Debunking Christianity

Judges 19-21 is a Major Obstacle to Why I Cannot Believe the Bible

2009-11-11T15:47:00.002-05:00

Before reading further read Judges 19-21. Okay?

Can someone tell me why I should trust ANYTHING that these people wrote? I know, you'll say God didn't approve what they did and that these chapters merely record without comment what happened. But my point is that they depict the barbaric nature of a people who also claimed to have a divine revelation from God. I will not listen to what they have to say about God if that's the kind of people they were. Q.E.D.

Steve Hays Recommends My Forthcoming Book, The Christian Delusion! ;-)

2009-11-11T12:44:00.004-05:00

The Christian Delusion is new book by a hack village atheist editor (and contributor) who has rounded up a number of other hack villages atheists to form a literary village of hack village atheists. On top of that, the hack village atheist editor has also rounded up some additional hack village atheists to write glowing blurbs for a book by, to, and for hack village atheists.

This is a truly monumental breakthrough in the history of hack village atheist publications. Link

[Edit] I just put up his Blurb on the website. ;-)

Start You Own Recovering Religionist Group

2009-11-10T02:29:00.002-05:00

If you are one of the millions of people who have determined that religion no longer has a place in your life, this may be the right spot for you. Many people love the social support they get from religion, but can’t deal with all the crazy ideas they are required to espouse. It can be difficult to leave a religion because family and culture put so much pressure on us to stay and pretend to believe. If this is you, we want to help you find your way out. We are Recovering Religionists™, people who have given religion our best shot but just can’t bring ourselves to believe in virgin births, resurrections, 2000 year old miracles and the “power of prayer.” We are recovering Baptists, Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah Wittnesses, Hindus, Moslems, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and more. Link

Notre Dame Conference: My Ways Are Not Your Ways: The Character of God in the Hebrew Bible

2009-11-08T21:29:00.006-05:00

I really like Luke's website Common Sense Atheism where he recently called my attention to the videos of this conference that took place in September. I think everyone interested in the issues that separate us should subscribe to his site. It's my favorite one, both informative and keeping me up to date on what is happening on the web.

On God Answering Prayers Retroactively

2009-11-08T20:39:00.017-05:00

Christians like C.S. Lewis and recently William A. Dembski in his book The End of Christianity, claim God can answers prayers retroactively. Kevin Timpe explains by saying "past directed prayers, as I understand them, are requests for God to have done something at a time prior to the time of the prayer." And he argues like Lewis and Dembski that God does in fact answer these prayers on most accounts of God's foreknowledge. ["Prayers for the Past" Religious Studies (2005) 41, 305–322. This raises some interesting problems and allows me to propose a scientific test for prayer.

First, here's some of the problems. Consider this scenario by Timpe:

Allison is watching the morning news, and learns that a tornado touched down in western Ohio the previous evening, leaving a path of devastation and destruction in its wake. The news anchor reports that seventeen homes were destroyed by the tornado, and that one individual was killed. Allison’s father lives in the area affected by the storm. As she runs to the phone to call him, she offers a prayer that he may not have been the one killed in the tornado. Even though she knows that the state of affairs she is praying about is already in the past, and that thus it is already a fact whether or not her father was killed, Allison thinks that her prayer might be efficacious in the same way that prayers for future states of affairs can be.

At the time Allison prayed she didn't know whether her father was killed or not. What if, as in many unanswered prayer cases, Allison finds that her father was killed? Then what? Should she continue to pray for his safety after learning about his death? Can God answer prayers retroactively or not? What difference would it make to God whether or not something happened in the past if he can answer prayers retroactively prior to the time of the prayer, as Timpe says? Isn't that precisely what it means to say God can answer prayers retroactively?

