Christian: Now you’re just mocking Christianity. Well, mocking it can harden yourself all the more to the truth of Christianity. I wonder if you’ve ever honestly sought God through serious humble prayer and soul searching. I find that most apostates haven’t. Few, for example, even read the entire Bible before their deconversion. Few even spent at least 3 days in fasting and praying. Few actually read serious works on apologetics. Rather, most were nominal Christians who never took their Christian faith seriously.
Gary: Since the day I first expressed doubts about the core claims of Christianity in early 2014, Christians have told me that my doubts are due to not having a full understanding of Christian teaching; not being sufficiently well read in Christian scholarship and theology. So, I decided to read some books:
-“The Resurrection of the Son of God” by NT Wright
-“Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” by Richard Bauckham
-“The Death of the Messiah, Volumes I and II” by Raymond Brown
-“Making the Case for Christianity” by Maas, Francisco, et al.
-“The Resurrection Fact” by Bombaro, Francisco, et al.
-“Miracles, Volumes I and II”, by Craig Keener
-“The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona
-“Why are There Differences in the Gospels” by Michael Licona
-“The Son Rises” by William Lane Craig
-“The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus” by Raymond Brown
-“The Resurrection of Jesus” by Gerd Luedemann
-“Resurrection Reconsidered” by Gregory Riley
-“John and Thomas—Gospels in Conflict?” by Christopher Skinner
-“The Argument for the Holy Sepulchre” (journal article) by scholar Jerome Murphy-O’Connor
-“Israel in Egypt” by James Hoffmeier
-“The Bible Unearthed” by Finkelstein and Silberman
-“The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices“ by Craig Evans, (newsletter article) The City, a publication of Houston Baptist University, May 4, 2016
-“Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?” by Jodi Magness, SBL Forum
-“Genre, Sub-genre and Questions of Audience: A Proposed Typology for Greco-Roman biography” (article) by Justin M. Smith, St. Mary’s College, University of St. Andrews, Scotland
-“Cold-Case Christianity” by J. Warner Wallace
-“The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel
-“Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman
-“Jesus, Interrupted” by Bart Ehrman
-“How Jesus Became God” by Bart Ehrman
-“Jesus Before the Gospels” by Bart Ehrman
-“Did Jesus Exist?” by Bart Ehrman
-“Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus” by Asher Norman (endorsed by Talmudic scholars for its accuracy in presenting a Jewish perspective of Jesus and the Christian New Testament)
-“The Book of Miracles” by Kenneth L. Woodward
-“Why I Believed, Reflections of a Former Missionary” by Kenneth W. Daniels
-“Why Evolution is True” by biologist Jerry Coyne
-“Masters of the Planet-the Search for our Human Origins” by Ian Tattersall
-“A Manual for Creating Atheists” by philosopher Peter Boghossian
-“Can We Trust the Gospels?” by Peter Williams
-“The Outsider Test for Faith” by John W. Loftus
-“God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion” by physicist Victor J. Stenger
-“Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be The Only Humans on Earth” by paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer
-“Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by evangelical apologists Josh and Sean McDowell
-“The Case Against Miracles” edited by John Loftus
-“The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry” by Jewish author, Michael Alter
-“The Blind Watchmaker” by biologist Richard Dawkins
-“The Other Gospels: Accounts of Jesus from Outside the New Testament” by Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Plese (currently reading)
-“The Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine
-“Conversations With My Inner Atheist” by evangelical theologian Randal Rauser
-“Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma” by Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy
And guess what Christian apologists say now? Answer: You still haven’t read ENOUGH Christian books!
I have come to the conclusion that Christians will never be satisfied with my level of knowledge of Christian teaching…until I convert back to Christianity! There is always one more book that I must read to be fully informed.
Baloney.
How many books have most Christian apologists read on Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, and other world religions before dismissing the supernatural claims of these religions as nonsense with a simple wave of the hand? I bet few to none.
