Bart Ehrman vs Richard Swinburne on Suffering
The discussion/debate begins at the 10 minute mark.
The Tales About Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Paul Show They Had Psychotic Disorders
Evan D. Murray, M.D.; Miles G. Cunningham, M.D., Ph.D.; and Bruce H. Price, M.D. in the The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences "analyzed the religious figures Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul from a behavioral, neurologic, and neuropsychiatric perspective to determine whether new insights can be achieved about the nature of their revelations. Analysis reveals that these individuals had experiences that resemble those now defined as psychotic symptoms, suggesting that their experiences may have been manifestations of primary or mood disorder-associated psychotic disorders." LINK.
Putting Godly Fear Into a Child: Taken From a Christian School Discipline Manual
 |
| Click on pictures to enlarge |
"He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently." Proverbs 13: 24
"Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die." Proverbs 23: 13 (This You Tube video will prove God is a liar!)
"Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die." Proverbs 23: 13 (This You Tube video will prove God is a liar!)
Yep, Jesus Feeds the Birds!
Jesus reportedly said: "Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?" (Matthew 6:26)
Quote of the Day, By D Rizdek
Whether Christianity was particular in its mistreatment of women, it never overcame the culture and showed where the culture was wrong...in this or any other regard. The same goes for all religions. Their gods never seemed to be able to break out of the culture. If slavery was the "thing," the gods and holy men told 'em how to do slaves. If dominating women was the thing, god and the holy men told 'em how to do women. If the culture hated homosexuality, then their god hated it too. If they were ignorant about science, their God didn't know science either. If the culture superstitiously thought blood had some special magical powers, then god used blood to mark doorways and wash away sins. If the culture thought diseases and mental illness was due to sin's curse or demons, then their god acted like that was true too. Why do their gods never tell them anything they don't already know?
Dr. Daphne Hampson Says Christianity is a Harmful Myth Which Could Not Possibly Be True
Dr. Hampson knows what she's talking about. At the least one cannot say she is ignorant given her credentials. She abandoned the "harmful myth" of Christianity in 1981. In her book After Christianity (1997), she argued that "Christianity cannot be true, for it requires a particular revelation which we can no longer think possible. Moreover its situatedness in past history makes Christianity necessarily sexist." In a 1997 interview we read that, "She came to see that the notions of incarnation - God made flesh in the person of Christ - and resurrection - Christ rising from the dead after the crucifixion - could not possibly be true. How could we believe, she asks, this side of the Enlightenment, that God could create such a unique break in the natural order of things as the resurrection?" Furthermore, she tells us, "I began to see that the very raison d'etre of the Christian myth was to support men as superior over women, that it served to legitimise how men see themselves in the world." LINK. I just discovered her today. There are probably many others I have not heard about yet. Higher education, the right kind of education, can and does lead to the rejection of Christianity.
I'll Be Speaking at the Pennsylvania State Atheist and Humanist Conference
I’ll be speaking on my book The Outsider Test for Faith at the Pennsylvania State Atheist and Humanist Conference, Labor Day weekend, August 29-31. In my talk I'll be dealing with some of the ridiculous responses to the outsider test. This should be fun. My talk is set for Saturday morning.
The list of speakers doesn't include just the usual lineup of suspects. If you would like to meet me and chat then come on out. Registration is $130, which is a great price for all that you get, including some great entertainment. My books will be on sale and I'll be signing them. Unfortunately my latest book, Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails, won't be out yet.
I’m looking forward to this very much!
The list of speakers doesn't include just the usual lineup of suspects. If you would like to meet me and chat then come on out. Registration is $130, which is a great price for all that you get, including some great entertainment. My books will be on sale and I'll be signing them. Unfortunately my latest book, Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails, won't be out yet.
I’m looking forward to this very much!Christian Apologist Norman Geisler Still Does Not Understand Atheism
Norman L. Geisler and Daniel J. McCoy's most recent book is titled, The Atheist's Fatal Flaw: Exposing Conflicting Beliefs.
If you search inside the book for "Loftus" you'll see them interacting with my work. The central thesis of their book is found in the Introduction (pp. 9-10):
If you search inside the book for "Loftus" you'll see them interacting with my work. The central thesis of their book is found in the Introduction (pp. 9-10):"Council votes to display "In God We Trust" in chambers"
 |
| Picture from the national organization for "In God We Trust" |
So what can one can expect once believers get control? (Consider just three of the comments.)
“The city council finally seems to be heading in the right direction. But why doesn't it wholly embrace The Word and start running the deviants out of the county? Otherwise, this is just lip service.”
