Category Archives: Apologetics
Why They Left the Faith, part II
John W. Loftus recently made a post detailing why he and the Debunking Christianity staff left the Christian faith. I posted brief answers to the dilemmas that Loftus touched on here. At the end of the post, Loftus invites more deconversion stories in the comments. I thought I’d look at some selected deconversion stories. Starting with Lee, who said:
I left because I could no longer believe the old testament “laws” actually came from God . . . they’re too primitive, too unjust, too much like witch-doctoring. And my realization came when I was doing my regular “read through the Bible” routine. “Wait a minute–I don’t believe this–this can’t be true . . .” and then the whole house of cards came tumbling down.
Starting off with argument from outrage. By what standard are OT laws “too primitive, too unjust, too much like witch-doctoring”? By modern standards. That means the underlying assumption here is that our society is right, and their society is wrong. Reading between the lines, Lee seems to be saying that they would have been better off if they were more modern–like us. This is known as cultural imperialism.
To understand the OT laws fully, we need to understand the context of the society in which they were written. Compared to other ANE cultures, the OT laws were head-and-shoulders above what the rest of Canaan was practicing. If you were a citizen of the Palestinian region in the time of Mosaic law, you wanted to be an Israelite.
Paul Copan has a great article answering this objection here. Read the rest of this entry
Summary View of Why They Left the Faith
John W. Loftus from Debunking Christianity made a post summarizing why he and other members of the DC team left the flock. Most of these are fairly typical objections to Christianity.
- Loftus left because he couldn’t reconcile the Genesis creation account with the scientific knowledge.
- Robert Price left because of New Testament textual criticism.
- Exapologist left because of the failed prediction that Jesus would return to the generation to which he spoke.
- Ken Pulliam left because there is no cogent explanation for the Atonement.
- William Dever left because of biblical archeology.
- Bart Ehrman left because of the problem of evil.
The trick is that none of these alleged problems are irreconcilable. Read the rest of this entry
The Worst Argument Against Christianity
I’ve seen numerous variations of this argument perpetrated against Christianity. It essentially boils down to, “Christians disagree about some moral issues. Therefore, Christianity is false.” Thomas, of the WWGHA blog, puts it this way:
The fact that there are all of these schisms in Christianity proves that there is no God. For if there actually were a God, the answer to every question about God and Christianity would be crystal clear. God would say which side is right in every debate. There would be no confusion, no questions.
The premise that there are schisms in Christianity says nothing about the veracity of the same. Further, it is illogical to conclude that there is no God from that premise alone. Of course, I’ve spent much time and effort debunking the claims of the WWGHA sister site here, so I can’t say that I’m surprised that they’re making an argument like this. Most of their arguments are shallow and fallacious. I will show why this is a fallacious argument:
The theory of evolution has many debates raging within the scientific community about some of the specifics. Most scientists, for example, think that natural selection is the agent by which evolution occurs, but some think that there may be a different agent or another acting in concert with natural selection. Some scientists think that evolution can explain the origins of life by a gradual step-by-step process, but many don’t believe that evolution is a sufficent explanation for origins. And, of course, Ida: need I say more?
Here’s the big question: Does any of that detract from the truth of evolution? Any fair-minded scientist would say “No.” Thomas would probably concur, since his blog often touts new evolutionary discoveries. Which leaves only one question for Thomas to answer: Why the double standard?
A Few Things Atheists Should Know About Christians
Mark from Proud Atheists has compiled a handy list of things that atheists should know about Christians. I thought I’d take a peek at the list. It is an interesting way to peer into the mind of the average atheist, to see what he thinks of the average Christian. I bet that he completely misunderstands us, as per usual. Let’s see if I’m right. Read the rest of this entry
This Made My Day
I read this comment from Omninerd.com, and it made my day. This is my favorite part:
And if you plan on defining your atheism as some mere “lack of belief”, this is not satisfactory. People and their positions are not defined by what they are not. That’s a really clever way to get out of blame and the burden of proof for your claims against theists and theism, but it’s just sophistry.
This I agree with whole-heartedly. Atheists are lazy debaters. Instead of making the positive assertion that there is no God (which they all believe), they insist on defining atheism as a lack of belief in any god. As to why they do this, the writer hit the nail on the head. They do it because the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. Therefore, by simply saying that they don’t believe in God (treating this as a given, not an actual claim), they are circumventing the need to actually prove that there is no God, something they know they can’t do.
The responses about to this, all from atheists, are very instructive. I especially like this one, from the most open minded skeptic of the group, obviously:
I stopped reading after that first sentence. Wrong! Religion is a superstition. Atheism is the lack of belief in any superstitions, ie: god/s and/or religions. Based on your first sentence I will assume the rest of that statement is as just as rediculous and not worth the time and effort to read it. Nice job.
Religion is superstition. Okay. The writer actually addressed your points in the body of the comment, but you wouldn’t know that since you didn’t actually read what was written. Gotcha. But theists are the close-minded ones.
This one is classic atheist:
What a wonderful display of Christian ignorance and bigotry. Way to go retard.
Name calling: what you do when you have no actual response to the argument. How is what was written an example of ignorance or bigotry? You got nothing except name calling? Cool.