Furthermore let's say Allison had a brother named Ned who lived in a different time zone and heard the news about the tornado one hour later than Allison. Since Allison found out about their father's fate, whatever it was, one hour earlier, does this mean God could not answer Ned's prayer retroactively? If not, because the past is the past, then what about a neighbor who lived near their father who knew what had happened to their father before Allison did. Should either Allison or Ned expect their prayers can be answered once that neighbor found out? What difference does it make to God, if he is able to answer prayers retroactively, whether or not Allison and Ned had any knowledge about their father's fate? If God can answer these prayers then it should not make any difference who knows what or when, otherwise there will almost always be someone at the scene who will learn what happened earlier than when these types of prayers are prayed, which would make almost all such prayers unanswerable. If these prayers can be answered it should not make one whit of difference at all who knows what or when.

Hence, if God answers prayers retroactively believers should pray for the past to be changed just as they do in praying for present and future hopes to be realized. Can these apologists really have it both ways, saying God can answer these prayers but also denying that the past can be changed?

So let me suggest a scientific test if God can answer these kinds of prayers, one that I broached in my book. Pick an event in the past and pray that God changes it. The event could be as simple as praying that some kids who were in a car accident and died the night before did not die because there was no accident.

My prediction is that the past will never be changed AND that every prayer to change the past will be remembered by the one who prayed it precisely because nothing will ever change, ever. What's YOUR prediction?

This is as sure of a test for prayer as we can get.

Come on Christian. Put your prayers where your mouth is! ;-)

There's a Young Freethought Blog for Younger Freethinkers

2009-11-08T12:16:00.001-05:00

Young Freethought is an independent blog, open for anyone, but with the aim of providing a way for young people to find the ideas of like-minded peers regarding issues such as rationalism, atheism, science and philosophy. Young Freethought is here to try and give a voice to a small section of society that, we feel, is currently being ignored. Link

Joe Holman on "God’s Entrapment and James’ Idiocy"

2009-11-08T12:02:00.000-05:00

It's one of the worst blunders in the scriptures, and it comes from James, writer of the New Testament. He says:
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” (James 1:13)
Link

Christianity Has Died Out a Hundred Times Before

2009-11-07T08:50:00.005-05:00

Christians claim that skeptics have come and gone but their faith has withstood all attacks so far and survived. Balderdash! Here's the truth. The Christianity that survived is a reinvented one in each generation as the result of skeptical attacks, sometimes coming from within. Just think of the modernist rift due to the enlightenment which divided all denominations to some degree. This division can be attributed to the skeptical attacks of Hume, Kant, Darwin, Nietzsche, Paine, Ingersoll, and many others. The liberal church is a testament to the effectiveness of the skeptical arguments. Even within conservative denominations there are liberal ideas that would have been condemned by the Office of the Inquisition, like Open Theism, a metaphorical and/or annihilation view of Hell, women in leadership, Preterism, the emergent church, acceptance of a gay orientation, the mythical (or literary) view of Genesis 1-2, and so forth and so on. The Christianity practiced and believed by any denomination today is not something the early church would recognize. And the future church will be almost as different. Let's have done then with this cockamamie notion that the church has survived our attacks. No it hasn't. In each generation the former Christianity dies, so to speak, and a new one is invented due to skeptical arguments.

What Have I Learned From Blogging For Several Years?

2009-11-06T21:08:00.000-05:00

Christianity is a delusion. This is beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt. Beyond a doubt Christianity is a delusion. The evidence against it is overwhelming. There is staggering psychological and anthropological evidence that we simply adopt what we were taught to believe as credulous kids who then seek to confirm that which we were led to believe. Skepticism is not an inherited trait. We must learn to be skeptical. And there is every reason to be skeptical. There is textual evidence, scientific evidence, and archaeological evidence against Christianity. There are also philosophical conundrums that cannot be solved if Christianity is the case, like reconciling the trinity within itself, the incarnation of a person who is 100% God and 100% man, and personal identity after death. Then there are problems that cannot be solved for a perfectly good God with the amount of intense suffering in our world, including massive ubiquitous animal suffering and a final punishment in hell. I am so sure of this I am willing to risk Pascal's Wager on it. Beyond a doubt Christianity is a delusion.

