John W. Loftushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13565890121197051580johnwloftus@frontier.comBlogger3080125
Updated: 31 weeks 5 days ago
Leaving Amish Paradise
There are so many lessons here about the mind of the believer. Enjoy.
Categories: Religion
A Challenge to Theists
Categories: Religion
Great Reading While I'm Away
I'll be back Sunday but in the meantime some of the best stuff here at DC is from Dr. Hector Avalos and Dr. Jaco Gericke. (On Hector's posts click at the bottom of the first page for "Older Posts" to see more). Enjoy and comment below at will.
Categories: Religion
The Thing That Made the Things for Which There is No Known Maker
Surely this can make us all laugh, right?
Categories: Religion
Vic Reppert's "Argument From Reason" is Against a Strawman
Yep, he does not deal with what scientifically minded skeptics actually think. Just look at this. That's not what we think at all. And his argument is most emphatically ignorant about evolution.
Because of this I really don't understand why he believes it's a good argument at all. One must first understand our position.
Let's say you have a tool that is damaged to some degree. Let’s say it’s a circular saw and the blade is in need of sharpening, or even worse, needs thrown away.
Can you still cut timber? Yes or no?
Now let’s say you have no other tool that will do the job better.
What to to?
I find it to be an impossible argument to say that our brains are completely and utterly untrustworthy given evolution. THAT'S the argument he has to make, and it simply cannot be made.
What to do? Use it.
Given that we know from all scientific studies that we are not all that rational, then we can know this much, that we are not all that rational! Get the point. Yet this is the only tool in our toolbox. So we must use it to find our way. Since this is the case we can only trust the sciences to light our path.
What am I missing?
Nothing.
His only recourse, should he actually deal with what evolution commits us to, is to deny evolution--to denigrate the sciences--which is typical.
Jerry Coyne wrote:Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about he details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect, supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that only benefit a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth. -Why Evolution Is True. Richard Dawkins wrote: Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips...continue the list as long as desired...It didn't have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it." - Greatest Show on Earth (pp. 8-9).I have written a a lot of material on the topic of rationality, including what the authors said in the first few chapters in "The Christian Delusion."
See here. If nothing else skim through the titles of these posts. I've reviewed books and listed further books to read.
The fact that none of us is entirely rational is a fact, except that those of us who know this about ourselves are more likely not to trust our whims or any anecdotal evidence or that which we prefer to be true. We would demand hard cold evidence whenever we can. And this data should make us all skeptical--all of us. Skepticism is a filter we use to strain out good ideas from the bad so we cannot dispense with it or become skeptical of that filter.
What to do?
Trust the sciences.
The alternative?
Denigrate them.
His argument doesn't really deal with what scientifically minded skeptics think. So why bother engaging it? There is no reason to do so. That's my position. The best response is to inform theists what we know from the sciences. I'm not hopeful even that will work.
Until philosophers deal with the sciences there is nothing to do but remind them what the sciences have shown us.
My point is that if evolution is the case we can still trust our reasoning abilities even though they are sometimes inadequate. In fact, this is what we would expect to find given that we have an evolved three tiered brain built on top of each other. That we do reason adequately enough is no reason to think we need a god for what we do with our brains.
Does this disprove Vic's argument?
NO, not at all.
But then before a believer will consider his faith to be improbable I must show him that it's impossible, and THAT is an utterly unreasonable request.
Because of this I really don't understand why he believes it's a good argument at all. One must first understand our position.
Let's say you have a tool that is damaged to some degree. Let’s say it’s a circular saw and the blade is in need of sharpening, or even worse, needs thrown away.
Can you still cut timber? Yes or no?
Now let’s say you have no other tool that will do the job better.
What to to?
I find it to be an impossible argument to say that our brains are completely and utterly untrustworthy given evolution. THAT'S the argument he has to make, and it simply cannot be made.
What to do? Use it.
Given that we know from all scientific studies that we are not all that rational, then we can know this much, that we are not all that rational! Get the point. Yet this is the only tool in our toolbox. So we must use it to find our way. Since this is the case we can only trust the sciences to light our path.