Then, of course, there was Brian Sapient trying to clarify that he doesn’t believe that all theists should be locked in mental institutions:
I believe that theism is similar to a mental disorder. In some cases (note some, not all) people who believe they speak to God and that God speaks back are suffering from grandiose delusional disorder. I believe that certain anti-psychotic drugs could help people who worship a god. In some cases a theist could be helped with a therapist. In extremely severe cases a person might be best treated for their theism by receiving in patient treatment at a care center set up for such a delusion. Society doesn’t treat theism as a mental disorder because it has reached a degree of normalcy, otherwise it qualifies under current diagnostical terms as a delusional disorder.
This is why I don’t respond to Sapient anymore. He’s not worth the effort. Sorry that the writer mischaracterized your position, Brian. He thought you wanted all theists locked up in an institution, and clearly you only think some should be locked up. Duly noted.
There was one long reply, which I skimmed. It seemed to me that the reply simply quoted the original comment, and then told the writer he was wrong as a matter of course. Naturally, the writer is wrong because he is a theist, and we all know that atheism is the correct worldview. No reasonable evidence is given to back that claim up, it is just assumed wholesale and all dissent from it is labeled as unreasonable, bigoted, or ignorant. Nice arguing, atheists!
Atheists Redefining Morality
I’ve often said that atheists have a penchant for redefining terms. The most frequent use of this tactic is seen by redefining “faith” to mean “belief without supporting evidence.” Faith is trust, no more and no less. It’s repugnant to see former believers continuing that redefinition, even though they know better.
But atheists, by their own reckoning, are also free to not only redefine established terms but also free to redefine morality. This is because they are no longer “shackled to a Bronze Age mythological belief system.” The comments to this post from Daniel Florien serve to show just how far this can be stretched. Read the rest of this entry
Is Masturbation a Sin? A Disagreement with Steve Hays
Steve Hays of Triablogue defends masturbation as a good thing here. Matthew Bellisario responds to that here. I weigh in, siding (for once) with Bellisario here. Hays responds to all three of us in one fell swoop here. I’ll let Dave Armstrong and Matthew Bellisario deal with his retorts to them on their own. I’ll consider Hay’s response to me.
[A] guy named Cory also raised some objections. Unfortunately, he doesn’t offer any arguments to respond to. Just assertions.
So, Hays isn’t going to respond to me at all. Darn.
I already dealt with the “lust” objection, both practically and exegetically. Of course, I could always be wrong, but no counterargument is forthcoming from his end.
Oh, whoops! He is responding to me. I’d better start paying attention. Let’s see. He’s already dealt with the lust objection. Unless I’m missing something, he did not deal with the issue at length. This is what he said:
Traditionally, the church has frowned upon masturbation. One reason is the relation between masturbation and lust. This cannot be denied. On the other hand, lust is also aggravated by the absence of a sexual outlet. That is, indeed, in the nature of sexual tension, of a tension between sexual desire and sexual release. Unrelieved sexual tension only builds.
Interesting. So masturbation is fine as an outlet for sexual tensions because otherwise the tensions would simply build and build. This is interesting because the atheist tends to justify things like pre-marital sex, pornography, and other things I would hope that Hays categorizes as sinful by appealing to the same sort of logic. It relies on the false assumption that you can’t deny yourself sexual pleasure. Read the rest of this entry
Criticizing Church Spending
There is much criticism for the way that the modern church spends its money, both from our side and from the other side. Much of it is well deserved, I can assure you.
For example, Pastor Rick Godwin of Eagle’s Nest Christian Fellowship in San Antonio, TX came under fire for this in 2007. According to church records, the pastor, staff and families took charter flights for travel and the bill came to $143,000 for the first seven months of the year. Church funds were used for gifts to elders, including a $2,600 for an Armani suit and $2,518 for a Cartier watch. Independent auditors expressed concerned over how the church handles its finances, and advised that they not speak to the IRS without a lawyer present.
Christian Valley Christian Church in Jonesboro, AK, is spending $925,000 to double the size of its existing building.
Ed Young has gotten it from Chris Roseburgh on our side, and Daniel Florien from the other side. Full story here. Young allegedly owns his own private jet, a Falcon 50 valued at $8.4 million. Young’s estate is valued at $1.5 million. He is paid an annual parsonage of $240,000 on top of a $1 million salary. Young answered the charges, but not the satisfaction of most.
Tony Morgan announced on his blog that the folks at Clark ProMedia are going to begin marketing holographic technology to churches. It will enable churches that have multiple campuses to view a 3D image of their pastor delivering the sermon. It will be as if he is right there in the building. I can only wonder how much it will cost to implement, and where the money could be better spent–like missions to Haiti or Chile, maybe?
Churches, especially the mega-church set, do not always spend their money well. That cannot be argued. Other examples abound, like this one (also from Unreasonable Faith). Though warranted, the criticism works in both directions.
While church monies could be better spent on things like missions rather than holographic technology or private jets, I think it’s just as valid to consider how the critics are spending their money. Atheist organizations have some really interesting pet projects on which they spend their money.