Guest Post by Kris Komarnitsky on his New Book, "Doubting Jesus' Resurrection"

2009-11-06T19:00:00.000-05:00

DOUBTING JESUS’ RESURRECTION: What Happened in the Black Box?

There is one especially intriguing question that Christians frequently ask non-Christians. A recent example of this question comes from Christian apologists Lee Strobel and Dr. Gary Habermas:

Utilizing each of the historical facts conceded by virtually all contemporary scholars, please produce a comprehensive natural explanation of Jesus’ resurrection that makes better sense than the event itself. These historical facts are: (1) Jesus was killed by crucifixion; (2) Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them; (3) The conversion of the church persecutor Saul, who became the Apostle Paul; (4) the conversion of the skeptic James, Jesus’ half-brother; (5) The empty tomb of Jesus. These “minimal facts” are strongly evidenced and are regarded as historical by the vast majority of scholars, including skeptics, who have written about the resurrection in French, German, and English since 1975. While the fifth fact doesn’t have quite the same virtual universal consensus, it nevertheless is conceded by 75 percent of the scholars and is well supported by the historical data if assessed without preconceptions.

We see this same basic challenge from resurrection defender Dr. N.T. Wright: “The [discovered] empty tomb and the ‘meetings’ with Jesus, when combined, present us with not only a sufficient condition for the rise of early Christian belief, but also, it seems, a necessary one. Nothing else historians have been able to come up with has the power to explain the phenomena before us” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003, pg. 706).

In my opinion these are fair questions from the traditional side of scholarship, and as a layman studying Christian origins, I found the responses from non-traditional scholarship not completely satisfying, or at least not very well or completely explained. The lack of a satisfactory response does not by default mean that Jesus resurrected from the dead, but it does spark the imagination. What really happened 2000 years ago that gave birth to Christianity?

I began my own inquiry into this question several years ago. I took as my starting point the beliefs and traditions expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 – Jesus died for our sins, was raised on the third day, and appeared to many people – widely recognized amongst scholars on both sides of the aisle to be the earliest known Christian beliefs and traditions, in existence well before any of the gospels were written.

In considering the possible causes of these beliefs and traditions, notice that Dr. Wright does not appeal to the historical reliability of the gospels. He is saying that even apart from the gospel accounts of a discovered empty tomb and “meetings” with Jesus, nothing else historians have been able to come up with has the power to explain early Christian belief. Strobel and Habermas are not as open to explanations outside the confines of the gospels, but as Habermas admits, the discovered empty tomb tradition is the weakest of his five “facts”. Given this, I start my investigation by accepting the possibility that the gospels could be mostly legend, including the discovered empty tomb tradition, but I accept as historical all four of Habermas’ other facts. For those who object to starting with the idea that the gospels could be mostly legend, hear me out, for not only is this exactly what Dr. Wright asked for, but I will show in a moment how this approach comes back full circle and impacts on the historical reliability of the gospels.

If the discovered empty tomb tradition is a legend, not only is Jesus’ resurrection effectively ruled out, but so are several non-traditional explanations for the rise of early Christian belief, like the stolen body theory, the moved body theory, and the theory that Jesus only appeared to be dead and then resuscitated. With these ruled out, there is only one explanation that jumps out at me as a plausible cause of the two-pronged belief that Jesus died for our sins and was raised, half of the 1 Cor 15:3-7 formula. That cause is the human phenomenon of cognitive dissonance reduction. Basically, this is the human tendency to rationalize a discontinuity between reality and one’s current beliefs in such a way that current beliefs are modified or added to instead of being rejected. Sometimes this results in extremely radical rationalizations. We have solid examples of this from other religious movements in history, such as the Millerite movement, the Sabbatai Zevi movement, and others.