But, hey, I agree with them! You don’t need to read one Mormon book to know that Mormon supernatural claims are nonsense. You don’t need to read one Muslim book to know that Muslim supernatural claims are nonsense. And the same for Hinduism, etc..
And, you do not need to read one, single Christian book to know that the supernatural claims of Christianity are nonsense. Why? Because the evidence that the supernatural operates in our universe is so very, very poor! The only evidence that the supernatural operates in our universe comes from superstitious theists! For some odd reason, the supernatural does not like performing in front of non-supernaturalists (atheists)!
Dear Christian: your religious beliefs are a comforting delusion. Abandon them for the good of all humankind! A world without superstitions would be so much safer and healthier.
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
re: “the evidence that the supernatural operates in our universe is so very, very poor!”
I was unaware that any scientists had actually done scientific investigations into the existence of the supernatural at all. As such, it would seem to me that there is no scientifically-obtained information, one way or the other, regarding even the existence of a “supernatural”.
Science, as it is currently defined, cannot acknowledge any evidence for the supernatural. This is because scientists, while doing their scientific work, must assume “methodological naturalism”, and thus, must assume that supernatural causation does not occur. Unfortunately, the insistence on methodological naturalism prevents scientists from following the evidence wherever it might lead. In fact, if any scientist does try to use science to point to the supernatural, it is immediately dismissed as “pseudoscience.”
The philosopher and atheist, Bradley Monton, points out the problem: “If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism, it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility”.
Simply “assuming” a methodological naturalism is an issue, because science can’t “prove” that “naturalism is true”; it’s science’s own special kind of circular reasoning.
So, the question is this: What kind of evidence can be presented in favor of a supernatural, when science itself plays with a “loaded deck” and won’t allow for a supernatural? I’ll totally grant that the (almost exclusively) “experiential” evidence that Theists often use is totally insufficient. But, where can one go to get scientific evidence for the supernatural, if science assumes methodological naturalism?
It seems to be quite an un-level playing field: an Atheist requiring evidence for a supernatural, yet insisting that such evidence cannot be found – yet, this is because science can not and will not consider the possibility of a supernatural. It’s like saying “prove to me that you have at least five dollars in your checking account”, yet, not allowing me to even claim that my bank exists.
So, given that science works on the assumption of methodological naturalism (and that any attempt to do otherwise is labeled “quackery”), then from whence can anyone obtain evidence for the supernatural?
LikeLike
Simple logic demonstrates that the supernatural does not operate in our universe (notice: I never claimed that the supernatural does not exist nor that I can prove that the supernatural does not exist.):
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2021/12/07/overwhelming-evidence-that-the-supernatural-does-not-operate-in-our-universe/
LikeLike
There’s no reason I’m aware of that prevents methodological naturalism from investigating the supernatural. For instance, a scientific experiment about ESP, properly designed, could well find evidence of ESP. Why is it exactly that methodological naturalism can’t find evidence of the supernatural?
On the other hand, the distinction between the natural and the supernatural is ill-formed, in my opinion, but maybe that won’t come into play here.
LikeLike
yeh, I read that post…
I don’t see any “overwhelming evidence” of anything in the post, but nonetheless, the points you bring up are good ones.
Nonetheless, that other post does nothing whatsoever to answer the question I asked in THIS thread.
LikeLike
I was unaware that any scientists had actually done scientific investigations into the existence of the supernatural at all. As such, it would seem to me that there is no scientifically-obtained information, one way or the other, regarding even the existence of a “supernatural”.
I agree with your statement 100%.
But my comment “the evidence that the supernatural operates in our universe is so very, very poor!” has been answered in the most recent post. Science cannot disprove the existence of the supernatural but using logic when evaluating the morbidity and mortality rates among various groups of people one can demonstrate the very low probability that the supernatural operates in our universe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
well, yeah, I read that other post. But, really, what you’re bringing to issue is people’s claims of miracles – which I happen to think are way overdone. You’re right in saying that people of all kinds of religious beliefs claim miracles.
