FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: On Justifying the Use of Ridicule and Mockery

John Loftus has finally posted an article that I have to largely agree is true. We are truly living in an age of miracles.

Hey, I KNOW Christians don't like being mocked. I get that. So it's no surprise they would object to it by saying it doesn't cause them to change their minds, that it makes them dig their heels in deeper, and that it just makes them think less of the one doing the mocking. You would expect them to say this. The facts however are different. Ridicule and mockery have been very effective in any cultural war and they will forever be effective and necessary.

Just who does like to be mocked? I don't think anyone enjoys it. Loftus surely doesn't like being mocked. For example he doesn't like the site Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight and apparently does not like the blog's tag line which is the title of the blog's corresponding book The Cowboy that Wasn't There.
 
Loftus is correct that ridicule and mockery are indeed effective and relevant tools for communication. However it is important that it just can't be biting or offensive or provocative. It must be true and the motives behind it must be true.

There have been some very famous satires in history. Here are four important ones:

1) Aristophanes's Greek comedy The Clouds, portrays Socrates as a buffoon and a deceiver of the young. It was the first comedy "of ideas" and was a contributing factor in the trial and death of Socrates.

2) In 1729 Jonathan Swift wrote A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick, where he mocks the English mistreatment of the Irish poor (a subject dear to my heart being of Irish descent). Swift suggests the solution for the impoverished Irish was to sell their children as food to the rich.

3) In 1759 Voltaire's Candide effectively mocked Leibniz's theodicy that "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds."

4) Thomas Taylor wrote a satire of Mary Wollstonecraft's book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). Her book was the first defense of women's rights in Western English literature. She attacked gender oppression and argued for equal educational opportunities, justice, and equality for all humanity. Taylor mocked her ideas with A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes, arguing that if women have rights, then animals also have rights, but that was preposterous to him and to his readers at the time. The irony of Taylor's satire is that he provided some of the first arguments for animal rights that are used today (by those who also condemn his sexism).

I''d like to add a fifth example. Jesus uses mockery to drive home his message also. In fact the Bible has many examples.

²³ “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. ²⁴ You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
²⁵ “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. - Matthew 23:23-25
Now, does anyone think these satires convinced the people who disagreed, the ones who made the case that was being mocked by these satires? I highly doubt it. I doubt they changed any minds among the ones who thought differently, who knew Socrates personally, who considered the Irish to be garbage, who agreed with Leibniz, or thought women were second rate human beings. These people cannot be convinced by satire, so satire is not written to change their minds. It's written to marginalize them by laughing at them. It persuades people who don't yet have a settled opinion on the issue, in part by using social pressure. No one wants to be a laughingstock. No one wants to be the butt of a joke. If people are laughing at a particular view it pressures the undecided to distance themselves from it. It draws a line in the sand, so to speak. It can also silence people who think otherwise, for they won't want to speak up in a class on behalf of something most others will laugh at.

I think this underscores the motivations between  non-believers using satire and ridicule and the motivations between believers using them. When a believer uses them satire it is to literally change others' minds not to shame intractable people into silence or scare those on the fence to side with you. If you have to do that, you don't have good arguments. You are just a a mean bully. 

Isn't using laughter an informal fallacy known as Appealing to Ridicule? It sure is. Shouldn't all intelligent people denounce using an informal fallacy then? Shouldn't they instead take the moral and intellectual high ground? No, not at all. In some ways we just cannot help ourselves since some ideas seem that preposterous. When something cannot be taken seriously it deserves our laughter. We all do it, all of us. Should we hide our laughter so as not to offend? I think not. It's a way to "come out of the closet," so to speak, to let others know they will be laughed at if they espouse certain ideas with a straight face. There is power in social pressure. There is power in numbers.

 I totally agree that preposterous ideas deserve laughter. However you should be able to demonstrate why an idea or concept deserves derision. Remember at one point s heliocentric solar system was laughed at and ridicule and some people changed their minds to deny it due to peer pressure. Truth and reality should always trump what you think about the ideas you consider. Preposterous ideas does no equate to false.

Ridicule also shows people just how bad we think the case is for something. The worse we think the case is then the more our ridicule shows people what we really think of it. Laughter is an entirely appropriate response to a person who suggests women are inferior to men. That's how bad the case is for sexism. And the more studied a person is on a particular issue then more force that person's ridicule has on others. I'm ridiculed almost daily by believers who are usually ignorant of their own ignorance, so their ridicule shouldn't matter at all. By contrast, I have spent 40 years studying Christianity and my conclusion is that believers who seek to defend it are worth being laughed at. I laugh almost daily when reading something written by one of the top Christian apologists. They remind me of the story of the emperor who has no clothes on, really. I'm not kidding. Been there done that myself. Now I'm wearing clothes. I'm never going back to that nutty nudist camp for the mentally challenged who are all infected with the same virus of the mind.

Truth is Loftus does not realize how naked he is. I keep finding his understand of theology, and what the Bible says lacking of knowledge. Either Loftus mocks what he does not know or he often lies about what Christians believe and what the the Bible says. 