What am I missing?
Nothing.
His only recourse, should he actually deal with what evolution commits us to, is to deny evolution--to denigrate the sciences--which is typical.
Jerry Coyne wrote:Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about he details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect, supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that only benefit a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth. -Why Evolution Is True. Richard Dawkins wrote: Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips...continue the list as long as desired...It didn't have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it." - Greatest Show on Earth (pp. 8-9).I have written a a lot of material on the topic of rationality, including what the authors said in the first few chapters in "The Christian Delusion."
See here. If nothing else skim through the titles of these posts. I've reviewed books and listed further books to read.
The fact that none of us is entirely rational is a fact, except that those of us who know this about ourselves are more likely not to trust our whims or any anecdotal evidence or that which we prefer to be true. We would demand hard cold evidence whenever we can. And this data should make us all skeptical--all of us. Skepticism is a filter we use to strain out good ideas from the bad so we cannot dispense with it or become skeptical of that filter.
What to do?
Trust the sciences.
The alternative?
Denigrate them.
His argument doesn't really deal with what scientifically minded skeptics think. So why bother engaging it? There is no reason to do so. That's my position. The best response is to inform theists what we know from the sciences. I'm not hopeful even that will work.
Until philosophers deal with the sciences there is nothing to do but remind them what the sciences have shown us.
My point is that if evolution is the case we can still trust our reasoning abilities even though they are sometimes inadequate. In fact, this is what we would expect to find given that we have an evolved three tiered brain built on top of each other. That we do reason adequately enough is no reason to think we need a god for what we do with our brains.
Does this disprove Vic's argument?
NO, not at all.
But then before a believer will consider his faith to be improbable I must show him that it's impossible, and THAT is an utterly unreasonable request.
Categories: Religion
Time For Some Fun
Fun Bible Questions, by my friend Matt Hensley:So, I thought I would help John with his blog and add a little humor today. I mean let’s face it: It’s been WAYYYY to serious around here lately. So I put together a list of fun questions to ask about the Bible. Feel free to cut loose and answer them in a fun way. After all, even super serious all knowing Atheists like us need to cut loose a little, right? Here we go:
1. If Jesus was such a good carpenter, why couldn’t he nail Mary Magdalene?
2. Did god design woodchucks with a predetermined level of wood chucking ability?
3. Why did Noah bother to save the Dodo bird, if god knew beforehand Christian sailors were going to eat them all?
4. If Solomon was so smart and holy, why did he get married 300 times?
5. Was Jesus a cheapskate? I mean seriously, loaves and fishes? Steaks and Lobsters would have drawn a bigger crowd.
6. Isn’t there something a little wrong about 13 guys wandering around the countryside “laying hands” on people?
7. Don’t you think god would draw more people to church if it was more like a magic miracle show every Sunday instead of an accountant convention?
8. What the point of being able to perform miracles if you can’t make a tiger disappear every time one tries to eat an Indian child?
9. God demands 10%. In the old days sacrificing and burning 10% of the flock was how he got paid. So why don’t churches set fire to the money they collect every week as a deposit into gods bank account?
10. Why was god always screwing with the Israelites? You’d think he would have spent more time ruining their enemies.
11. God invented everything. Therefore, god invented masturbation. How often do you think god does that? Is that why it’s been snowing so much lately?
12. Back to Solomon: with all those wives and concubines, how did he have time to do anything but have sex?
13. Why did god give all the oil to the Muslims and communists, if he loves Christians and Americans so much?
Thanks for reading and hopefully you had some fun. I’m outta here!!!!
1. If Jesus was such a good carpenter, why couldn’t he nail Mary Magdalene?
2. Did god design woodchucks with a predetermined level of wood chucking ability?
3. Why did Noah bother to save the Dodo bird, if god knew beforehand Christian sailors were going to eat them all?
4. If Solomon was so smart and holy, why did he get married 300 times?
5. Was Jesus a cheapskate? I mean seriously, loaves and fishes? Steaks and Lobsters would have drawn a bigger crowd.
6. Isn’t there something a little wrong about 13 guys wandering around the countryside “laying hands” on people?
7. Don’t you think god would draw more people to church if it was more like a magic miracle show every Sunday instead of an accountant convention?