Your “either/or” proposition is flawed, though: “So either the Christian god is evenly distributing his miracles among all people on planet earth, regardless of whether they are Christian, Muslim, or Hindu, and regardless of whether they are theist or atheist, or, miracles are the product of the delusional thinking of theists”.
It could well be that the “Christian god” isn’t distributing miracles at all, but people (many of them Christians) claim this-or-that was a miracle (when it wasn’t).
Likewise, it could be that miracles do happen, on the rarest of occasions, but that the vast majority of miracle claims are indeed delusional.
Now – I’m not making a case, one way or the other. I’m just saying your proposition is flawed.
But – NONE of this addresses my question, which summed up is basically “if Science insists on methodological naturalism, and thus can not, and will never even attempt to investigate “the supernatural”, then how does it follow that you can be asking for “evidence” of the supernatural? The evidence you would accept is simply “not allowable” in the scientific paradigm which might be able to produce it. Again, it’s like you asking me for proof that I have five dollars in my checking account, while at the same time setting a rule saying “by the way, you can’t claim the existence of a bank”.
LikeLike
It could well be that the “Christian god” isn’t distributing miracles at all, but people (many of them Christians) claim this-or-that was a miracle (when it wasn’t). Likewise, it could be that miracles do happen, on the rarest of occasions, but that the vast majority of miracle claims are indeed delusional.
Exactly.
Thank you for supporting my original statement: the evidence that the supernatural operates in our universe is very, very poor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
so, are you ever going to answer my question, or, are we just avoiding that topic? We can avoid it if you like, but just let me know, so I’ll stop asking…
LikeLike
“if Science insists on methodological naturalism, and thus can not, and will never even attempt to investigate “the supernatural”, then how does it follow that you can be asking for “evidence” of the supernatural?
Science cannot evaluate the existence of the supernatural. But science can evaluate the alleged effects of the supernatural. If prayer to Jesus is truly effective, a comparison of the morbidity and mortality rates of Christians and non-Christians of the same social class should demonstrate this effect. Since we do not see this effect, Christians cannot claim that prayers to Jesus are more effective than prayers to Allah, Lord Krishna, or no prayers to any god.
The Christian apologist claim that thousands of miracle claims are evidence for the existence and activity of their God is proven false. Maybe this will make you happier: There is ZERO evidence that the supernatural operates in our universe other than the unsubstantiated claims of superstitious theists.
LikeLike
re: “Science cannot evaluate the existence of the supernatural. But science can evaluate the alleged effects of the supernatural.”
Yeh, I remember reading the results of a test of “intercessory prayer”, done a few years back. It was considered a valid, scientific test, meeting all the requirements (ie, a blind study, etc). Basically, it showed that the number of people who had gotten a particular surgery and were prayed for died at about the same rate as those who didn’t get prayer. So, it looks like the prayer didn’t do a bit of good.
Honestly, though, I remember wondering how that was really a test of God, more than a test of those that were doing the praying. If I remember correctly, those that were doing the praying were two groups of nuns, and a Unitarian church. (Unitarian??? they’re Christian????)
chuckle.. I thought “well, if I ever get sick, I ain’t gonna call on that bunch to pray for me”.
Another thought I had was “well, dang – everybody dies”. In fact, Christians die at precisely the same rate as non-Christians: 100%. Sure looks like the test confirmed that! chuckle But, I also thought “if God decides it’s your time to go, then the answer to everybody’s prayer is going to be ‘no'”. So was it surprising that basically the same number from each group of patients died? No.
The best thing I figure you could get out of intercessory prayer (in the case of recovery from sickness, a surgery, etc) is something like “getting well, quicker”, or “getting restored to full functionality” (as opposed to having some kind of long-term effects).
So, bottom line: that study certainly showed that, in those conditions, nope – the prayers of those praying didn’t have any effect on the rate of mortality. And that’s interesting. But, it’s not as if that one experiment somehow covers all the possible bases. All it means is THAT test didn’t provide any evidence for some kind of “supernatural influence”. But, it’s not as if that particular study is the Ultimate Study of All Things. It means that if science is interested in doing MORE studies to find evidence of the supernatural, then there are probably about nine-million other possibilities to choose from.
