Let Ayaan Hirsi Ali Speak!

0 comments
Hemant Mehta reports:
Hirsi Ali, in her bestselling books Infideland Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations,made no secret of the fact that Islam, as interpreted by militants, extremists, and even (in some cases) casual believers, was not only untrue but harmful to the world. Between female genital mutilation, honor killings, the idea of martyrdom, and the murder of her friend Theo van Gogh, you could understand why she would courageously put her own life on the line to speak out against the horrors of the faith. In her mind, the problem wasn’t radical Islam. It was Islam, period. That’s why she was very blunt in a 2007 interview about her goal of trying to defeat Islam because she didn’t believe the “religion of peace” was capable of being saved in its current form.

Almost immediately after the announcement of her honorary degree, Muslim groups began to protest her selection. LINK
Enough with the liberal mindset that a religion, any religion, should not be criticized, enough!
Let Hirsi Ali speak, and students are welcome to respond and challenge her views. This notion that she’s unfairly critical of Islam is one that anyone is welcome to refute. She’s hardly someone who’s critical just for the sake of getting a rise out of people — she has plenty of reason to find fault with the faith.

I hope that these students who would rather she not be invited at all actually attend Monday night’s event. Don’t just protest outside and leave. Listen to her story and respond if necessary. That people are so sensitive to criticisms of Islam is reason alone for why her invitation is a welcome one.

Quote of the Day, By Loftus

0 comments
Believers have denied the evidence for so long they're projecting when claiming scientists would do the same if they found contrary evidence.

Is Radical Islam More Dangerous Than Radical Christianity?

16 comments
[Re-dated and renamed post from 3/27/08] I debunk Christianity, Evangelical or Fundamental Christianity, because I know the most about it. That being said, I think radical Islam is much more dangerous to civilization than perhaps any other religion, especially more dangerous than Christianity. There are four things that make Christianity less dangerous than Islam in my opinion.

One) Christianity has a Virgin Mary who helped bring in the redeeming Messiah. The Catholics have even made Mary a co-redeemer. This feminine Biblical example exalts women to some degree. Women aren’t entirely worthless chattel. Islam only has an Eve, who is known for being a temptress to Adam. She is weak, needing to be ruled over, who can be blamed for bringing upon the earth such misery.

Two) Christianity has its Jesus, who is basically seen as non-violent and who laid down his life for humankind. Islam has no corresponding figure. Mohammed was a political ruler, whereas Jesus had no earthly political power. So the Koran reflects the political goals of religion, whereas in Christianity it’s merely implicit.

Three) Christianity has gone through an Enlightenment beginning in the 16th century with the rise of science and modern philosophy. The only version of Christianity we see in today’s world is one reflecting various degrees of this enlightenment. As a result the only Christians we see are “cherry-picking” from the Bible based upon their modern experiences and understandings. They do not take the Bible literally. They do not think it honors God to stone adulterers, kill witches, or keep women in submissive silence at home. By contrast, Islam has had no Enlightenment. Muslims still take the Koran at face value, and there are some pretty hateful things said in it about infidels, Jews, and women, along with some barbaric ways to punish criminals.

Four) Christianity does not have the same political power that Islam has within any country in the world today. There are whole countries ruled by Islamic law. There are no countries ruled by Christian law, although there is a heavy influence of Christianity in America, the most powerful nation in the world. Even many Christians think it’s best to have the separation of church and state. But in this nuclear age with WWD's, all it would take to destroy millions of lives is a rogue Muslim state or a small group of militant Muslims who gained access to them.

What do you think?

Jerry Coyne: "We can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty."

0 comments
He writes:
[T]here’s one bedrock of Abrahamic faith that is eminently testable by science: the claim that all humans descend from a single created pair—Adam and Eve—and that these individuals were not australopithecines or apelike ancestors, but humans in the modern sense. Absent their existence, the whole story of human sin and redemption falls to pieces.

Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.

Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.

These are the scientific facts. And, unlike the case of Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty. LINK.
In another place he adds:

Does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Disprove Evolution?

0 comments
Hell no!

