British atheist and Freethinker George William Foote (1850-1915) wrote:
Goldsmith said there are two classes of people who dread ridicule–priests and fools. They cry out that it is no argument, but they know it is. It has been found the most potent form of argument. Euclid used it in his immortal Geometry; for what else is the reductio ad absurdum which he sometimes employs? Elijah used it against the priests of Baal. The Christian fathers found it effective against the Pagan superstitions, and in turn it was adopted as the best weapon of attack on them by Lucian and Celsus. Ridicule has been used by Bruno, Erasmus, Luther, Rabelais, Swift, and Voltaire, by nearly all the great emancipators of the human mind. ["On Ridicule" Seasons of Freethought, 2013, page 260. See the tag "Ridicule" below for others who embrace it.]
Sometimes I think people are using my material without giving me credit. Nonetheless, this is a very good video and I'm happy my ideas are getting out there. I may have linked to it before. Keep in mind I don't endorse every specific thing said. The only person I agree with 100% is me, but even then there are times I disagree later. ;-)
On Facebook I listed a few criteria for accepting friend requests. One person quoted one of them (in yellow) and responded in a comment. This will be my standard response to such efforts. Since belief springs from a blinded ignorance and since as a non-believer I have read extensively, then I have much more to teach most believers than they could possibly teach me.
While many conservative Christian schools require a
affirmation of faith in the Bible, Bob Jones University carries this process one step further by having
two of their science professors offer an apologetic defense of the Bible . . . something one
would expect of their mentally programmed Bible Faculty (one cannot teach religion at
BJU with a degree in Christian studies from another institution. If you want proof, then checkout their Faculty – Division of Bibleand Seminary and Graduate School of Religion.) In
order to teach in the Science Department at BJU,
all professors are required to sign
a yearly statement of faith which includes affirming the following dogmas. An Affirmation of Biblical Creation at Bob Jones University
Who says ridicule, and now shaming, doesn't work? No one, probably, but it does, most emphatically, as I've written in several posts to date. Now there is a call to ridicule and shame the anti-vaccine movement, just as we do to the KKK. Now, let's consider the impact of ridicule and shame on religions like Christianity and Islam. No wonder Muslims don't like being ridiculed. They know where it can lead.
"The God of Thunder is making a triumphant return
to Iceland. After 1,000 years without a temple of worship to the Norse gods,
Iceland is resurrecting its pagan roots."
Now the dust has settled on the Charlie Hebdo affair (though, of course, there is no respite in the Middle East, or in Nigeria or Somalia), I thought it might be a good time to post this article here (it was originally at my blog here). The idea is not to demonise Islam unnecessarily - that helps no one - but to give credit (!) where credit is due. I am interested in truth. I want to look, with this piece, at whether Islam has causal responsibility in some important part, in its core ideals and motifs, for such violence. Buckle up.
The problem with theism is not only that it is false, but encourages cosmic myopia. In the face of countless competing claims, the believer insists that it is his story that answers the world's important questions.
Someone named Bryan on Twitter said this to me: "Your chapter in your new anthology on slavery is a faith-destroyer. Well done." Music to my ears of course, since, well, I agree. ;-) Go get it, now! Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails.
Here is Part 2 of my discussion/debate with David Marshall on the Unbelievable? podcast. LINK. Part 1 can be found here. Since Part 1 was aired last week I've written a three part review of David Marshall's book to be read here, seen in reverse chronological order. There the listener can see exactly why my last comment in Part 2 of this program was that Marshall's book is "entirely irrelevant to the evidence demanded for testing one's faith. And I find that even though Randal Rauser has switched sides apparently, by recommending this book...Marshall doesn't even understand the problem." Now aside from what I've written earlier about Marshall's book, there are three more important things to say about it.
Why? I'll tell you why. Because theists gravitate to that field, that's why. In fact, given that they do gravitate to that field, the fact that there aren't MORE theists working in it tells us something interesting about the philosophy of religion (PoR) itself. I've been arguing that the PoR should end in the secular universities. A new study confirms what I'm saying since the discipline isn't even able to keep those believers who enter it! That's the take away from a recent study of the figures.
Christian intellectuals chide me when I say faith is irrational. "No it's not" they say. "You're so ignorant Loftus." Really? Seriously? Okay then, please explain why I saw this picture on Facebook just now. Anyone else find some good ones on faith for the faithful? And the new definition of mine?