This theory has of course been proposed before and the controversy surrounding it can be seen in Dr. Wright’s strong disagreement with it followed by Dr. Robert M. Price’s response to Wright’s critique. According to Wright, “The flaws in this argument [that cognitive dissonance caused early Christian belief] are so enormous that it is puzzling to find serious scholars still referring to it in deferential terms” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, pg. 698; full critique pg. 697-701). Price responds with:

...there are many viable explanations [for the rise of the belief that Jesus resurrected], not least Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance reduction, whereby more than one disappointed sect has turned defeat into zeal by means of face-saving denial. Wright suicidally mentions this theory, only to dismiss it…with no serious attempt at refutation [emphasis added].

I agree with Price; Wright does not adequately rebut this idea.

Finding the cognitive dissonance solution very plausible myself but feeling that it has not been communicated very well in discussions about Christian origins, and also feeling that there are solid explanations for the remaining beliefs and traditions in 1 Cor 15:3-7, I decided to write a book about it. For those who might be interested in this topic, my book can be found here (and at Amazon.uk, Amazon.ca, and various other outlets). Here are excerpts of what a few well-known scholars have so far said about my book:

“Rare is it when a lay author puts in the effort of wide research, gathers the references to every point together, interacts with the leading disputes, and offers something soundly argued that hadn’t been so well argued before. Komarnitsky does all of that and presents a surprisingly excellent demonstration of how belief in the resurrection of Jesus could plausibly have originated by natural means....” –– Richard Carrier, Ph.D. Ancient History

“Komarnitsky shows great acuity of judgment and clear-eyed perception of the issues. He does not claim to have proof of what happened at Christian origins, but he does present a powerfully plausible hypothesis for what might have happened...” –– Robert M. Price, Ph.D. Theology, Ph.D. New Testament

“...Komarnitsky’s book makes a solid contribution to the historical-critical understanding of these immensely important texts. This book deserves serious attention from scholars and all those interested in Christian Origins.” –– Robert J. Miller, Professor of Religious Studies, Juniata College

“Komarnitsky is addressing an important topic in a considered and rational way. This book offers the open-minded reader an opportunity to work through some of the key questions surrounding the Easter mystery that lies at the heart of Christian faith.” –– Gregory C. Jenks, Ph.D. FaithFutures Foundation

In short, my book attempts to condense a lot of thought that has gone into this topic, and adds what I think are a few missing links, to produce a single comprehensive natural explanation for the rise of the beliefs and traditions in 1 Cor 15:3-7, exactly what Strobel, Habermas, Wright, and others are asking for. I should add too that those looking for a confrontational repudiation of the Christian faith will be disappointed in my book. Instead, my book invites both believer and non-believer into a non-confrontational inquiry – a sequence of questions which all seem to have plausible answers and that together form an overall plausible answer for the rise of early Christian belief.

A plausible non-traditional explanation for the rise of the beliefs and traditions in 1 Cor 15:3-7 comes full circle and impacts on the historical reliability of the gospels. Why? Because 1 Cor 15:3-7 is used by traditionalists as external evidence for the historical reliability of the gospels. But if there is another plausible explanation for the rise of these beliefs and traditions, there is nothing about 1 Cor 15:3-7 itself that supports the conclusion that the gospels are more likely historical rather than legendary expansions of these beliefs and traditions. In short, traditional scholarship should not be using 1 Cor 15:3-7 to support their assertion that the gospels are historically reliable.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice my opinion and introduce my book. I think other laypeople especially will find it readable and original in its approach to Christian origins, and I think it is the laypeople of the world who need to make sense of the arguments and claims that scholars make about their religious traditions.Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection: What Happened In The Black Box? is also available for immediate download to any personal computer for $9.99 at various ebook outlets.

On Judgment Day I'll Just Plead Insanity!