Could the First Pope (Peter) Swim? How The Gospels Use Lies to Teach Faith and Trust
The
Gospels accounts of John and Matthew present two different Apostle Peters with both being supported by two different miracle accounts when dealing with swimming.
Freedom of Mind
Because
today is the 4th of July, I thought I would share a few things about
freedom of thought. It is impossible for
a person to be truly free, unless they are in full ownership of their mind and
thoughts. A person may be physically
free, but if their mind is enslaved, then they are chained. Religion – especially fundamentalist religion
takes away that freedomQuote of the Day, By Jeffery Jay Lowder (With Rebuttal)
[T]he philosophy of religion is not “dead,” but it is in serious condition, if not on life support. This can be shown by counting the number of philosophy departments at secular colleges and universities which have faculty lines for philosophy of religion. (They are very rare.) Why is this? I think that one contributing factor to this state of affairs is the blatant partisanship which is very much the norm in the philosophy of religion. Many philosophers of religion, including both atheists and theists, function as natural theologians (if theists) or natural atheologians (if atheists). In other words, they act as if their job description says, “If you’re a theist, defend theism; if you’re an atheist, defend atheism.” It’s rare for philosophers of religion to engage in genuine inquiry and to spend equal amounts of time defending theism and defending atheism. But, if a philosopher of religion is going to act like a philosopher, not an apologist, they should be engaging in inquiry. LINK.Below is my response, which I guarantee will be worth a click of your time. ;-)
Exposing Kalam's Hidden Premises
Apologists like William Lane Craig often use intentionally ambiguous language to hide problematic aspects of their arguments. This video unpacks some of the hidden assumptions behind the Kalam argument to make clear what it's proponents are actually arguing for (and how much more difficult it would be for them if they were honest about it.) Watching full screen is recommended.
A Few More Reviews of Richard Carrier's New Book
A few more reviews of Richard Carrier's book, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt,
can be found on Amazon, where you can get the best deal on buying it.
can be found on Amazon, where you can get the best deal on buying it.Reviews of Carrier's New Book "On The Historicity of Jesus" and His Responses
Richard's book has been reviewed by a few people already. The reviews have come from Nicholas Covington, Chris Hallquist, Raphael Lataster, and Loren Rosson. Carrier has responded to them here. It's an interesting discussion. I have a free review copy coming but don't have it yet. I hope it arrives before most of what has been said has been said. ;-)
Quote of the Day, by borin43
There is not a method that exists that can find something that's not there, plain and simple.
So What if Methodological Naturalism Cannot Detect God!
If it's reasonable to adopt methodological naturalism when desiring knowledge about the nature of nature, and if this means scientists must suspend judgment when science doesn't solve a problem--rather than conclude "god did it"--then bite the bullet. Believers like Victor Reppert should just admit that science cannot find god. Whose fault would this be, if so? It would be God's fault for setting up the universe such that in order to gain objective knowledge about the nature of nature scientists must adopt methodological naturalism. It would be God's fault for not doing enough miracles to convince us he exists. It would be God's fault for not alleviating the most horrendous kinds of suffering in the world. It would be God's fault for providing an incompetent revelation in the superstitious past that lacks sufficient evidence to convert outsiders, a revelation that got so many things wrong in the first place.
What a Delusion Does To an Otherwise Intelligent Mind: Vic Reppert On Methodological Naturalism
I had initially written about Methodological Naturalism (MN) here. Unpersuaded, Vic wrote:
Methodological naturalism would rule out a supernatural explanation in any event.Now if you want to see what a delusion can do to an otherwise intelligent mind you must read this! I asked if he really read what I wrote and he commented as follows:
The Philosophy of Religion Is Under Attack, This Time via Argument Not Tweet
Jerry Coyne wrote:
I have to agree with Peter Boghossian that the bulk of work in that field (indeed, nearly all of it) is worthless. I am a fan of philosophy as a whole, or at least branches of it (especially the philosophy of science and ethical philosophy), and don’t think it’s worthless by any means, but I have no use for the philosophy of religion. Look at the above: the author is telling us that it’s likely that God, had he created the Universe, would have created a multiverse (that’s what Draper means by “many worlds”)! If you want a real laugh, go see why God would have been likely to create many universes. It’s garbage: pure mental masturbation. But such is the philosophy of religion, for it’s the philosophy of a nonexistent construct. It’s like a field called “the philosophy of fairies.” LINKI have said that atheist philosophy of religion exists because there is bad Christian philosophy of religion that must be answered. And yet I don't think there is anything that atheists haven't already answered. My judgment is that atheists working in that field have trounced their opponents so badly there is nothing left to say. We can therefore dispense with it as an academic discipline in our universities as unworthy of serious attention. Let's replace it with the various sciences, like geology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, psychology and neurology. Until Christians can come up with sufficient evidence to believe we should no longer have to deal with their rationalizations, gerrymanderings, non-sequiturs and baseless assertions masquerading as a reasonable discussion. I hereby declare the philosophy of religion dead. All we have to do from now on is quote what has already been written. Please move along. There is nothing here to see.