The Atheophobic, Islamophobophobic Left Rears Its Ugly Head Again

0 comments
This is a guest post by the author of "No Cross No Crescent" who writes for Skeptic Ink Network:
I have already written about my amazement at the frequent flirtations between Islam and the western political left, which, ideologically one would think, should be each others' worst nemesis. But this is not the kind of cognitive dissonance that is going to go away any time soon; every once in a while, we get reminded that tearing atheism apart is perfectly politically correct, while the same is not true for Islam. (No one, perhaps, exemplifies this dichotomy in the political left more blatantly than the revolting Noam Chomsky.) And on cue, they have delivered again.

Steve Novella on consciousness: dualism is the new evolution for theists (Part 1)

0 comments
.
I was listening to a Reasonable Doubts podcast from a few years ago, and it was, as ever, cracking. This one was about consciousness, its hard problem, dualism, and how it, and neuroscience, are being co-opted as a philosophical area to argue for the "God of the Gaps" style argument in the same vein as evolution in the creationist and intelligent design movements

Sept. 4, 2014: UK: Woman beheaded in broad daylight by machete-wielding Muslim, police rule out terrorism

0 comments
This too is the kind of political correctness that makes me nauseous. LINK.

You Think ISIS is the Exception When it Comes to Barbaric Acts? Not So!

0 comments
How can people continue to say Islam is a religion of peace? It defies the facts when so many Muslims act in barbaric ways and justify these acts from the Koran! This makes me nauseous! LINK

Quote of the Day, By Ed Brayton

0 comments
As I’ve said many times, we need to stop thinking that there is such a thing as Christianity or Islam. There are multiple versions of each that differ from each other in hugely significant ways. Decent, compassionate people find all the support they need in those holy books to justify being decent and compassionate. Violent, hateful people find all the support they need in those books to justify being violent and hateful. They all pick and choose the parts of their religion that they like and find ways to explain away or ignore the rest. It’s also not reasonable to claim that one or the other of these versions is the One True Religion. LINK.

Tweet Tweet, I tawt I taw a puddy tat!

0 comments
I may regret this but I just joined Twitter. I'm new so be patient, and I don't know what to say exactly, but here goes into the 21st century. @loftusjohnw

Here are my first four tweets:

If Jesus is the answer to life's most important questions then how does one go about getting a good paying job? Bible citation please.

One cannot extract a religion from a religious culture, and some religious cultures are barbaric, contrary to the liberal propaganda machine.

The irrationality of faith: "Trust in the LORD...and lean not unto thine own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Humanity is much better off if we could just subtract the religion, greed, militarism, racism, sexism, homophobia, speciesism, and so on. [Commentary: Let's start with the religion, my focus. It probably contributes somewhat to other harmful attitudes and actions, especially with regard to militarism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and speciesism.

Quote of the Day, By Matthew Cobb About Earth's New Address

0 comments
Looking the immense scale of the universe portrayed in the video [below], and the fact that not only is our solar system on the non-descript edge of our galaxy, but our galaxy is in a dull suburb of Laniakea, it is hard to feel that there’s anything special about where we are. And even less that any supernatural being should have been particularly interested in us. I am even tempted to feel that there really must be life elsewhere out there, even if I know that, for the moment, we only have evidence that life appeared once, in our boring fractal surbubia, nearly 4 billion years ago.

A Review Of My Book WIBA On Amazon Says, Skip the First Two Chapters!

0 comments
The best book I've read yet that compares and contrasts the arguments for and against a Christian God. Loftus takes an even handed approach in presenting both sides. Believers and non-believers alike should read this book to see if they can learn to strengthen their own arguments for or against. This is a very well researched book. I recommend readers skip the first two chapters and read them last or not at all. They really detracted from the meat of the book in my opinion. I picked the book up several times and put it aside after losing interest trying to get through the first two chapters. After the first two chapters, the book really takes off! LINK
Well alrighty then. In case others might feel the same, okay, have at it. ;-)

Quote of the Day, By Dr. Keith Parsons

0 comments
The qualities that make religion matter so much to people are the same ones that make it so dangerous. LINK.