"Faith is trusting in a god whom we know is trustworthy because we have faith that he's trustworthy." --You can quote me on this! ;-)
Valerie just keeps zinging them out. A few of her reasons that a heavenly world is instead a helluva world will seem quite astounding for believers I think. But they're all reasonable. Heaven ain't so heavenly even on Christian grounds. Christan, seriously, you want to go there? Immediately go read her essay: 10 Reasons Popular Versions of Christian Heaven Would be Hell.
Contrast what Tarico writes with what Randal Rauser wrote in his book, What on Earth Do We Know about Heaven?. Care to investigate it? A-Unicornist did, and he reviewed Rauser's book right here. He shows that at times Rauser engaged in "pretty standard-issue making shit up." Not so with Tarico. She's examined 10 popular Christian beliefs about heaven and shows why we wouldn't want to be there. I know I wouldn't and I doubt any thoughtful person would too. Many Christians think heaven is like that but wouldn't like being there! This would be belly on the floor laughable, if it wasn't so sad and so dangerous.
Kurt Willems, who writes for the Pangea blog at the Progressive Christian Channel for Patheos, challenges Christians to give up believing in hell for one year (however conceived).
What do I mean exactly? I want to invite readers to contemplate giving up hell for a year. For one year of your life, become a practical universalist. Live as though hell doesn’t exist. I dare you.LINK.
I think these types of challenges are what the cool kids do. So if you want to be a cool kid do likewise. This year follow the example of Kurt Willems. He suggests "our relationships with nonChristians would be revolutionized" if Christians did this. Why? Because for most Christians hell dictates "how we relate to others." So, "With less reason for agenda, these friendships would become mutually beneficial." Right that!
Here's my question based on Kurt's challenge. What does hell have to do with anything? Tell me, I implore you. If you gave hell up for a year what, if anything, would change? If something does change then explain why. I'm constantly told that Christians believe and live the Christian life because God loves them, not because they are afraid of hell. When I get a chance to speak I say hell is indeed a major factor, it's just that Christians don't realize it until AFTER they reject their faith. Well Christians, here's your chance to show us. See what you would believe and how you would live if there was no hell. Go ahead. What do you have to lose?
Here's an unintended consequence of Kurt's challenge that he may not have thought about. Never fear though. I'll tell him. If hell doesn't exist Christians should have no fear of attending Freethought and atheist meetings, nor any fear of reading atheist literature. They would have no fear of meeting my three Debunking Christianity Challenges if hell doesn't exist. Why? Because believers who are not in deathly fear of hell can dispassionately examine their faith for the first time in their lives. Go on. Try it this year. I dare you!
The ambiguous word "Islamophobia", often taken to mean some form of bigotry against Muslim but indeed "flexible" enough to apply to anyone who doesn’t follow every single demand of Islamists to the letter, continues to be used as a tool of political pressure like no other. On the other hand-there are indications that among politicians, at least some are growing a backbone and calling the accusers’ bluff.
This should be my final post refuting Dr. David Marshall's “rebuttal” to my book The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). Marshall's book, How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test: The Inside Story,is really bad. In fact, it's so bad I'm using the word "refutation" for what I'm doing in these posts. If I'm largely successful then it also says something about Dr. Randal Rauser, that he will say and endorse anything in order to defend his Christian faith. No educated intellectual worthy the name would have written Marshall's book. No educated intellectual should think it's worthy of any kind of a blurb either.
I've decided to write more than just one post about Dr. David Marshall's “rebuttal” to my book The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). I will attempt to show why Marshall's book, How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test: The Inside Story,is really bad. In fact, it's so bad I'm using the word "refutation" for what I'm doing here. I hardly ever use that word because refutations are usually unachievable in these kinds of debates. So let's continue, shall we?