8. What the point of being able to perform miracles if you can’t make a tiger disappear every time one tries to eat an Indian child?
9. God demands 10%. In the old days sacrificing and burning 10% of the flock was how he got paid. So why don’t churches set fire to the money they collect every week as a deposit into gods bank account?
10. Why was god always screwing with the Israelites? You’d think he would have spent more time ruining their enemies.
11. God invented everything. Therefore, god invented masturbation. How often do you think god does that? Is that why it’s been snowing so much lately?
12. Back to Solomon: with all those wives and concubines, how did he have time to do anything but have sex?
13. Why did god give all the oil to the Muslims and communists, if he loves Christians and Americans so much?
Thanks for reading and hopefully you had some fun. I’m outta here!!!!
Categories: Religion
"Christianity is Not Great": My New Proposed Book is Taking Shape
Yes, we're pretty excited. Check it out. It'll be a humdinger. ;-)
Categories: Religion
Poll on The Tea Party and Religion
It must be Poll day here at DC!...they are much more likely than registered voters as a whole to say that their religion is the most important factor in determining their opinions on these social issues. And they draw disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants. LinkNotice the distinction between white and minority evangelicals? There is one, most definitely.
Categories: Religion
"Religion May Become Extinct in Nine Nations, Study Says"
A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers. The study found a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation. LinkThe countries? Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.
Categories: Religion
"America Becoming Less Christian, Survey Finds"
America is a less Christian nation than it was 20 years ago, and Christianity is not losing out to other religions, but primarily to a rejection of religion altogether, a survey published Monday found. LinkIn searching for this poll I'm having a bit of trouble. Perhaps it's this one done by the Pew Forum called U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. See what you think. One conclusion is that it's more socially acceptable than ever to admit having no religion.
Categories: Religion
A Few Observations About Evangelicalism
I know beyond a shadow of doubt that evangelical (or conservative) Christianity is wrong, false, and that only deluded people think otherwise. I have to be. For I'm risking their particular hellfire, so to speak. Almost everyone agrees with me too. Global religious diversity shows us this. Even among people claiming to be Christians most of them are not evangelicals. Evangelicalism is a small slice of the religious pie, and even they have disputes between themselves over who are true Christians, so for them it's even a smaller slice of the pie. These are all well-known facts from which we can make a few observations.
1) Despite what it appears to evangelicals from being cloistered within their own walls, evangelicalism is not doing well. Stepping outside the confines of their cult can help educate them as to why they believe, and it's not because of the so-called contrived evidence. Rather, it's called indoctrination, enculturation and brainwashing.
2) When they defend Christianity from skeptics they usually do not defend what they actually believe, but rather what Christians in general believe. That's one reason why William Lane Craig won't debate the reliability of the Bible, because if he did so he would alienate other Christians who disagree.
3) When they argue that the choices are between Christianity and atheism they have grossly and unfairly stacked the deck in their favor. They do so because this is what it takes to defend what they believe. The religious choices are numerous, which makes agnosticism the default position. Human minds can accept so many different religious faiths because of the perceived need to believe. That's just not good enough without the requisite evidence to believe.
1) Despite what it appears to evangelicals from being cloistered within their own walls, evangelicalism is not doing well. Stepping outside the confines of their cult can help educate them as to why they believe, and it's not because of the so-called contrived evidence. Rather, it's called indoctrination, enculturation and brainwashing.
2) When they defend Christianity from skeptics they usually do not defend what they actually believe, but rather what Christians in general believe. That's one reason why William Lane Craig won't debate the reliability of the Bible, because if he did so he would alienate other Christians who disagree.
3) When they argue that the choices are between Christianity and atheism they have grossly and unfairly stacked the deck in their favor. They do so because this is what it takes to defend what they believe. The religious choices are numerous, which makes agnosticism the default position. Human minds can accept so many different religious faiths because of the perceived need to believe. That's just not good enough without the requisite evidence to believe.