ISIS Beheads Another American After a Mother's Plea for Mercy; Is It Their Religion Or Their Culture?

0 comments
In my lifetime have never heard of the kind of brutality coming from ISIS by anyone other than sociopaths and serial killers like John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy. The difference is that these serial killers did their nefarious deeds in secret for fear of being caught and punished, whereas ISIS as a whole group of people is proud of what they're doing and video tapes their barbaric deeds for the whole world to see. ISIS began as an acronym for the Islamic State of Syria which represents a Sunni jihadist group in the Middle East. Through Amir al-Mu'minin Caliph Ibrahim, the group was renamed simply the Islamic State. From Wikipedia:
A caliphate is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. "successor" – to Muhammad...under Islamic law (sharia). ISIS claims religious authority over all Muslims across the world and aspires to bring much of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with Iraq, Syria and other territory in the Levant region, which includes Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus and part of southern Turkey.
So let me get this straight, okay? ISIS wants to establish an Islamic theocracy under sharia law ruled by a caliph and this isn't a religion? Every important aspect of ISIS is religious in nature. Remove the religion and it guts everything important they hope to achieve. Without the religion there would be no ISIS. With no theocracy, no sharia law and no caliph there would be no ISIS. Their religion provides the rationale, the agenda, the justification, and the motivation to do what they are doing. It doesn't matter whether other Muslims around the world reject their religion by saying it doesn't represent true Islam. It still is a religion, a hybrid if you will of Islam, in the same way as other types of Christianities are still representative of Christianity in general. Just call it the religion of ISIS then, if you still disagree. It is a religion. To see this just ask yourself what would happen if we extracted their religion from them, every aspect of it. Would they still seek to set up an Islamic theocracy based on sharia law under an Islamic caliph? No, they wouldn't.

Given western oppression they might want to reestablish some territorial boundaries we carved up for them in the past, granted. And given human nature they might still use force to do so. But the end result would not be an Islamic theocracy based on sharia law under an Islamic caliph. They might only want to establish a dictator over these territories, not an Islamic theocracy based on sharia law under an Islamic caliph. The rationale, the agenda, the justification, and the motivation to do what they desire to do would be much different, and precisely because these things would be different they would have to come up with reasons for what they desire to achieve. The means to achieve their goals would be different. The end result itself would be different. For instance, I doubt very much they could justify such wanton brutality perpetrated on innocent non-combatants, or be so certain that what the world community thinks is irrelevant so as to broadcast this butchery like they do.

Cultures create religions. Religions create cultures. Religions change in response to cultures. Cultures change in response to religions. Religion itself is a culture. Culture itself is a religion (most of them up until recently anyway). The religious culture of ISIS is doing what we see. It is utterly barbaric to the core. But they see nothing wrong with what they're doing precisely because it's their religion that justifies what they're doing.

Quotes of the Day, by the Prolific Victor Stenger

0 comments
I didn't research to find where these quotes can be found. Nonetheless here are several of them as posted by roedygreen:

Vic Stenger On the Principles of New Atheism

0 comments


Vic wrote the book titled, The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason.He has a website that has a great many gems on it to be found here. I found this poster there. I'm supposing someone created it for him based on his book. Again, he will be missed greatly.

Victor Stenger, Physicist and Prolific Atheist Author, is Dead at 79

0 comments
Hemant Mehta wrote a fitting tribute to Stenger which included a statement from me. He will be greatly missed but he changed the world for the better. LINK.

On Ending the Philosophy of Religion; That's What I'm Talking About!

0 comments
Johnnie Terry of Sierra College, CA, tells me he's using Jerry Coyne's book, Why Evolution Is Truefor his critical thinking classes this semester! He says:
As the Philosophy 4: Critical Thinking class satisfies the college level reading requirement, I'm having the students read both "Why Evolution is True" and "Monkey Girl." Coyne's book provides excellent support for scientific reasoning, verificationism and falsificationism.
That's what I'm talking about when it comes to ending the philosophy of religion subdiscipline in secular universities!