2009-11-06T17:54:00.000-05:00

Yep, that's what I'll do if there is a judgment before God. My friend Kevin Harris, who produces William Lane Craig's podcasts, tells me that: "Going to hell is insane! But that's what sin is! Self-induced insanity!" Link. But if this is true I plan on pleading insanity. I could not believe differently than I do. Consequently, I did not know what I was doing was wrong, nor did I know there would be such severe consequences for my actions. Now what fair judge (much less a perfectly good one) would ever sentence me to hell, any hell, based on these considerations? None! Q.E.D.

Christian, Just Think! That's All You Have to Do. Think!

2009-11-06T14:53:00.000-05:00

In yet another attempt to defend his beliefs my friend Kevin Harris wrote: "Christian theology teaches that Adam perfectly represented you and me. We all would do the same thing even in the fantastic beauty and circumstances of Eden." Link. But if we would all do exactly what Adam & Eve did by sinning, then we were imperfectly made, or it was entrapment, hence the buck stops with the Creator. Only if some of us would not have sinned as they did can Christians claim otherwise. Q.E.D

Special Investigation - Atheist Alert

2009-11-06T08:30:00.003-05:00

See below:

New Book: The Historical Jesus: Five Views

2009-11-06T08:18:00.008-05:00

Robert M. Price, Darrell Bock, John Dominic Crossan, Luke Timothy Johnson and James D. G. Dunn are the contributors. Click here: The Historical Jesus: Five Views

Dinesh D'Souza vs. John W. Loftus Debate In the Works

2009-11-04T14:06:00.002-05:00

There are details to be worked out before I can say the debate will definitely take place. I just heard from the sponsor today.

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

2009-11-04T08:10:00.001-05:00

An Ongoing Interview: "What Was it Like Studying Under William Lane Craig?"

2009-11-04T07:02:00.005-05:00

I'll post an interesting question and my answer from time to time. Here's one from Eric:

I think it would be fascinating to read about your time studying under William Lane Craig: what your relationship was like, what you thought of him as a teacher, what the most important things you learned from him were, what some of your most memorable interactions with him were, etc.

John W. Loftus said...

Eric, when I went to TEDS Bill Craig wasn't that well known. In fact I didn't go there to study with him at all. I just wanted to further my education at an evangelical school. I was intending on majoring under Stuart C. Hackett, who was well known, until I had a disagreement with him over his neo-Kantian epistemological dualism. Being disappointed with him I started taking classes with his former student Bill. Bill's classes were all modeled after the European method of group discussion, and I liked it. He didn't lecture much. He handed out questions for us to answer as we read selections from books and we discussed them in class. Then we each wrote term papers, and in some classes we presented them, and that was it. I don't have a lot of notes because, as I said, he didn't lecture and there were no tests and few handouts.

I liked Bill. And he liked me. At one point after having discussed a debate he had and offering some suggestions how he should've responded, he actually caught up with me down the hall and said, "Hey, John, good suggestions. I don't want to lose you." I consider him a friend. I am amazed at what he has become. When I studied with him I had no idea. None of us did.

Oh, Eric, one more thing for now. Having been a student of James D. Strauss I was not thrilled with Bill's apologetics. It was in an era where natural theology was thought to have been dismissed and Bill was a Thomist, along with another of his former professors, Norm Geisler. While I liked his Kalam argument and his argument on behalf of the resurrection, I did not think they were effective as an apologetic. I was a Straussite. The evidences for the resurrection could not serve to bring people to faith, for evidentialism with regard to historical knowledge was dead. You either start with God or you'll never get to God. We must focus on the big picture, I thought. Only God can make sense of reality. And all truth was God's truth so every discipline of intellectual learning would need a grounding in God. And I did not think Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology worked. It was a non-sequitur to move from the belief in other minds to the belief in God, I thought. And I even took a class with Bill called "Plantinga's Thought." Later I adopted reformed epistemology. Of course, now I deny it.