The use of ridicule can be justified pragmatically. It works well under the right circumstances, depending on the issue and the potential effectiveness of using it. It is best used when the arguments are there to back it up, and when more people agree against the ideas that are being ridiculed. This is what Stephen Law, Richard Carrier and I are saying about the use of ridicule, and we have earned the right to use it because we have produced the arguments. That is, because we know Christianity is a delusion, and since deluded people cannot usually be argued out of their faith because they were never argued into it in the first place, the use of persuasion techniques like ridicule are rationally justifiable. So satire, ridicule and mockery are weapons that should be in our arsenal in this important cultural war of ideas.

I've seen Law's and Carrier's arguments and they are no better that Loftus' own. At the end of the day all ll they have is satire and mockery 

Human beings may be so bad at reasoning that persuasion is all that matters. We are not like Spock of Star Trek. Not one is. Far, far, from it. If this even has some modicum degree of truth to it, and I think it does, then that alone justifies the use of mockery. Christians, for instance, are not usually reasoned into their faith. They were persuaded into it. They were persuaded to believe by the circumstances of their upbringing and/or the likability of a significant person in their lives. Based on this human propensity of ours, mockery might actually be more effective than thought, for if they were persuaded into their faith then maybe they can also be persuaded out of it.

I think Loftus is speaking from experience. If you don't know God for yourself, then you were never really in Christianity and of course you can be persuaded out of it. Your realization just lines up with reality

Science is the only antidote to this propensity of ours, and science has spoken on matters of faith. Faith is an unreliable process for gaining knowledge. Therefore the Christian faith, qua faith, is a delusion for childish people. Doubt is the adult attitude. Ridicule is both helpful and necessary. Someday in the future people will treat Christianity just like all of the other dead gods and religions are treated today. We mock them. In the future, anyone who learns about Christianity in a history book will mock it like all the other dead religions.

Here is an example Loftus attempting to use ridicule to shock Christians to give up  on God.  He says that having faith is unreliable and childish. But having to read some of his blog posts, I know that he thinks faith is believing something that is not true despite the evidence. He is front loading a lot of presuppositions and assumptions about Biblical reliability and what evidence is. This is what I mean by Loftus not making a good argument. The way he defines "faith" is not the way the Bible defines "faith".

Nothing I've said should lead anyone to think all we need is mockery. Far from it. I will continue reasoning with believers as always. It's just that mockery is effective, necessary, and justifiable in this cultural war. It's one of the weapons we need to change the religious landscape, which is my goal.

I'm amazed that Loftus thinks what he does is "reasoning".

If you meet people who think otherwise then send them here to discuss it.

So do mockery , ridicule, and satire figure into Christianity? Some say that it doesn't. But that can't be true because God uses it in the Bible. It's not immoral or wrong if you are going to do it right.  How do you know? 

¹³ Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? ¹⁴ But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats^[b]; do not be frightened.”^{[c] 15} But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, ¹⁶ keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. ¹⁷ For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. - 1 Peter 3:13-17

You can use ridicule and mockery and still use gentleness and respect - with God's help. Which explains why Loftus cannot do so.

Debunking Christianity: On Justifying the Use of Ridicule and Mockery

Austin Dacey’s Debate with WLC

I wanted to do a follow up post on the Debate between Dr Austin Dacey and Dr William Lane Craig. I wrote a post based on Dr Dacey's opening statement and Jeffery Jay Lowder responded. Here is my response to his his blog post.

What had happen' was.....: The Secular Outpost: Marcus McElhaney on Austin Dacey’s Debate with WLC

Lowder wrote:

Since I believe Dacey’s debate with Craig is one of the better debate performances by an atheist, this caught my eye.

I haven't been able to get this particular comment out of my mind because having seen the whole debate I have no idea why Lowder would come to that conclusion.


I did not think that Dacey's performance was all that great. The best I could say is that it wasn't a complete FacePlant. At least he did better than Sam Harris. I wanted to post the entire debate so that others can make up their own minds. I think that one of the things Dacey said that was particular telling is that he kept saying that he and other atheist are reasonable and God should make Himself known in a way for reasonable people. The issue I have is that the Bible correctly shows us that no one is so reasonable our rational.

 The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble. - Proverbs 4:19

And without God we are all wicked and would not choose to believe God or serve Him despite that our lives and existence depend on God.

⁴³ “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. ⁴⁴ “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’^[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. ⁴⁶ No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. ⁴⁷ Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. ⁵⁰ But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” - John 6:34-51

Debunking Christianity: Craig, the Kalam, and Quantum Indeterminacy

So what happens when Physics points to evidence that the Universe - time and space - has a beginning? People who desire to suppress the knowledge of God available to them come up with videos like the following.


They also write articles like Jonathan Pierce's article:
Debunking Christianity: Craig, the Kalam, and Quantum Indeterminacy

They cannot accept that the universe (as we know it)  is eternal. They are left with trying to show that quantum mechanics allows for material objects to pop into existence out of nothing. Even if we can show that things that "banged" during the "Big Bang" popped into existence due to the rules of Quantum Mechanics, it still leads to more questions than answers. If we ever do figure out the "how?" it tells us nothing about "why?" It does not mean that there is no God. It tells us how God did it.