Categories: Religion
One of the Most Asinine Christian Claims I've Heard
It's claimed that people like Dawkins, or Hitchens, or Harris don't know enough to reject Christianity. How much should a person know about a religion or the various branches of it in order to reject it? Really. I'd like to know. These very Christians do not know much about other branches of their own religion, so how can they reject them? And they do not know much about the various other religions around the world or the branches within them, so how can they reject them? Most Christians do not know enough about their own religion! All a person has to do to reject their own inherited religion is to subject it to the same level of skepticism they use when rejecting all other religions. This represents The Outsider Test for Faith I argue for. Just think what Christians are saying. They're saying that in order to reject any given religion a person must know a lot about it. How much, I ask? Should we spend our lives getting doctorates in them one by one? How reasonable is that? How long would it take to learn enough about all religions in order to reject them all? Wouldn't Jesus himself be opposed to granting salvation only to people who knew a lot about the religions of the world? Wouldn't he be opposed to the idea that human beings must gain the proper amount of knowledge that Christians require in order to find the correct one, if there is one? Didn't Jesus come for the lowly, the outcasts, and the babes? Such inconsistency knows no bounds. No wonder my claim is that Christians demand that we prove their faith is impossible before they will see it as improbable.
Categories: Religion
Upcoming Events: I'll Be Speaking in Louisiana, Ohio, and New York
I spoke at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette last week. This Thursday, March 24th, I'll be speaking for the CFI of Northeast Ohio, then on Friday the 25th for the CFI of Amherst, New York, then I'll be speaking at the CFI group at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH on the 26th. I hope to see some of you at one of these events.
Categories: Religion
CFI Memo: "E Pluribus Unum" Rather Than "In God We Trust"
As you may have heard, religious conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives have introduced a divisive and disrespectful resolution "reaffirming" In God We Trust as the national motto....This obvious ploy to divide the nation along religious lines is utterly shameful. It excludes the millions of American non-believers, as well as the millions of Americans of minority religions that do not believe in a monotheistic god. The resolution also distracts Congress's attention from the many pressing national issues confronting it.
Congress only adopted "In God We Trust" as the national motto in 1956, when American leaders sought to distinguish the United States from the communist Soviet Union. By invoking belief in a monotheistic divinity, however, Congress divided the American populace along religious lines by reinforcing the outsider status of the nation's many nonbelievers, as well as members of minority religions that do not recognize a monotheistic god (including, for example, Buddhists and Hindus). Polls show that 16% of Americans have no religious identity, while over 40 million Americans do not identify with the motto's monotheistic God.
A far better motto for the nation is the Latin motto adopted in 1782 as part of the national seal: "E Pluribus Unum," or "Out of many, one." America's original motto accurately describes the nation as a unity comprising people from many religious perspectives. Link
Congress only adopted "In God We Trust" as the national motto in 1956, when American leaders sought to distinguish the United States from the communist Soviet Union. By invoking belief in a monotheistic divinity, however, Congress divided the American populace along religious lines by reinforcing the outsider status of the nation's many nonbelievers, as well as members of minority religions that do not recognize a monotheistic god (including, for example, Buddhists and Hindus). Polls show that 16% of Americans have no religious identity, while over 40 million Americans do not identify with the motto's monotheistic God.
A far better motto for the nation is the Latin motto adopted in 1782 as part of the national seal: "E Pluribus Unum," or "Out of many, one." America's original motto accurately describes the nation as a unity comprising people from many religious perspectives. Link
Categories: Religion
"A" Week is This Week
Tell others you’re an atheist and proud of it this week. Start some discussions with people about your atheism.A Week is not about being disrespectful to religion or people who have religious views, it’s about quietly showing that there are more people than may be realised who are ‘Good without God’ and who don’t need religion to influence their lives. Link
Categories: Religion
Why Are You An Atheist?
Jerry Coyne asked a good starter question so let me repeat it here: Why are you an atheist? Does it have anything to do with a lack of evidence for god, or are there other factors involved?
