Marc F. Greisbach who had been the President of the American Catholic Philosophical Association), "Atheism and Theism," "Theological Ethics" (with Daniel McGuire), "Protestant Christian Ethics" (with Ron Feenstra, now the Director of Doctoral Studies at Calvin Theological Seminary) and a whole host of others that were biblical and practical for ministry and teaching in the apologetical field.
[I]s naturalism itself a scientific thesis? I think the right answer to this question is that naturalism is not a thesis at all, but an approach. The naturalistic philosopher is the Neurathian sailor, working within science to understand, clarify, and improve science... Link
I previously wrote on 10 Reasons Why Atheism Can't Win where I highlighted what seems to be the enormous challenges facing atheism in America. I’m not oblivious to the fact that Europe is mostly a secular continent having faced these challenges and won. Nor am I oblivious to the fact that more young Americans are becoming non-believers than ever before. You can see stories about this phenomenon in The Economist, and in other places with titles like Young Americans Leaving Churches in Droves, and Young Christians Desert Churches.
Greta Christina’s post on How Atheists Can't Win, tells us why we can’t seem to win in our debates with believers. I’m going to give ten reasons why atheists can’t win at all because we are against the overwhelming odds—so much so that a post title like this is deserved. The odds are so against us that it should be shocking when believers change their minds by leaving their culturally inherited Christian faith. I think religion is here to stay and that’s why atheism can’t win.
I've been focused on another book project so I've got nothing for my blog. Let me just link to something funny that James McGrath found about writer's block in a peer-reviewed journal...and then open it up for anything you want to highlight or argue about. Enjoy.
Our conceptions of what makes for an extraordinary event have changed in each subsequent century/generation with the advancement of science. It has repeatedly forced believers to change their views on the matter. In the ancient world they knew axe heads don't float, that women were not turned into pillars or salt, or that donkey's can't talk. But to the pre-scientific ancients most every event was in some sense an extraordinary one, from the birth of a child, to the rising of the sun, the rainfall, to a bountiful crop. Extraordinary events occurred for them almost daily. They couldn't understand how these events could take place within nature's laws. Since they could not explain them they concluded some deity did them. Then one by one these events were explained naturally by science and consequently one by one they were taken out of the realm of the extraordinary and placed into the category of the ordinary course of events.
When you go to Amazon please begin by clicking on this link. DC receives pennies on the dollar no matter what you buy at no extra cost and helps keep me Blogging. There are other ways to donate too. Thank you all so very much!