The thing is that  I do disagree with Dr William Lane Craig on a few things. Refuting him doesn't refute God. Craig's critics fail to refute him but that doesn't mean he's right about everything he says.  For example. I agree with the video that Craig is wrong about in his philosophical reasoning against infinities, but we don't need that to establish that the universe has beginning.

Old Testament & the New Atheists: Peter J. Williams - Apologetics 315

Here is a great lecture by Peter J Williams against the arguments of the "New Atheists" regarding the Old Testament.


Old Testament & the New Atheists: Peter J. Williams - Apologetics 315

Apologist Interview: Frank Turek - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten recently posted his new interview with Frank Turek. I really enjoyed it. It has a lot to learn from. The only part that I have issue with his Dr Turek's ideas about human free will. I would like to see Dr Turek debate a reformed scholar one day. However, Turek is well equipped for the ministry that God has for him.  Take a listen.

Apologist Interview: Frank Turek - Apologetics 315

Answering Muslims: George Washington and Robert Spencer Slam Huffington Post's Muhammad Comparison!

Recently the Huffington Post published an article suggesting that Muhammad has many similarities to George Washington! What?! Really?!  Robert Spencer and David Wood humorously skewer the article using history, the Qur'an, Hadiths, and common sense. Take a look. The level of ignorance that it would take to make such arguments that this article is asserting.


Answering Muslims: George Washington and Robert Spencer Slam Huffington Post's Muhammad Comparison!

Related articles

• Breaking: Muhammad Is Just like...George Washington?!
• Huffpo: Mohammed Just Like George Washington

Faceplant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Just How Human Was Jesus?, by J.M. Green

John Loftus posted an article written by J.M. Green. Green starts out with a good unavoidable point that must be accepted in terms in light of scripture and then violently faceplants into error born from a desire to deny scripture and hold on to his atheism.

Johnnie Moore, vice president at Liberty University, writes of how he astounded his colleagues by suggesting that Jesus may have stopped to take a crap by the side of the road, on the way to Jerusalem. Granted, he didn’t use the word ‘crap’ but more provocatively, he also posited that Jesus may even have suffered the ravages of diarrhea. His article goes on to point out that Christians often don’t think of Jesus as fully human. I would heartily agree.

This is true. We often do not remember that Jesus is both fully human and fully God. However we must also see the truth that Jesus' humanity is not the same as our humanity. Jesus was not tainted by sin. None of us know what that feels like or what it is like to live like that.  Think about it. Every thought pure. Every action the right one. Jesus is perfect and without flaw. 

Now I suppose that Professor Moore’s musings might seem edgy and possibly even blasphemous to the average evangelical fundamentalist, but I would like to suggest that he is playing it way too safe. 

When Jesus took on human flesh, He submitted himself to the same biological limitations all of humanity have. Jesus got tired. Jesus had to sleep. Jesus had to eat. If a person has to eat, they most certainly have to excrete biological waste. No problem. 

If Christians truly believe that Jesus was 100% human (never mind that combining this with 100% God seems like somewhat sketchy math) then they must consider his sexuality. And there, believers find themselves skating on dangerously thin ice. So much fundy fervor is devoted to repressing and controlling sexuality that to think of their blessed Jesus as having a sex drive is simply too awful to bear.

Yes, let's discuss Jesus' sexuality. Nothing in the Bible is about repressing sexuality. The Bible does not teach that sex is evil and should be avoided. That was what stodgy old men and women did who wanted to control others. Anyone who reads the Song of Solomon and still thinks that God doesn't want humans to enjoy sex, they are an idiot. The issue is that God, who created sex, wants us to use His gift to us properly.  

If the good Professor wanted to truly be daring, then he should have asked: “Did Jesus ever have wet dreams?” Did he masturbate? Imagine Mary finding a soiled tunic and cornering Joseph. “Joe, he’s been at it again. You really need to have a talk with him about purity and not yielding to lustful thoughts.” 

Not getting into whether or not masturbation or having wet dreams are sins, I think Green is really asking a different question. Green thinks that they are sins. Therefore the Bible answers Green's questions.

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God - 2 Corinthians 5:21

So in case you are missing the argument: Jesus had no sin so he would never sin sexually. 

And that’s just for starters. Did the Savior of the World ever play childhood games of doctor with the little girl who lived in the house next door? As an adolescent, did he ever get erections at embarrassingly inopportune moments? Did the woman at the well catch Jesus checking out her cleavage? Now it’s true that Jesus preached against looking at women lustfully, but, as we all know, many of those who publically rail against certain ‘sins’ often are privately indulging in those very things.

So if you want to know if Jesus would have done a certain action, you need to first figure out if that action is a sin. If so, then Jesus did not do it. The teaching of the Bible is not that sin is definitional of being human. Jesus came to free us from sin so we can be at our at our optimum. 