I've decided to write more than just one post about Dr. David Marshall's “rebuttal” to my book The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). I will attempt to show why Marshall's book, How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test: The Inside Story,is really bad. In fact, it's so bad I'm using the word "refutation" for what I'm about to do to it. I hardly ever use that word because refutations are usually unachievable in these kinds of debates. If I'm largely successful then it also says something about Dr. Randal Rauser, that he will say and endorse anything in order to defend his Christian faith. No educated intellectual worthy the name would have written Marshall's book. No educated intellectual should think it's worthy of any kind of a blurb either. Rauser blurbed it saying, “Delightful riposte . . . rhetorical wit and the cosmopolitan vision of a true world citizen!” On his blog Rauser additionally recommended it saying, "While I don’t think much of Loftus’s faltering attempt to make an enduring contribution to serious academic discourse, I do think highly of Marshall’s eloquent rebuttal of it." Drs. Miriam Adeney and Ivan Satyavrata also recommend Marshall's book.
Here we go then, little ole me against four, count 'em, four Ph.D.'s. What chance might I have? How dare I even try?
Coming shortly may be the last two posts of mine for a little while, apart from brief announcements and quotes. I am fully engaged in writing another book, due March 31st. I'm also in the process of editing another anthology, on science and Christianity, with about ten authors on-board so far. At least, that's what I should be doing rather than blogging (we'll see). Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss anything from us here at DC.
Before turning my full attention to those tasks I need to show why David Marshall's book is anything but "Much Ado About Nothing." Randal Rauser has endorsed it with a blurb. I will attempt to show why Marshall's book is really bad. If successful then it says something about Rauser, that he will say and endorse anything in order to defend his Christian faith. No educated intellectual should think Marshall's book is worthy of a blurb. No educated intellectual worthy the name would have written it.
Now this isn't to say Marshall's book is worthless. It has little ado rather than much ado. For Marshall is a Christian apologist who embraces The Outsider Test for Faith with a few caveats (OTF). I'm minimally thankful for this. But that's it. Stay tuned. The second post will be forthcoming soon.
Quote from atheists like Thomas Nagel or Jean Paul Sartre who say things you agree with. Throw them all together and let them make your case for you. Then forget or ignore why these people are atheists in the first place.
A reminder. A class offering based on my latest anthology, "Christianity is Not Great" will be held in February. To read more about this class and sign up then follow this link. (Details to be found there).
Yes, anyone can sign up. It should be very informative as it's such a huge book. As an extra bonus I'll contact the contributors to the chapters with the best questions from students of the class!
If you don't plan on taking the class and you know of someone else who might be interested, then please send them this link. Or better yet, post it to your wall even if you don't plan on taking it. Thanks!!
Justin Brierley hosts the very popular Christian podcast Unbelievable? He's an amicable guy, but he's clearly not as neutral or objective of an interviewer as he portrays himself. Before agreeing to have this discussion with David Marshall, who had written a book on the OTF, I had insisted on equal time. However, it was a bit annoying up until the 28 minute mark to sit and listen to so much drivel without a good chance to respond. So when I was given a chance to speak at length (after the 28 minute mark) I came up with 5 objections to what was being said. Justin subsequently took each one of my objections and had a discussion about them. This is not what he did when Marshall spoke. There were many times in the interview where Marshall said things I wanted to respond to, but wasn't given the same chance. LINK. It was very annoying. Part 2 is next week. It was pre-recorded.
Do you want the paperback to my co-written book (with Randal Rauser) "God or Godless"? It's available right now for just $1.98. I can't say how long the price will remain this cheap. It's cheaper with postage than a Kindle version. Get it, titled, God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions.
Here is an example of why people subscribe to this blog. We consistently produce interesting discussions. Here is another one that I'm introducing today. We have addressed the problem with institutions of higher learning that require their professors to sign doctrinal statements before, especially here, but also here and here. This is a typical doctrinal statement:
We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally and plenarily inspired of God, are inerrant in the original writings, and are the infallible authority in all matters of faith and conduct (II Timothy 3:16).
Evangelical scholars who teach for evangelical and other sectarian colleges must sign similar doctrinal statements every year. Some students are required to sign them in order to graduate, or so I've heard. Why do they need this if the evidence for evangelical and sectarian scholarship is there in the first place? Why are they needed if the goal is the search for truth in a world of religious confusion?
Evangelical backward thinking colleges seek legitimization. Gaining accreditation is one way to do that. So accreditation should be denied these colleges. Do it now! Apply this retroactively to sectarian colleges who already have accreditation. Colleges like Biola University. No, I am not kidding. The principle to be used in denying them accreditation is that signing doctrinal statements disqualifies a higher institution of learning worthy of the name from accreditation.