Link
Link
Categories: Religion
Quote of the Day, by The Maverick Jester
It was one of my children that pushed me toward atheism. He did something that I didn't approve. In the bible, we learn that if one of god's children disappoints him and refuses to beg for forgiveness, he sends them to an eternity of torture. Until that incident with my son, I didn't understand how insane the concept of hell was. Never would I want my son to suffer. He could spit on me or hate me and I would still seek his good. There is nothing that he could do that would make me want him to be tortured forever-or even a minute. Once I began to question god about hell, I began to question him about everything. I didn't want to ask questions. I wanted to believe. But once the ball started rolling, I couldn't stop it. Link
Categories: Religion
And the Winner is...James McGrath
There is a clear winner for my T-Shirt slogan contest with the most votes, and it's James F. McGrath. His slogan: "Atheists: Disbelieving in gods without getting struck by lightning for more than 2000 years." He said he would like to blog his way through the book by Earl Doherty that I'll send him. I look forward to that. There were many other great slogans. The ones I liked the best are below, and I may use a few of them on my shirts:
Carlos_Licea 03/14/2011 03:22 PM
"Religion: the act of believing that the greatest being on the universe happens to agree with your point of view."
LetUsRatiocinate 03/14/2011 03:31 PM
Then man created god
in his own image.
And it was not good.
Michael Gage 03/14/2011 03:47 PM
What luck! I was born into the one true religion.
Zekefreak 03/14/2011 04:43 PM
"No one has ever seen God..." (John 1:18)
Exactly. Thanks Jesus!
exrelayman 03/14/2011 04:49 PM
Atheism: relief from belief.
exrelayman 03/14/2011 05:01 PM
I think. Therefore I don't believe.
KaneAugustus 03/14/2011 05:05 PM
"Show me a god and I'll show you the person who made it."
Zekefreak 03/14/2011 08:56 PM
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after REASON, for theirs is the kingdom of KNOWLEDGE."
Agnost Andy 03/15/2011 08:15 AM
Silly Christian.
Myths are for kids!
Ken9081 03/15/2011 02:20 PM
The "Good Book"? It's not so good.
Steven Bently 03/15/2011 09:37 PM
Christians aren’t perfect, they’re just brainwashed.
Lynn 03/16/2011 04:39 AM
God loves you. You're going to hell.
Jon Jermey 03/16/2011 05:29 PM
"I don't understand, therefore God."
Godlessheethen 03/16/2011 01:20 PM
T-shirt slogan: "And on the 4,600,000,000th Day Darwin Rested."
Carlos_Licea 03/14/2011 03:22 PM
"Religion: the act of believing that the greatest being on the universe happens to agree with your point of view."
LetUsRatiocinate 03/14/2011 03:31 PM
Then man created god
in his own image.
And it was not good.
Michael Gage 03/14/2011 03:47 PM
What luck! I was born into the one true religion.
Zekefreak 03/14/2011 04:43 PM
"No one has ever seen God..." (John 1:18)
Exactly. Thanks Jesus!
exrelayman 03/14/2011 04:49 PM
Atheism: relief from belief.
exrelayman 03/14/2011 05:01 PM
I think. Therefore I don't believe.
KaneAugustus 03/14/2011 05:05 PM
"Show me a god and I'll show you the person who made it."
Zekefreak 03/14/2011 08:56 PM
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after REASON, for theirs is the kingdom of KNOWLEDGE."
Agnost Andy 03/15/2011 08:15 AM
Silly Christian.
Myths are for kids!
Ken9081 03/15/2011 02:20 PM
The "Good Book"? It's not so good.
Steven Bently 03/15/2011 09:37 PM
Christians aren’t perfect, they’re just brainwashed.
Lynn 03/16/2011 04:39 AM
God loves you. You're going to hell.
Jon Jermey 03/16/2011 05:29 PM
"I don't understand, therefore God."
Godlessheethen 03/16/2011 01:20 PM
T-shirt slogan: "And on the 4,600,000,000th Day Darwin Rested."
Categories: Religion