Link.

Understanding the New Atheism, an Interview with Victor Stenger

2009-11-03T07:43:00.002-05:00

Welcome to The Promethean's exclusive Q&A with Victor J. Stenger, author of the New York Times bestseller God: The Failed Hypothesis. Even believers can appreciate Stenger's fervent discussion of an emerging atheist movement, as he explains in his newest book, The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason.

PB: What is the "New Atheism" and who is this book written for?

VS: The "New Atheism" is the harder line against faith and organized religion being taken by certain bestselling authors and others in the atheist community. I would hope that believers read the book, realize that the case against God is strong, and begin to develop doubts. I would hope that agnostics read the book, realize we can be sure that God does not exist, and become new atheists. I would hope that old atheists read the book, realize that for the good of society irrational faith should hot be tolerated, and become new atheists.

PB: How does the "New Atheism" differ from the concept of atheism that we know?

VS: Many atheists and agnostics take a benign view of religion and think it provides some useful benefits to society. They also seek to find common ground with moderate believers in order to obtain their support for science, especially in the battle between evolutionists and creationists. New atheists view the battle between reason and superstition to be more important. They regard all faith as folly since it is not based on evidence, and the irrational faith of moderate churchgoers provide support for more fanatical believers.

PB: In your opinion, what is the most criticized aspect of atheism? Which aspect is easiest to embrace?

VS: The most common charge is that atheism is immoral. This is easy to counter by looking at the facts. Atheists have higher moral standards than believers, who do not hesitate to force their beliefs on others. Freedom of thought is the easiest aspect of atheism to embrace.

PB: You note that the Bible -- trusted as divine revelation by millions -- fails as a basis for morality and is unable to account for the problem of unnecessary suffering throughout the world. What is some of the evidence supporting this?

VS: New atheists do not see scriptures as the source of morality. In fact, we see them as teaching much that is immoral, such as slavery and the subjugation of women. There are no original moral teachings in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic scriptures. Theologians have never been able to solve the problem of how an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-beneficent God can exist with all the gratuitous suffering in the world. The Bible claims that God punishes only the guilty, which is obviously untrue.

PB: Atheism has grown in popularity in recent years, to what do you attribute its resurgence?

VS: People are beginning to see that religion does not solve the problems of the world but rather exacerbates them. They have been turned off by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim fanaticism. 9/11 helped, but I think that science is also beginning to provide plausible natural explanations for observations. Once people learn about them they are able to free themselves from the argument from design. This has happened in cosmology, physics, biology, and neuroscience.

PB: In the preface of The New Atheism, you quote author and atheist Christopher Hitchens, who says, "There are ... atheists who say they wish the fable were true but are unable to suspend the requisite disbelief, or who have relinquished belief only with regret...." What is your opinion on this? Are non-atheists ever able to truly "let go" of theist beliefs to fully realize atheism?

VS: Sure, non-atheists can let go of theist beliefs, as Hitchens concludes, "How happy we ought to be, at the reflection that there exists not a shred of respectable evidence for such a horrible hypothesis [permanent, unalterable, celestial despotism]."

Why Must We Even Bother With Presuppositional Arguments (TAG)?

2009-11-03T07:24:00.005-05:00

No one has an epistemic right to presuppose a whole set of bizzaro extraordinary beliefs...No One! Nonetheless some people have the patience to take this argument seriously.

Joe Holman's Movie Review Blog

2009-11-02T18:29:00.002-05:00

You should check this out, especially his latest review of the movie The Invention of Lying.