About now, any True Believers reading this probably have their eyes rolled back in their heads and are fainting like the heroine of a Victorian novel, but buckle your seatbelts, I’m not nearly done.

Green overestimates his arguments. 

When sexuality is such an integral part of the human experience, why is it that Jesus is portrayed in a sterile, sexless manner? What was his orientation - straight, gay, or bisexual? Was he asexual, or is that just the image presented to us because the gospel accounts have been neutered and sanitized?

Jesus is everything we are not. Jesus is not limited or controlled by lusts and passion.  That is what being a sinner is. Jesus was not married and fulfilled the Law perfectly.  This means that Jesus never sinned in His thoughts  or deeds. This isn't being neutered or unnatural. We  are the ones who are broken and messed up - not Jesus. That doesn't not mean that sex is evil but must be enjoyed in the correct the context. Jesus was not in that context so He did not. 

If anything, the evidence would point to a gay Jesus. It’s amazing how those who claim to take the Bible as literal and factual skip right past references to ‘the disciple who Jesus loved’ (John 20:2) and the fact that at the Last Supper, Jesus and John appeared to have had a bit of a cuddle party (John 13:23). Not to mention Judas kissing Jesus tenderly (Matthew 26:49 ISV). Could Judas have been a spurned lover who betrayed Jesus as an act of revenge? 

And here is the faceplant. Given that Jesus was a a first century Jew who observed and taught  Torah, all of Green's speculation is pointless. The text does not say that Judas kissed Jesus tenderly and Jesus and John were not cuddling at the table! The text does not give that. 

It is a curious thing that evangelicals who are so stridently anti-gay, sing the sappiest romantic love songs to Jesus in their worship services. Odder still, manly men of God are instructed by the Apostle Paul to view themselves as part of the ‘Bride of Christ.’ Hardly traditional marriage, but I digress…

The church is the "Bride of Christ" not or a single individual and there is no sexual  connotations implied or stated. 

So here’s a thought I pose to my Christian readers: If you want to ignore the evidence pointing towards a man-loving Jesus, then perhaps the ‘lost’ years of Jesus are your salvation. Maybe the portion of his life which is so conspicuously absent from the gospels has been censored because Jesus was in fact a skirt-chasing, card-carrying member of the hetero tribe. Were his juvenile records sealed by some ecclesiastical court? What if instead of being ‘about his Father’s business’, he was getting busy with Galilean hotties in the back seat of a chariot? As horrific as this idea might be to you, surely it is less traumatic than the idea that Jesus might have been… gay!

No, a gay lifestyle is no better or worse than a fornicating lifestyle. Adultery is just as bad as homosexuality. Having sex with anyone besides your heterosexual spouse is sin. Period. End of story. Premarital sex is not in God's good and perfect will. This is what scripture teaches. Jesus is without sin. Issue solved.

Now I know dear Christian reader that you will object to this lifeline I am holding out to you. 

Indignantly you will cry, “Jesus wasn’t a fornicator!” 

To which I will reply:

“Oh yeah? Prove that he didn’t have sex!”

I just did. You are welcomed. 

What’s that? Not a valid argument? Can’t prove a negative? Thanks, I’ll remember that next time I hear “You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.”

Green's verbage is not a valid argument. It's a faceplant. 

Written for DC by J.M. Green

I'll be praying for J.M. Green. Is Jesus better him, you, and me? Yup!

Debunking Christianity: Just How Human Was Jesus?, by J.M. Green

Book review: Jeffrey J. Kripal’s Mutants and Mystic - National Worldview and Science | Examiner.com

Mariano Grinbank has posted a review of a book by Jeffrey J. Kripal called Mutants and Mystics. It's a good article and deals with some interesting issues dealing with worldviews, religions, the occult, and the comic book industry as well as the science-fiction genre.

Book review: Jeffrey J. Kripal’s Mutants and Mystic - National Worldview and Science | Examiner.com

Conan Versus Jesus | True Freethinker

Mariano Grinbank has written an awesome post juxtaposing the worldview of the fictional character Conan from the movies, books, and television with the worldview of Jesus Christ. What is the best thing in life? What is the most important? The difference between the way they answered this question is obvious. I'd rather follow Jesus!

Conan Versus Jesus | True Freethinker

Answering Muslims: Jesus Christ: Man, God, or Both? (C. L. Edwards vs. Ijaz Ahmad)

David Wood recently posted a video of a Muslim/Christian debate on the man fundamental question that must be considered.

Former Muslim C. L. Edwards takes on Ijaz Ahmad in this debate on one of the central disagreements between Christianity and Islam.

Answering Muslims: Jesus Christ: Man, God, or Both? (C. L. Edwards vs. Ijaz Ahmad)

The Secular Outpost: Marcus McElhaney on Austin Dacey’s Debate with WLC

Last night I responded to a post on Debunking Christianity. Jeffery Jay Lowder has written a response. I'm glad he responded because it shows a lot of fundamental problems with atheistic responses and thought processes. I'm going to respond to Lowder. My responses are in red and when he quotes me it will be bolded. One of the main problems with his responses is that he doesn't seem to understand what Christians believes. Christians believe what the Bible says and many of his replies illustrate that Lowder has very little understanding of what Christians are really saying.