Jesus Behaving Badly: The Fig Tree Incident

0 comments
It’s hard to act mature all of the time… even for the Son of God.  The gospels contain a number of incidents in which Jesus gets annoyed or angry.  Today, we are going to look at two versions of a story about how Jesus gets pissed off and kills a fig tree.  I don’t want to be too hard on Jesus, because he was hungry and I know how cranky I get, when I’m starving, but nonetheless, shouldn’t we expect better behavior from someone who is supposed to be God in human form?

Has Any Atheist Deconversion Happened Quite Like This?

0 comments
John Lloyd was my Youth Pastor when I first became a Christian. A couple of years ago I had lunch with him, which I wrote about here. Today I found a video of him doing a talk at the church he had founded, where he described his conversion and early ministry (starting at about 9:04), of which I was involved. My question to you is this: Has any atheist deconversion happened quite like this? I think not. It was purely experiential while he was on prescription medicine. And yet John Lloyd knows that he knows that he knows that his faith is true. It's a shame, really!


This Weekend is the PA State Atheist/Humanist Conference

0 comments
I'll be speaking at this fine conference on Saturday morning about my book The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True.As I'm finalizing my talk I've been re-reading my book again, and although I do say so myself, this book is dynamite! ;-) If you don't already have it, get it and read it. I'm very honored and grateful to be a speaker for this conference, especially given the other speakers who will be there. If you can come out, do so. Here is a link telling you all the details. Hope to see ya there!

Finally! Christianity is Not Great Went to Print!!

0 comments
As the editor, this anthology consumed a great deal of my time in the past few months. It went to print this past week and is scheduled for an October 21st release date! I sure hope Christians have the courage to read it and think through the issues we raise. I hope both budding and accomplished Christian apologists do likewise, since, if we're wrong I want to know. I sure hope atheists, agnostics, deists and people of different religious faiths like it and favorably recommend it on their blogs, podcasts and videos on YouTube. We non-Christians are in this together as we face overwhelming numerical and political odds against Christians, especially the religious right in America. To pre-order it on Amazon, where you won't be charged until it ships, follow this link.

The following clip from "The Wrath of Khan" expresses my thoughts as I ponder the impact of this anthology:

The Evolution of God from Yahweh in a Box to the Super Mega Deity of the Universe

0 comments

The God of modern Christian theology is a philosophically supercharged God far removed from the physically limited and dimwitted Yahweh whose identity has as much in common as a horse and buggy does with a Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4.   Ironically, Christian apologists such has WL Craig totally ignore this primitive and limited tribal God in favor of the easy to defend modern concept of a nameless figure that has evolved from the New Testament whose image is rooted in the pagan Classical Tradition. (1)

 When a person “becomes a Christian”, it’s not the ancient Near Eastern tribal Yahweh they are presented with, but a slick modern super deity with few links to the Old Testament . . . known simply as God with a capital “G” who is really an anthology of Classical pagan attributes taken on after having absorbed the myths of other ancient Near Eastern Semitic gods.  This apologetically hopped up deity which grew out of the ideals of Neo-Platonism is constantly gathering apologetic power be they from the Summa Theological concepts of Thomas Aquinas to Karl Rahner’s Systematic Catholic Theology to Barth’s Protestant Church Dogmatics and on to Alfred North Whitehead’s Processed Reality.  The evolution of God is now considerably much like the woman Lucy in the current hit movie of the same title or a God who continues to acquire any philosophical protection the best apologists can mentally bestow upon him.

Given the cruelty and barbarism of the religion of Isis I submit this song:

0 comments

Damn It! The Saint's Head Breaks Off

0 comments
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=547659308642357

Now there's going to be Hell to pay!