Announcing a Fund Drive for $1,000 to Send Me to the SBL in New Orleans

2009-11-01T19:03:00.020-05:00

As previously announced I've been invited to participate as a respondent on a panel for the prestigious Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) in New Orleans, which meets November 21-24. As you'd guess I'm very honored. They will show the movie Religulous by Bill Maher Sunday evening and then the panel will discuss it the next day at 1 PM. The participants include professors Hector Avalos, Dennis MacDonald, Carol Exum, Randall Reed and yours truly. I am to respond to the other four papers. Here is the link. While we're there several of us including Hector Avalos, Jim Linville, and Ken Pulliam will be having a meeting to discuss a non-religious group within the Society of Biblical Literature, which should be interesting and exciting.

Most institutions of learning pay for these scholars to attend the SBL by covering their expenses. Since no institution will pay my way I'm conducting a fund drive to help my wife and I travel there so I can participate. I calculate that we'll need $1,000 to cover the costs of gas, food, and six nights stay in hotels (four while there and one both coming and going). It might be more, but $1,000 should be good enough. To answer your question in advance, yes, we will go regardless of whether or not we raise the needed money. But it is needed nonetheless, lest we go deeper in the hole than we already are financially.

If this Blog is helpful to you in some way then please consider helping out by donating $5-$20-$50-$100 or more. Any amount would help quite a bit. Just click on the link "Donate" in the sidebar to do so. For any gift of $100 I'll send the giver one copy of my book and it's companion, both of which are titled Why I Became an Atheist, if requested as supplies last. There are other ways to financially help, but this drive is about helping pay for us go to New Orleans. I've created a graphic below to let you know the progress and will update it once a day as money comes in. As of this posting we leave in 18 days. Can this money be raised? We'll see. Thank you so very much if you can help. If you can't then thanks for visiting and participating in the discussions at DC regardless.

Mr. Deity and the Identity Crisis

2009-10-31T06:56:00.006-04:00

This is funny!

Reminds us of Abbot and Costello's "Who's On First"...

Jim (aka T & T) Linville on "Can ANYONE be non-religious about anything?"

2009-10-30T20:23:00.003-04:00

He begins:

This was the question blogger Rick Wadholm asked in response to a plan for a secular biblical researcher’s special interest group meeting in conjunction with the Society of Biblical Literature (which is the largest academic society in the world dedicated to research into all matters biblical). I wrote this up a few days ago and then decided that I should just ignore these comments but darnnit… some very important points need to be made. Link

Looking for Definitions of God for a Book.

2009-10-30T19:44:00.000-04:00

I've been invited to submit some definitions for God which will turn into a book, but having seen the other ones it seems they covered it well enough already. ;-) Any other suggestions?

Something that eludes definition for the simple reason that it does not exist.

"A psychological sock puppet" - Anonymous

The weakest, worst, most pathetic and least practical reason to die.

God - A nice thought.

God - One more thing the dead don’t think about anymore.

Takes both sides in a war.

God - The rapist’s alibi.

God is any set of combined rules and taxes inducing shame, judgment and fear.

A condom to put on before reality fucks you.

The being that will send you to hell for eternity if you deny its “everpresent” existence.

The guy you’re supposed to worship, unless you’re gay.

What someone who believes in God thinks they are.

Creator of cancer.

Link

Announcing A Special Screening of "Creator of God: A Brain Surgeon's Quest"

2009-10-29T21:15:00.003-04:00

This November, join the American Humanist Association for a special screening of Creator of God: A Brain Surgeon's Quest.

This award-winning documentary chronicles a brain surgeon's search for answers as to how and why the idea of God came into human existence and if God actually exists. Produced by Vivekananad Palavali, author of A Mindful Life, "Creator of God" won Best Documentary Film at the AOF International Film Festival in Pasadena, California and at the Film Festival in Ferndale, Michigan.

See it on Sunday, November 8, 2009 2:00pm – 4:00pm. The Heritage Center at the Navy Memorial 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004. Parking and Metro are readily accessible. This event is free and open to the public. Seating is limited so please RSVP. Those without a reservation will be admitted as space is available. Contact Karen Frantz at kfrantz@americanhumanist.org for more information and to RSVP.

http://www.americanhumanist.org