But – it is true: the one study that was done (and, done according to acceptable scientific standards) did not show evidence of the supernatural, in terms of mortality rates of people being prayed for. For me, though, I’m just not sure that any amount of prayer will change mortality rates, if God is the one that chooses when we die.
LikeLike
Then what is the point of prayer???
In the Christian Bible, Jesus is quoted as saying: Ask anything in my name and it will be done.
But when shown the results of morbidity and mortality rates demonstrating that rates of recovery from illness and the average lifespan of Christians compared to non-Christians shows no significant differences—even when we know that most Christians pray for recovery when they or their family members are sick or dying—clever Christian apologists attempt to gloss over this glaring contradiction by saying: We should not pray to get things. We should simply pray because God commands us to.
Good grief.
Bottom line: Christians should stop using miracle claims as evidence for the existence of their god or for evidence that the supernatural operates in our world. Morbidity and mortality statistics are strong evidence that these claims are unsubstantiated.
LikeLike
Gary, do you have any idea at all what “in my name” means? It doesn’t mean just adding “in the name of Jesus” onto the end of a prayer.
Your thinking must have been so “magical” back in your “Christian” days you probably believed you could pray that a rock would turn into a cow with wings and fly you to the moon, as long as you tacked on “…in the name of Jesus”.
LikeLike
Hmmm. If the words “in my name” don’t mean “in my name,” what do you suggest they really mean?
Funny how people throughout the many, many years of Christian belief are convinced the words mean exactly what is written. (BTW, your “example” is nothing more than a sidestep.)
LikeLike
Exactly. Christians, are experts at contorting the meaning of words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
btw – you ask “what’s the point of prayer”… but, I don’t get that.
there certainly wasn’t anything in what I said that somehow indicated “all things happen according to some set plan”.
those morbidity and mortality stats which that study showed aren’t “strong evidence” that the supernatural doesn’t work in our world. They are nothing but strong evidence that people die whether they’re prayed for or not, and dying may be one of the few things that God decides when will happen. Other things besides dying? Hey, who knows? That study doesn’t show squat about other things.
I thought you were big on critical thinking. How is it that you can’t figure this one out?
LikeLike
There are things in science which scientists cannot see but know exist simply because we can see their effects. Even though scientists cannot analyze the supernatural itself using the Scientific Method we should be able to identify its effects. There is no good evidence that the supernatural operates in our universe because the alleged effects of the supernatural (as claimed by theists) cannot be identified.
You are either extremely dense or once again, behaving as a troll.
LikeLike
“There are things in science which scientists cannot see but know exist simply because we can see their effects.”
Right, Gary. Nobody is disputing that. That’s exactly how they ended up detecting the Higgs Boson.
But, the research that you and I are both referring to, that was done to find out if canned intercessory prayer had any effect on the morbidity of patients that had undergone a particular surgery, shows that IN THAT CASE, and IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, prayer had no effect on the death rate.
Specifically, they tested to see “when these nuns and these Universalists recite a ‘canned intercessory prayer’, will it have any effect on the death rate of these patients that have all undergone the same surgery”.
And, the test showed that it didn’t. And that’s totally fine with me.
Now, analyze the results. Don’t just do your usual “jump to conclusions” nonsense.
The lack of efficacy could be due to:
1. there is no supernatural that effects nature
2. the supernatural isn’t swayed by “canned ‘intercessory’ prayer”
3. the supernatural makes it’s own conscious decisions about when a person is to die, and no amount of prayer can change that
4. the supernatural responds to prayer only under certain circumstances (and this test wasn’t one of them)
I could go on and on, adding to the list of possibilities.
The bottom line is that there has been this ONE scientifically-standardized experiment done, and it returned it’s set of data.