Quote of the Day, by Articulett to Victor Reppert
If there was a god...
And that god wanted people to believe certain things...
Then that god would communicate clearly to ensure that the beliefs passed the Outsider Test for Faith (or faith would not be a necessary requirement as the evidence would suffice). This would at least necessarily be true of any god worthy of worship. So, there is either a god that doesn't care what people believe... a god that cares and is incompetent (and thus not worthy of worship) --or no god at all. The most likely scenarios is no god at all because we know that humans invent gods and other beings to explain that which they don't understand, --but we have no evidence that consciousness of any sort can exist without a brain.
Two More Blurbs For My Forthcoming Anthology, "Christianity is Not Great"
We're getting a few good blurbs for Christianity is Not Great: How Faith Fails. One is from a Christian professor.
Understanding the Mind of a Deluded Intellectual: Lessons from Victor Reppert
Dr. Victor Reppert responded to my post On Priors, Biases and Probabilities. It's just a comment but there are lessons to be learned from it that help us get inside the mind of a deluded intellectual like him.
Quote of the Day, by Primenumbers
You're right. Extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence. They require no evidence at all. All they require is a little faith....
The Arizona Atheist Defends the Outsider Test for Faith Against David Marshall
Previously I had written something brief in response to Marshall's chapter on the Outsider Test in the book True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism. I was thankful that at a minimum he embraces it (with caveats) against Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, Matthew Flannagan, Norman Geisler, Mark Hanna, Thomas Talbot and some others. LINK I was planning on writing a longer response but didn't get around to it. Now I don't need to, for the Arizona Atheist has done so as he's reviewing each chapter in that book. He says:
Each of David Marshall’s arguments against the OTF fail. His next tactic, regardless of how illogical it may be, is to argue that Christianity has passed the OTF “billions of times.” (59) If an argument is by its nature “flawed,” as Marshall contends, how then, can he possibly believe arguing that “billions” allegedly passing this flawed test is proof that Christians have come to their faith in a rational manner? See more here.
Faith Acts Like An Anesthetic Which Deadens the Pain Felt For Others
If you were a naked slave with your family on the auction block under the threat of the blood soaked cowskin, where your family members were bought by different masters, wouldn't YOU wish your God had clearly condemned slavery? It's as if Christians refuse to feel their pain. Feel it. The problem is that your faith acts like an anesthetic in order to believe, by deadening the pain from stepping into other people's shoes. Faith is the opiate of the masses in this sense too.
Dear Christian, Doubt is not Your Enemy (Part 2)
In this installment, dear Christian, let’s look at the role of doubt, with regard to religion and truth. Most religions have sacred books or traditions. These books make claims about all sorts of things – the origins of the world, prescriptions for daily living, and promises and threats about a supposed afterlife. The more fundamentalist the religion, the more demands it places on the believer’s mind and life. Often, fundamentalist faiths seek to impose these view by force of law, for example the Taliban and Sharia law, or religious conservatives in the U.S. who want to impose legal penalties for those who violate their beliefs or ‘offend’ their god.
Victor Reppert On Priors, Biases and Probabilities
Victor Reppert recently said:
It all depends on your priors. I think an argument can be good even when it isn't strong enough such that it ought to convince any unbiased person. An argument might provide some evidence for its conclusion, which might be sufficient or insufficient given someone's personal prior probabilities....The trouble with "unbiased persons" is that you have to go through town with a lantern in broad daylight to find one. Unless, of course, you find the ones who agree with me! :) LINK.In one sense I agree with Vic. We all have priors, that is, background knowledge, the information we have accumulated prior to encountering a new argument. We also have biases. We are prone to so many cognitive biases it's astounding. We don't reason that well because of them. When facing the fact of biases most people will even say they are not affected by them it's so bad. So I agree there are arguments that are good ones even though they cannot convince others. The problem is what Vic thinks this proves. The real problem unaddressed by him is how we can best solve this problem when it comes to debates about his evangelical faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)