Marcus McElhaney responds to a recent blog post at Debunking Christianity which links to a video of Austin Dacey’s debate with William Lane Craig on God’s existence. Since I believe Dacey’s debate with Craig is one of the better debate performances by an atheist, this caught my eye. Here I want to comment on McElhaney’s critique.

I have to say that I disagree that Dacey performed well against William Lane Craig, but Lowder is entitled to his opinion.

Topic: The Argument from Divine Hiddenness

Here is McElhaney:

This thought amazes me! God is not hidden too well if I and so many others have found him.  Just because someone has not found God doesn't mean that God is not able to be found.

Reply: The fact that someone has not found God is logically compatible with God’s existence, but that is not the question. The question is whether reasonable (non-culpable) nonbelief is more probable on the assumption that atheism is true than on the assumption that theism is true.

 There is no reason to assume that atheism is true (or at least no reason is offered) Nonbelief is culpable. The Christian position is that non-culpable unbelief is at all warranted.

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.- Romans 1:18-20

The point of the argument from divine hiddenness (aka the argument from reasonable nonbelief) is notto deny that there are people who believe they have found God. Rather, the whole point of the argument is the fact that there are other people who reasonably do not believe in God.

It's unreasonable to claim that you do not believe in God because you have not found him. It's a subjective argument and worthless because there are people who have found God and therefore reasonably believe in God. The bottom line is that God's existence is not dependent on what you, me, or anyone else thinks about God's existence.

In addition to the general fact of reasonable nonbelief (DH), J.L. Schellenberg has shown that there are other, more specific facts about reasonable nonbelief which are evidence favoring atheism over theism. The numbering/labeling scheme is mine; page numbers are references to Schellenberg’s book, The Wisdom to Doubt.

If God does exist then nonbelief is not reasonable!

DH1. Nonresistant Nonbelievers: Schellenberg describes “nonresistant nonbelievers” in this way: "in the actual world persons who do not believe that there is a God, and that in at least some of these people the absence of theistic belief is not in any way the result of their own emotional or behavioral opposition towards God or relationship with God or any of the apparent implications of such a relationship."

Everyone, by default,  are resistant to God - depraved in attitude and thought. In other words there are no such thing as non-resistant nonbelievers. 

⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

Given that some might not understand Paul's terminology, they should read all of Roman and the rest of Paul's letters but here is a start. A mind governed by the flesh describes a person who has not come in a relationship with God - regardless of if they believe God exists or they do not think God exists. 

¹⁹ You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. - James 2:19

DH2. Former Believers: As Schellenberg points out, such individuals, from the perspective of theism, were on the right path when they lost belief. If theism is true, then such individuals already were in relationship with God and the loss of belief has terminated that.

Apostates were never really believers, so their testimonies are worthless. They were never in real relationship with God.

¹⁹ They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. - 1 John 2:19

DH3. Lifelong Seekers:”"individuals who don't start out in what they consider to be a relationship with God and may not even be explicitly searching for God, but who are trying to find out where they belong and, in their wanderings, are open to finding and being found by a Divine Parent--all without ever achieving their goal. These are individuals who seek but do not find." (233)

The following covers the "lifelong seeker":

⁴³ “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. ⁴⁴ “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’^[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. ⁴⁶ No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. ⁴⁷ Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.  - John 6:43-47

If a person has the unction to seek God it didn't come from the person himself/herself but from God. At the same time if that person is chosen by God and drawn by God it is IMPOSSIBLE for that person not to find God. The Old Testament says the same same thing!

²⁸ There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell. ²⁹ But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul. ³⁰ When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the Lord your God and obey him. - Deuteronomy 4:28-30

If a person is drawn by God of course they are going to go seek after God with all their heart and soul. We fail all the time. God never fails.

DH4. Converts to Nontheistic Religions: individuals who investigate other serious conceptions of the Ultimate and who turn up evidence that produces religious belief in the context of nontheistic religious communities and/or on account of nontheistic religious experiences--and the truth of atheistic claims may be seen to follow by implication. (236)

So atheism is true just because some people go to nontheistic religions? Nope. They are just as wrong as those who come to an atheistic conclusion. 

DH5. Isolated Nontheists: "those who have never been in a position to resist God because they have never so much as had the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful spiritual being who is separate from a created universe but related to it in love squarely before their minds--individuals who are entirely formed by, and unavoidably live their whole lives within, what must, if God exists, be a fundamentally misleading meaning system" (238).

In addition, Stephen Maitzen has identified other, more specific facts about divine hiddenness (the “demographics of theism”) which also favor atheism over theism.

God sovereignly chooses what position you are exposed to and when and if you respond.We cannot favorably respond to God without God enabling us to do so. 

⁶ It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. ⁷ Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”^{[b] 8} In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. ⁹ For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”^[c]
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. ¹¹ Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: ¹² not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”^{[d] 13} Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”^[e]
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! ¹⁵ For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
    and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”^[f]

¹⁶ It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. ¹⁷ For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”^{[g] 18} Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”^{[h] 21} Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³ What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:6-24 .
 DH6. The Geographical Distribution of Theistic Belief: The distribution of theistic belief is uneven around the world. Why does the epistemic or moral defectiveness of non-believers vary dramatically with cultural and national boundaries? For example, why is more than 95% of Saudi Arabia Muslim, while Thailand is 95% Buddhist and only 5% theist? Given the widely held assumption that, generically speaking, epistemic and moral defects are evenly distributed among the world's peoples, it is hard to see how that question could be answered.

I guess in Lowder's mind, "theists" means "Christian". The thing to remember is that all people are sinners and fall short of the standard or morals that God has set. I wouldn't expect more than a wide distribution or morals that don't line up to God's ultimate standards.

²¹ But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. ²² This righteousness is given through faith in^[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ²⁵ God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,^[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— ²⁶ he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. - Romans 3:21-26

DH7. The Temporal Distribution of Theistic Belief. Maitzen argues that especially compared to naturalistic explanations, none of the theistic explanations of blameworthy or blameless non-belief accounts for how the global incidence of theistic belief has varied dramatically during the existence of the human species.

William Rowe has identified another, more specific fact about divine hiddenness.

I'd like to know how would Lowder of Maitzen know just how theistic (defined as belief in existence of god(s)) beliefs have varied among human throughout the entire time humanity has existed. There is no way they can know that.

DH8. Divine Hiddenness during Tragedies. Just as loving parents would, say, comfort a child undergoing chemotherapy, we would expect a loving God to comfort human beings who suffer as the result of tragedies. If theism is true, then God loves his creatures and wants all of his creatures to love Him in return. However, many people find it hard to love God when they do not understand the reasons for their suffering and God seems so far away. In other words, even if God has a reason for allowing tragedies, He could still comfort victims of suffering so that they know He loves them. Yet there are many victims of tragedies who report not feeling God's comforting presence.This is not at all what we would expect if theism were true. However, if atheism is true, we would expect victims of tragedies not to experience God's comforting presence for the simple reason that there is no God. Thus, God's silence in the face of tragedies is much more probable on atheism than on theism.

Finally, Paul Draper has classified the history and success of science as an aspect of divine hiddenness.

 This point assumes two things: 1. That God is obligated to love everyone to the same degree and in the same manner. 2. That everyone is one God's children. The Bible does not tell us this. Why would Maitzen come to that conclusion. Where did he get that from? He didn't get it from Biblical Christianity.

DH9. The History and Success of Science. In Draper’s words, “The problem here is not the problem of why, if God exists, she would allow reasonable non-belief, but rather the more fundamental problem of why, if God or other supernatural beings exist, science can completely ignore them and still explain so much." Since this argument is one of Dacey’s arguments, let us turn to McElhaney’s critique now.

I have to reiterate, there is no reason at all to think you can understand the universe by ignoring God. 

Topic: The Evidential Argument from the History of Science

Here is McElhaney:

Logic and mathematics are the key to science. God didn't just create reality he created all the mathematics and logic on which science is based. The pioneers of what we consider modern science know something that has been lost by people who make arguments like this one: studying science is studying God. The more we learn about the universe the more we understand about the one who created it. Why would nature follow discoverable laws? Why is the universe understandable to any degree? The fact that the universe is understandable to a growing degree shows that there must be a mind behind it. The creation isn't mean to tell us everything we need to know about God, but it helps us understand and know God .

Reply: McElhaney’s comments are a textbook example of the fallacy of understated evidence. He is arguing—asserting might be a better word, for he hasn’t actually stated an argument in the above paragraph—that the intelligibility of of the universe is evidence favoring theism over naturalism. For the sake of argument, let’s assume he’s right about that. The fact that the universe is intelligible hardly exhausts what we know about its intelligibility. Given that the universe is intelligible, the fact that so much of our universe is intelligible without any appeal to supernatural agency is much more probable on naturalism than on theism. See here and here.

I'd like Lowder to explain why he thinks the universe is intelligible? If the universe is the product of directionless and purposeless random processes driven by natural selection why would it develop in such a way that is intelligible to the human mind? I see no reason to conclude that naturalism would lead to the expectation of intelligibility.

Topic: The Evidential Argument from Physical Minds

Here is McElhaney:

There is no reason to think that the human mind should be independent of the brain and body.. Yes, the damaging a person's body or brain affects a person's ability to think and interact with the world mentally. Duh! From a Biblical point of view, remember that humanity is not intended by God to exist as disembodied consciousness. A whole human being has a sound mind and body - which is for what Jesus came died for us to have. The expectation that we should be able to scientifically measure and observe the whole of the human person is naive.

Reply: McElhaney’s response indicates he has badly misunderstood Dacey’s argument from physical minds. Contrary to what McElhaney claims, there is good reason “to think that the human mind should be independent of the brain and body” on the assumption that theism is true. Theismentails the existence of at least one unembodied mind, namely, God’s mind. Therefore, theism provides at least some antecedent reason to expect that human minds will be embodied/disembodied. See here.

Just because God is unembodied (and this ignoring Jesus (second part of the Trinity who is embodied)  does not mean that a complete whole human being does not need to be embodied. No where in the Bible does it say that the human mind is independent of the brain or the body. The soul and the spirit are not the same thing and I think it's better to just be honest and say that we don't really know how the mind, body, soul, and spirit are really related to one another only that you need all of it to be complete human being. To claim that there is no soul is simply overreaching and claiming to know something that you can't possibly know.  Just like there are people who have experienced diminished mental faculties and changes in personality with damages to the brain, there are people who have experience brain damaged and not experienced mental or personality changes.  Both are true. Therefore, honestly, you can't say that this is evidence of there not being a soul or anything more than being human than the material aspect of being.

Topic: The Evidential Argument from Evolution

McElhaney:

The thought that evaluating the universe as poorly designed is very stupid. In order to come to that conclusion means that you know what the design criteria and limitations and the final conclusions. We don't. For example:  try coming in off the street and telling an engineer that his/her design is flawed and not knowing nothing about why the engineer made the choices that was made. You'd be an ignoramus.

Reply: The evidential argument from biological evolution doesn’t even need the concept of “poor design.”

Maybe, but that is what Darcy focused on in the video. Let's see if Lowder does any better.

Here’s a brief, informal statement of the argument.

To be sure, biological evolution is logically compatible with theism; God could have used evolution to create life. But if theism were true, God could have also used many other methods to create life, methods which are impossible if naturalism is true. In contrast, if naturalism is true, evolution pretty much has to be true. 

I disagree that macro evolution has to be true, but given that Lowder admits that God could have used evolution to create life, let's agree for the sake of his argument (he needs all the help he can get.)  God can use whatever method God desires to create the universe and put life wherever God desires to put it. Given that evolution does not explain how life actually started on earth, it is problematic for naturalism.

Furthermore, since theism implies a metaphysical dualism, it is antecedently likely on theism that minds are fundamentally nonphysical entities and therefore that conscious life is fundamentally different from nonconscious life. But this in turn makes it likely that conscious life was created independently of nonconscious life--that evolution is false. Thus, the scientific fact of biological evolution is more likely on the assumption that naturalism is true than on the assumption that theism is true. See here.

Given that evolution cannot explain the origin of consciousness, it is a blow against naturalism but not being able to explain where consciousness comes from doesn't mean that human mind and  human soul must be independent of the brain. We don't have enough information explain it one way or the other...yet. 

Topic: The Evidential Argument from Evil

McElhaney:

There is no such thing as pointless suffering. God has given us what we need to eliminate measles and malaria and many other issues, but we choose not to. Why don't we? Greed and power. Could God supernaturally change this so we would not have to do anything about it? Yes. God chooses not to based on His own will and reasons. Not one of us can know all the good that will or has resulted  or the bad that was and will be restrained or avoided. God does not have to explain his reasons to us. And God does tells what we need to know - that is what science and scripture are for. .God does comfort his people when they suffer. For example that is what many people who have experienced terrible pain and suffering have found out firsthand.

Reply:

1. If theism were true, God could prevent tragedies in many different ways, ways that would not take away our free will or our ability to develop moral character.

Yes. Who says that God does not? It's not mutually exclusive. God prevents and allows tragedies.  I still wanna know who told Lowder that we have free will or we have any moral character at all apart from God. Of course an atheist can act morally, but only because God gives him grace to do so.

2. As Draper has argued, proponents of the Free Will Defense (like McElhaney) “neglect to ask whether or not humans are worthy of the freedom* to seriously harm others. A good parent gradually increases a child's responsibility as the child becomes capable of handling greater responsibility. Children who are unworthy of a certain responsibility are not benefitted by parents who give them that responsibility.” On the assumption that theism is true, “one would expect God to give all or some humans less responsibility and in particular no ability to do serious evils-until they freely* developed the strength of character that would make them worthy of greater responsibility.” The fact that human freedom is not scaled according to strength of character is much more probable on the assumption that atheism is true than on the assumption that theism is true.

I think this shows more than anything else just how much Lowder does not understand what I am saying. Given that we are all sinner and deserving of hell, any worthiness we may have of some level of responsibility comes from God himself..God can choose to impart that strength of character in any way that God chooses. Human freedom is scaled no according human ability but according to God's will. And God does add more responsibility as our abilities to handle them grows and increases. 

3. Of course, it's logically possible that God has a reason for allowing tragedies, a reason we humans do not understand. But it's also logically possible that God has extra reasons for preventing tragedies, reasons we also do not understand. We have no antecedent reason to believe that, if God exists, God’s unknown reasons for allowing tragedies outweigh God’s unknown reasons for preventing tragedies.

I'd like to know why Lowder would think that God does not prevent some tragedies for reasons that we also do not understand. Why would Lowder think that God does not stop or restrict more tragedies or evils that God allows? I see no reason at all to make that assumption. 

4. Finally, as we saw earlier, there are many victims of tragedies who report not feeling God’s comforting presence.

There are also many victims of tragedies who report feeling God's comforting presence. I know I have. The fact that some people don't feel God's comforting presence might be explained by their not believing in God in the first place.

² Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters,^[a] whenever you face trials of many kinds, ³ because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. ⁴ Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. ⁵ If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. ⁶ But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. ⁷ That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. ⁸ Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. - James 1:2-8

The Secular Outpost: Marcus McElhaney on Austin Dacey’s Debate with WLC

Debunking Christianity: Richard Carrier on the Argument From the Scale of the Universe

Just found out this great example of a "hand-waving" argument. 

For what it's worth, at least I'm not the only one who thinks Jeff Lowder's arguments don't work against my particular arguments. Here's Carrier from page 290 of my anthology, The End of Christianity:

We cannot predict from “a very powerful self-existent being created life by design” that he would do this by creating trillions of galaxies and billions of light years of empty intergalactic space and then sit around and twiddle his thumbs for ten billion years before finally deciding to create life in just one tiny place. That’s not even expected at all, much less with 100 percent certainty.16

-------------
16. See extensive analysis of this point in: Nicholas Everitt, The Non-Existence of God (New York: Routledge, 2003), 213–26; and John Loftus, Why I Became an Atheist: Personal Reflections and Additional Arguments (Trafford Publishing, 2008), 95–110.

This is hand-waving at its best. People who make such "arguments" cannot tell you how they know that  that there a better design is possible.  The Bible does not tell us that God did not not create life anywhere else  in the universe. The Bible does not tell us  one way or the other. It's silly to think that the size of the universe and the time scales involved is not part of the design. Richard Carrier and John Loftus' expectations are ill-informed. It takes time to bake a cake with the chef's intervening throughout the process. Why would the universe and the story of humanity be any different. The Bible tells us that it's not a surprisxe to God and that God has been doing a lot more than just "twiddling his thumbs".

Debunking Christianity: Richard Carrier on the Argument From the Scale of the Universe

Answering Muslims: Refuting Zakir Naik on Jihad and Terrorism

Sam Shamoun and David Wood have continued their refutations of Zakir Naik's argument. This time  they discuss  Naik's teachings of what Jihad is and how they conflict with history and the Qur'an itself.  



Answering Muslims: Refuting Zakir Naik on Jihad and Terrorism

Debunking Christianity: The Case Against Theism (Austin Dacey)

Today an interesting post was put on Debunking Christianity. It's a video of Austen Dacey attempting to show that the thought that atheism is true and assert that Christian theism is false. He says the there is no evidence for the existence of God and then provides five evidences that he believes shows that there is no God. This is nothing new and no more credible when he dredges them up.





He claims that there is overwhelming evidence for Athesim

1. Hiddenness of God

This thought amazes me! God is not hidden too well if I and so many others have found him.  Just because someone has not found God doesn't mean that God is not able to be found. I wrote more about this at  FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Two Scenarios From Dr. Matt McCormick and His Conclusions

2. Success of science

Logic and mathematics are the key to science. God didn't just create reality he created all the mathematics and logic on which science is based. The pioneers of what we consider modern science know something that has been lost by people who make arguments like this one: studying science is studying God. The more we learn about the universe the more we understand about the one who created it. Why would nature follow discoverable laws? Why is the universe understandable to any degree? The fact that the universe is understandable to a growing degree shows that there must be a mind behind it. The creation isn't mean to tell us everything we need to know about God, but it helps us understand and know God .

3. Mind-brain connection

There is no reason to think that the human mind should be independent of the brain and body.. Yes, the damaging a person's body or brain affects a person's ability to think and interact with the world mentally. Duh! From a Biblical point of view, remember that humanity is not intended by God to exist as disembodied consciousness. A whole human being has a sound mind and body - which is for what Jesus came died for us to have. The expectation that we should be able to scientifically measure and observe the whole of the human person is naive.

4. Evolution

The thought that evaluating the universe as poorly designed is very stupid. In order to come to that conclusion means that you know what the design criteria and limitations and the final conclusions. We don't. For example:  try coming in off the street and telling an engineer that his/her design is flawed and not knowing nothing about why the engineer made the choices that was made. You'd be an ignoramus.

5. Pointless suffering 

There is no such thing as pointless suffering. God has given us what we need to eliminate measles and malaria and many other issues, but we choose not to. Why don't we? Greed and power. Could God supernaturally change this so we would not have to do anything about it? Yes. God chooses not to based on His own will and reasons. Not one of us can know all the good that will or has resulted  or the bad that was and will be restrained or avoided. God does not have to explain his reasons to us. And God does tells what we need to know - that is what science and scripture are for. .God does comfort his people when they suffer. For example that is what many people who have experienced terrible pain and suffering have found out firsthand.


Debunking Christianity: The Case Against Theism (Austin Dacey)