The Atheist bus ad campaign initially cost $213,914. But the activity has gone viral and is now spread all over the world, which probably has multiplied the cost at least tenfold–and I’m being extremely conservative here. Mariano from Atheism is Dead critiques the campaign in these essays. Could this money have been better spent? Perhaps on the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders?
What about Michael Newdow, who has spent years in federal court attempting to get “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we trust” removed from the currency. He also sued unsuccessfully to stop references to religion and God from being part of President Bush’s second inauguration as well as President Obama’s inauguration. What if his time was devoted instead to helping people in Haiti or Chile?
Of course atheists will side with me that it is ridiculous for Godwin and Young to spend church money the way that they did (and probably still do). But I know for a fact that they will not agree with me that the bus campaign or Newdow’s lawsuits were wastes of both time and money. Consider Vjack mulling over becoming more vocal as an atheist by wearing atheist t-shirts and displaying bumper stickers. It’s not directly related to the bus campaign, but it does have similar overtones.
As for Newdow’s lawsuits, they are a self-evident waste of time and money and little more needs to be said here. But, atheists are supporting Newdow in his efforts. Vjack characterizes this issue as “too important to abandon.” The comment section over at Friendly Atheist is alive and well with many who support Newdow. Obviously, Hemnant supports Newdow as well–saying that the lawsuit has merit and hoping that someone will be successful with it (if not Newdow).
So, I think it’s fair to say that neither side seems to have the big picture in mind. Opponents are quick to criticize church spending, but their own spending habits are highly questionable. Meanwhile, as the atheists are always fond of pointing out, thousands of children will die today of starvation. Holograms and private jets won’t save a single life, but neither will bus ads nor will striking “God” from Pledge and currency. And while mega-church goes look forward to their tithes bringing in a hologram and ignore the pastor’s private jet, atheists will defend Newdow’s activities and the bus ads as important and necessary. Neither side will see the forest through the trees, and that is extremely sad.
Open Challenge to Caleb (But All Skeptics Welcome)
In my previous post, I recounted the sad deconversion of a close friend. Although I tried to keep him anonymous, he outed himself in the first commment. The deconverter is Caleb, a good personal friend of mine and regular commenter on this blog. It is sad to see any brother (or sister) in Christ reject the gospel, but it is even more sad when that person is good friend.
In reading some of the links provided by Caleb, and the little bit of his own writing that he has done on the subject of his deconversion, I’ve uncovered two recurrent themes that seem to come up in most deconversions.
First, the assertion that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions. What errors and contradictions we are always left to guess, because this is generally argued by soundbite. That is, it is asserted without any corroborating evidence being provided.
Second, that the deconverter faced many situations that simply could not be reconciled using a Christian worldview. Again, we are always left to wonder what situations the writer is speaking of, because this is always asserted with no evidence being provided.
That brings me to the purpose of this post. I’m issuing a two-fold challenge to Caleb, but any skeptic is welcome to participate. This is my proposal:
Challenge #1: Provide an example of where the Bible is in error, or else provide a bona fide contradiction. In over 2000 years of biblical scholarship, the Bible has never been found to be in error, nor has anyone been able to show a bona fide contradiction.
Challenge #2: Provide an example of a situation that simply cannot fit into a Christian worldview. I look most forward to the entries for this challenge. I have yet to see any situation that contradicts a Christian worldview.
All right, skeptics, you have your homework. I’m looking forward to seeing your entires in the comment section below. Of course, no entires at all will speak volumes on its own…
The Emptiness of God as a Philosophical Concept
It is a sad day when any Christian renounces his former faith and rejects the gospel. It is even more sad when the Christian in question is someone who was an active evangelist and a close friend. I had a feeling that I knew what he meant when he posted “[name withheld] is free of the cult and not afraid.” But I checked the litany of comments below the status to confirm what I feared: the “cult” he meant was Christianity.
He now believes that God is love, but nothing more than that. Of course, this belief is informed by Scripture, which he also rejects. Leaving that contradiction aside, we find that what my friend has done is to reduce God to a mere philosophical concept.
He appears to understand that God is necessary for existence. He would probably agree with me that God is the First Cause, or the Uncaused Cause, that touched off the chain of events that eventually became our universe. Other than that, my friend seems to have no way to inform his understanding of God other than to label him “love.” This is reducing God to a speculative philosophical concept.
The Christian, however, believes in a deity that is more than just a philosophical concept. The Christian has real object for his faith, that is, the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus suffered all of the same things that we suffered, emerging victorius, so that we can have real comfort with someone who has been there before. Jesus is God’s way of getting closer to us: by becoming flesh and blood and suffering though life as one of us.
A philosophical concept, however, is a cold and impersonal force that has never experienced life the way that we can. This isn’t a real person that we can retreat to when times are rough. So, when times get rough, while the Christian sees Jesus as the anchor and the rock to weather the storm, my friend won’t have such a rock. He’ll only have himself.
Once he has to weather a storm relying only on himself, it is easy to conclude that a philosophical concept did nothing for him. So why not shed the philosophical concept altogether?
Reducing God to a mere philosophical concept is only a few steps away from atheism.
Back Rome Again 