Do you have any idea of how much time, effort, money and the number of experiments that were necessary to detect the Higgs Boson? One test didn’t do it, I can assure you.
LikeLike
Once again, you miss the point. I have never addressed your one “prayer study” in my comments. I have instead referred to morbidity and mortality studies which demonstrate little if any difference in the morbidity and mortality of Christians versus non-Christians. In my opinion, this is strong evidence that: prayers to any god are not effective. Combine that with the fact that not one event which defies the laws of physics has ever been documented and confirmed (eg. a table levitating off of the ground), that is overwhelming evidence that the supernatural does not operate in our universe.
LikeLike
Nor mine Gary, and it includes 3+ years of seminary and 11-yrs of church staff service (3 different positions), 6-yrs of under-grad Biblical studies, and several missions trips abroad to Europe and Africa, plus now 21-yrs of FURTHER study, research, and debate/dialog with all types of Xian Apologists… like you.
I wrote a blog-post in Dec. 2016 precisely about this sort of mental denial or psychological deluding of reality and verifiable historical facts called Mind and Matter. It also has a subpage-link for its Bibliography. Additionally, I have 3+ years work-history inside the inpatient Psych/A&D rehab where I gained invaluable first-hand experience of hyper-religiosity, various forms of schizophrenia, Christ-Syndromes, and more importantly… the outpatient cases of either Deluded Denialism (of Reality) and/or minor manifestations of Cognitive Pathology.
Gary, you and most Americans (and non-Americans) would be SHOCKED how many “normal” religious people have daily, chronic mental-illnesses dealing with the REAL WORLD out there versus their “perceived” worlds strictly inside their bubbles of church, church-practices, and non-stop reinforcement of doctrinal brain-washing. They literally teetering on the edge of diagnosable clinical delusion/denialism. No surprise, right? 🤔
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nan –
re: “Hmmm. If the words “in my name” don’t mean “in my name,” what do you suggest they really mean?”
“In my name” means “in my authority”. Like someone saying “stop doing ‘XYZ’, in the name of the law”.
If someone says “stop doing XYZ in the name of the law”, but the law does NOT have any prohibitions on a person doing XYZ, then the person saying “…in the name of the law” is NOT acting under the authority of the law. They are attempting to claim an authority which they do not have.
This exact understanding is reflected in a sentence in 1 John: “This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.”
“According to His will” is basically the same thing as “according to his authority”, which is the same as “in his name”.
As I said: “in my name” does NOT simply mean tacking on “…in the name of Jesus” to the end of whatever random prayer you’re praying.
LikeLike
Baloney.
“Ask anything in my name and it will be done” does not mean “Ask for anything you want but I will only grant your request if it is my will”.
You are twisting the words of GOD…or at least a really nice man.
LikeLike
Gary –
re: ““Ask anything in my name and it will be done” does not mean “Ask for anything you want but I will only grant your request if it is my will”.”
Actually, it means exactly that.
LikeLike
IMO, you’re grasping at straws.
You wrote: “In my name” means “in my authority”. If this is truly the case, why didn’t Jesus use those exact words? For all intents and purposes, I would say that most Christian believers read and believe what it’s reported he said … they don’t analyze his words for hidden meanings.
LikeLike
It’s a COMMON IDIOM, Nan and Gary. sheesh
Idiom: “in the name of”
in the name of (someone or something)
1. Based on the authority of someone or something.
We proclaim these things in the name of God.
In the name of King John, I command you to halt.
2. With someone or something as a basis, reason, or motivation.
They’re releasing the documents in the name of transparency, but I don’t think anyone is really interested in them.
How many people have been killed in the name of religion?
3. Belonging to someone.
According to the deed, this property is still in the name of your father.
see https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+the+name+of
LikeLike
Yes, “I cast out this demon in the name of Jesus (by his authority)”, not, “I cast out this demon…if it is Jesus’ will.”
Sheesh.
LikeLike
Gary, there’s no “if” about it. Either you know what “the will of God is”, and you do it, or you don’t know what the “will of God” is. “If” doesn’t enter the equation.
Again – what we’re dealing with is whatever kind of “magical thinking” you must have suffered from when you were a Fundamentalist. It’s as insane now as it was back then.
LikeLike
Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done.
Note that Jesus explains that whatever you ask will be done if you do not doubt. He says nothing about his will be a factor. You fail to remember that Christians believe that Jesus gave the Twelve the power to heal diseases and even to pick up poisonous snakes just before his lift-off into outer space. Therefore, early Christians did believe they had the power to do ANYTHING.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In the name of” are not the words that Jesus used according to your holy book. He clearly said “in my name.” If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (John 14:14 KJV)
Your efforts to replace his words in order to “prove a point” is actually rather pitiful. Especially coming from someone who is so focused upon the validation of his religious beliefs.
LikeLike
good grief….
I really can’t answer to such Fundamentalist nonsense longer. It’s just too insane for me.
LikeLike
Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you…(but only if it is my will!)
Baloney.
You know what Jesus said was BS so you are just covering for his delusional ramblings.
LikeLike
Do you believe that Jesus told the Twelve that he was giving them the power to pick up poisonous snakes and they would not be hurt or they would not be hurt only if it was his will?
LikeLike
Nope, I don’t believe Jesus said that. That’s from the “fake ending” of Mark.
LikeLike
I thought you don’t trust anything in the Gospels, so why the hell are you arguing about something Jesus allegedly said in the Gospels???
Your inconsistent use of logic and your loyalty to this ancient cult despite its lack of good evidence for its claims is truly disturbing.
LikeLike
I was wondering the SAME THING about you, Gary…
You’re sitting there telling me what “in the name” means, and it’s that very meaning which you attribute to it that you REJECT.
how warped is that????
heck, I’m sitting here saying I reject that meaning, too, and dang – you won’t even let me…
sheesh
You can take the Fundamentailst out of Fundamentalism, but you can’t take the Fundamentalism out of the Fundamentalist….
LikeLike
re: “I thought you don’t trust anything in the Gospels, so why the hell are you arguing about something Jesus allegedly said in the Gospels???”
Ummmmmmmmm…. Gary. I’m arguing about the meaning of an idiom. It doesn’t matter if it was said the the Gospels or in King Lear…
the argument here is about “in the name”.
You apparently think it means that all you’ve got to do is tack on “in the name of Jesus” to any random prayer, and it will be done.
I’m telling you “no, that’s nutzo Fundamentalism”, and you are RIGHT, if you think that Fundamentalist understanding of the phrase “doesn’t work” – BECAUSE IT DOESN’T. And why not? Because the Fundamentalist understanding – which you REJECT – is just plain WRONG. And, that’s why you reject it. And so do I.
The only difference is that I went and looked it up, and found out what it DOES mean. So, I didn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. But, you did.
LikeLike
But he has to say that, Nan.
He has to say Jesus didn’t mean to say what he obviously said because he knows that Jesus does NOT answer most prayer requests. In fact, most Christians have learned not to ask Jesus for big things because they know that the chances that Jesus will affirmatively answer big prayer requests (heal Aunt Betsie’s stage 4 pancreatic cancer) are very slim. The fact is, prayer has no better success rate than betting on a horse at the local track. If you bet on an overwhelming favorite, there is a good chance you will “win”. If you bet on a longshot, chances are slim you will win.
LikeLiked by 1 person
my god…. so this is what it’s like to deal with Fundamentalists….
I’ve always thought they were nutzo, but this…. this shows the nutzo-ness goes far beyond what I imagined.
Gary – I applaud your attempt to help people “Escape from Christian Fundamentalism”, but I see the Fundamentalism never really leaves the Fundamentalist.
LikeLike
“in the name of”
representing someone or something
They said they came in the name of peace.
using the authority given by someone or something
She claimed to be acting in the name of the heirs to the estate.
see https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/in-the-name-of
LikeLike