How a Lie about Bill Gates Disproves Pascal’s Wager

0 comments
Can you afford not to trust him?!
Hey Facebook, As some of you may know, I’m Bill Gates. If you click that share link, I will give you $5,000. I always deliver, I mean, I brought your Windows XP, right? ” (And it’s still running on Facebook as a “Friend” Shared it with me.)
In just 16 years over 400,000 Facebook users disproved Pascal’s famous 360 year old Wager due to the fact that these Facebook believers took the Pascal’s Wager Challenge and ALL 400,000 proved Pascal’s Wager was wrong! Even though the facts were out for years, people just couldn’t believe that a picture of Bill Gates himself holding a promissory note shared by hundreds of thousands was a huge lie!
 Hey (according to Pascal’s Wager), go ahead; what have you got to lose except tens of thousands of dollars and can you really afford to be that foolish?!  So can you simply afford not to trust what over 400,000 people believed to have been the Gospel Truth?
Finally, someone needs to post a picture of Jesus Christ also holding up a sign claiming eternal Heavenly bliss if you not only believe yourself, but "Share" this divine promissory note with all your friends.  After all, if you’re a non-believer, what have you got to lose?

The Finalized Book Cover of "Christianity is Not Great"

0 comments


This is the finalized cover of my anthology "Christianity is Not Great."

To see the description and contents follow this link. To pre-order it on Amazon, where you won't be charged until it ships, follow this link. It's slated for an October 14th publication date. 


This is a "great" book, get it? ;-)

James Lindsay On Ending the Philosophy of Religion

0 comments
It is very difficult to see the matter of theism as something to treat seriously as a philosophical object. We shouldn't. It is a theological object, and theology is only "pseudo-philosophical," as Carrier puts it, and pseudo-academic, as I outlined above. No one is required to take such a thing seriously or engage its "best" arguments, as if it has any, as if the real contenders haven't already been dealt with thoroughly and repeatedly, and as if any argument stands up to the simple and straightforward question that's been waiting for them all along: "Where's the evidence?"

But because the idea that we should engage any position's best case is generally true in philosophy proper, and all academic debate, it is an easy value to turn into a false virtue. The principle simply doesn't apply here because theology is pseudo-academic, though. Misapplying it as a false virtue, a moral value defining a particular kind of thinker, I think, is exactly what apologists for the philosophy of religion are doing, and I think it constitutes a confusing and unproductive avenue in the conversation that should not continue. LINK.

Christians Have A Gambling Addiction

0 comments


 I’ve been pondering Pascal’s Wager, and I think that he might actually have been onto something.  Not in the sense that his wager was valid, of course.  
His bet was far too simplistic.  Its fatal flaw of assuming that the Christian god is the only deity which might exist, is glaringly apparent to everyone except for believers.  Philosophers such as Homer J. Simpson have dissected it:

Objective Evidence Trumps Subjective Experiences Every Time

0 comments
Q: What about someone who believes God exists wholly apart from evidence, say, on the basis of their religious experience, like William Alston and William Lane Craig argue, who claim the existence of God can be immediately known and experienced wholly apart from objective evidence?

A: I'd say such a claim itself is not based on objective evidence, which is the only reality check we can have against false subjective claims. For the evidence of subjective religious experiences is trumped by the objective evidence that the Christian god, the one they claim to have subjectively experienced, does not exist. That kind of objective evidence abounds. Objective evidence is also the reality check for all people of faith who claim similar subjective experiences are veridical. People of faith who reverse this by claiming subjective religious experiences trump all objective evidence are not thinking like adults, so they must go to the children's table. They are deluded. They are Epistemological Solipsists.

Quote of the Day On The Philosophy of Religion, by Loftus

0 comments
Secularists should teach the Philosophy of Religion in the classroom the same way they write their books, although they should allow for student interaction and debate. If the discipline is to be taught then this is one of the ways to do it right.

Dr. Hector Avalos Calls For Ending Religionist Philosophy of Religion

0 comments
I've been wondering what Hector thinks of my call for ending the Philosophy of Religion, since I'm basing it on his call to end biblical studies. So I asked him. He has not followed the discussion that much but enough to say this (per email):
My proposal is "to end biblical studies as we know it" (The End of Biblical Studies, p. 15),which means in its current religionist and apologetic orientation. So I am for ending the philosophy of religion if its only mission is to defend religion and theism. So, akin to my vision of the end of biblical studies, I would say that the only mission of the philosophy of religion is to end the philosophy of religion as we know it.
He also provided a progress report so far on his call to end biblical studies: