Thursday, June 23, 2016

Farewell...

I had the opportunity to jam with Nick once at a local bar.  He was an amazing musician, and a good person all-around.

1965-2016
Rest in Peace, Nick.
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Quick Plats

I've been thinking a bit about the A-Chick Tracts that Telltale Atheist has been doing, and I rather had an idea for one.

First, we have two brothers.  One is an amazing artist, who devotes his life to oil painting. We will call him Teddy.  The other is a scoundrel who really isn't good for much.  We'll call him James

The two have a small dialogue, where Teddy tries to tell James that he simply needs Jesus and he'll quit being a lush. and James just kinda blows him off.  Teddy is worried about James soul, and James doesn't believe in any of that.  James responds that he's already going to hell anyway, so there's no use trying for redemption.  That is, says James, if it's even real. Teddy resigns himself to painting, as James leaves.

Later that day, we pick up James' story, and he's sitting in a bar getting quite drunk.  He has a conversation with someone in the bar, who happens to believe in god.  James tells him he doesn't believe any of that.

Cut to Teddy, who is at home.  He's working on a neat painting of Jesus on the mount (Teddy being a Christian, and a lover of symbolism), when he realizes he's going to need more oil paints.  He puts on his coat and heads out into the stormy eventide.

Cut back to James, who is rather irritated at this point and decides he's going to go drink at the bar across town.  He gets in his car, though he can barely stand. In a twist of fate, James and Teddy wreck, and both die.

Teddy and James are now both dead.  The afterlife wasn't real, and Teddy wasted his life painting stuff he didn't really feel strongly about.  Teddy was actually really interested in nude art, but he believed it was lustful and wrong, and therefore never reached his true potential.  James gave up on life because he believed that, if a god were real, it was going to damn him regardless.  Neither believed in themselves, and their beliefs in a god didn't change the fact that they both died.

In leiu of a bible verse, here we take a moment to block-text a replacement for John 3:16

Your life is valuable, and it's the only one you get.  Don't waste it, or limit yourself, because you are afraid of what might lie on the other side of death.  Death is final.  Live your life as though you've only got one, because it's precious since it's your only one.  You won't have eternity to catch up with friends and family, so value your time with them now.  Do what's right because it's right, not because you expect some reward.
Last regular page: Put some flowery picture of a sunset or something, and this text: Life isn't black-and-white like a Chick Tract.  This life is the only one you have, so live it well.

Questionnaire optional.

Q1: Do you believe your life is worth living to the fullest?
Q2: Do you feel confined by a belief you don't necessarily hold?
Q3: Do you feel as though you could create your own meaning in life?

If so, start being the change you want to see in the world.
Posted by at No comments:

Response to EveKeneinan

Today, we're going to be discussing this little bit of wonderful glossolalia.
This is going to be fun.
A funny thing happens with the concept of the "burden of proof." People keep claiming over and over that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the positive claim.
I'm not sure what's so funny about this, but it's correct.
They claim this repeatedly;

It isn't a claim.  You're conflating that word with another here to try to make your point seem more valid than it actually is.  That's several fallacies all at once, but most importantly it's the fallacy by conflation.  Here's a nice wikipedia page on the very subject.   Also, as you'll see soon enough, the author presumes that her god existing is the null hypothesis, which it is not.  Until evidence arises for whichever god(s) she's believing in (presumably the Jesus one), the null hypothesis remains that there is no god. There's equally much evidence to support any god, and many mythical characters who aren't gods, like Beowulf or Odysseus.  However, until we find evidence independent of someone's story, the null hypothesis is that they were not real.
so by their own principle, the burden of proof should lie with them to prove their claim that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.
 Sure, we just did.  The null hypothesis is that all gods are equally probable, including the absence of a god.  It is from this point we present our evidence.  Christians like to claim a global flood, but stratified rock is a clear example of evidence against that god.  Greco-Roman Pantheists will claim that from Chaos (the deity) appeared Gaea (the literal, living god who is earth), but the fact that the Earth doesn't appear to be a god is evidence against this.

Again, as Eve failed to discuss the null hypothesis, it's understandable why she might not understand the significance of burden of proof, or how to prove who has it.  Even if the null hypothesis were that a god exists, there is currently no evidence to support that assertion, but plenty against.  With regard to Christianity, for example, we have a distinct lack of reports of the sun being gone for three days.  We do, however, have texts from that time period, none of which anywhere in the world mentioned this particular phenomenon.  Most things in the bible do not have evidence to support them, therefore the null hypothesis would become invalid and the previous null hypothesis (there are no gods) would return.

And yes, they consistently refuse [to] do this. Why is that?
I'm not refusing here, exactly as others have tried to explain this to you, but keep ignoring that.  Also, about that evidence you were discussing, isn't this a positive claim?
My guess i that they don't really mean...lies with the one who makes the claim
This part is more of that positive claim she's making.  Which, oddly enough, applying her logic earlier, she hasn't proven why she (or anyone else) has such burden.
I've yet to see anything beyond mere (and repeated) assertion.
Well, that's some top-tier pot-kettle right there, folks.
But an ad-naseum fallacy is not an argument. Something doesn't become true after being repeated many times. 
Oh really?









What was it she said up there again?  Repeating a thing over and over doesn't make it true? Repeatedly saying that someone is wrong because they disagree with you is not an argument.  I'm glad we agree there.  Arguing that you don't like the way logic works, over and over, doesn't actually prove that logic doesn't work.  You see, when you claim someone's got a fallacy, you've got to try to explain why, even by your own logic.  The picture you posted in the first tweet doesn't do that, and now I'm explaining why.  In fact, it's pretty self-referential, your picture, because it just keeps repeating your assertions without breaking them down logically. Argumentum Ad Naseum, as it were.
Also, most people who use "burden of proof" talk seem to be hypocrites engaged in special pleading...
You're the one ignoring the null hypothesis, and then repeatedly telling everyone else they're wrong.  I agree, that is kinda hypocritical, and a clear use of the special pleading fallacy...
...asking for special exemption from having to give arguments for their own position...

Maybe she'll explain why it's an error of reification, maybe not.  Just for fun, let's see what 'God' means.  According to Merriam-Webster,
1: a being having superhuman powers and control over a particular part of life or the world <in some belief systems, natural forces like the wind and the sea (are) gods>
Synonyms: divinity, deity 
2: (cap) the being worshipped as the creator and ruler of the universe <let us give thanks to God>
Synonyms: Allah, Almighty, Author, Creator, Divinity, Eternal, Everlasting, Father, God, Godhead, Jehova, Lord, Maker, Providence, Supreme Being, Yahweh
So, again, asserting that your god doesn't fall into the category of all gods is not a category error, because anything which can be described within those confines is a god.
...while demanding their opponents do so.
See also: Eve's entire feed, more or less.
The rational response to special pleading is, of course, "No."
That's kinda been our entire point. Thanks for at least saving me the trouble of making that point!
Note on Theism/Atheism: ...There is an entire anthology of essays...
Unless one of those essays references something other than the bible (again, I'm presuming you're attempting to defend YHWH, though you've not said so directly), it's not evidence.  If you don't understand why, perhaps see my Secular Sunday School responses, both here (the past couple entries) or on my youtube channel, here and here.

I think I'll leave it there for today.  She had a TL:DR on her thing that was half as long as her original post. Here's a better way.

TL;DR: If you want to prove who has the burden of proof, start by defining the null hypothesis.

Posted by at 3 comments:

Friday, June 3, 2016

A thought on heaven

I'm going to try recording this with my phone through my voice recording app that translates my voice to text.
So I had the most interesting thoughts concerning the idea of Heaven and Hell.
Let us presume for a moment that heaven and hell are actual places. Let us presume for a moment that some people go to heaven and some people go to hell. Now if someone were to end up in the heaven, would they actually be aware of the people who went to hell.? I wonder this based on the premise that the people in heaven should not be able to suffer. So let's presume for a moment that you are a good person you get into heaven, and one of your friends does not. Now this is a very interesting conundrum.
Let's think for a moment: if you are aware that your friend is in hell, would you really be satisfied being in heaven? To put this another way, would you really be enjoying Eternal Bliss if you knew that your friend was suffering in the hell?
Let's run this in the reverse Direction. Let's think for a moment that you're in hell. Your friend who was a terrible person repented upon their Deathbed, and for some reason was permitted entry into heaven. Upon dying you lived a pretty good life and we're not nearly as bad as that friend, however you were sent to hell because you did not believe or something. What would you think of the god this sentence you to hell?
Again this is just a thought experiment. Again I do not believe in such a thing as a heaven or hell or Nirvana or Valhalla or Sheol. I think the very idea is preposterous.
However I am simply positing an idea here for you to mull over.
This is Reverend JR, signing off.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, June 2, 2016

#FreeAmosYee

So, I might be a bit late jumping on the wagon here, but let's take a look at some interesting things.  Let me first prop one of my favorite youtubers, Logicked.


Give it a watch, it's well worth your time.  Logicked is one of my favorite youtubers.  Watch the video, seriously.

Free speech should never be impeded.  Whether I agree with him or not is not the issue.  He should not be imprisoned for his words.  Speak in defense of free speech, and speak in defense of Amos Yee!
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Response to Secular Sunday School, Part 2

As Jonathan is rather in a hurry for me to mop up the supposed questions he has posed on his blog, and would like to ignore my counterpoints, I shall waste no time further in heeding his request.

Jonathan is absolute in his conviction that he has provided definite evidence that the claims of the biblical Jesus are true.  Let's take a look at his site.  I'm going to quote long bits of text here as it's appropriate, so be aware that all quotes in this article (indented paragraphs) are his work, which I'm quoting.  Hopefully these answers will suffice, and he shall give me a few days respite before ignoring what I've typed and claiming I've not written (two articles, now, actually) discussing the points on his blog.

To maintain continuity, text from the same page will be identified with the same color.  New Testament Plot Fixes will be red, for example.

 Let's start by taking a look at his New Testament Plot Fixes page.  What sort of evidence can we find in the following paragraph?
We modern people are sophisticated consumers of media. In our commercially oriented lives, we have heard more sales pitches than people in any other time or place in history. We hear and evaluate propaganda from our political and societal leaders. We are better educated, savvier, and harder to fool than ever. Today we find it easy to read between the lines and guess at an author’s motives. The Christian gospels were written for a less sophisticated audience, so it’s easy for us to see through them.
How very interesting.  Not terribly sophisticated.  We get it.  So, about that evidence?

The gospels were written generations after Jesus’ ministry, and all four of them plus Paul’s letters include “elaborations”.
So basically, what you're saying is, it's probably a fictional tale recorded some time after the originator of the tale created it?  That's some odd evidence to post against your own conviction that Jesus was literally a real person.  Remember this line, from your Am I a Fake Atheist page?
For example, saying that there’s no evidence for a historical Jesus is a flat-out error.
Let me get this straight.  A bunch of guys, decades after the supposed events, made up stuff about a person (I'm glad you put "elaborations" in quotation marks so we know you meant "lies" or "fabrications"), but you're claiming the person in question literally existed and did the things attributed to him?

Well, that matters not.  Let's go back to the paragraph at hand.
With our modern eye for shams, we can see the authors struggling to make the historical elements fit their mythic Christ figure.
So wait, is he a mythical figure, or was he literally the person described, since saying he's mythical in any sense is a flat-out error?
In particular, many parts of the New Testament read like answers to skeptical questions that 1st-century Christians may have heard from their dubious neighbors.
Hey, this sounds familiar.  Some guy compiles answers to questions he's heard people present to him, skeptical of his claim.  Oh, you're borrowing their gambit!  I get it now, it's a self-referential thing.
Here is a list of hypothetical skeptical questions and the Bible verses that look like early Christian responses to them. 

Oh good, you are are able to answer questions directly.  Now, about my last blog post, will you answer those questions as well, or am I just having a monologue here?

Scriptural Sources
Responses to each question are in chronological order, as found in the following works.
  Q, a lost compilation of Jesus’ sayings, written by c 50
  Paul’s letters about theology and conduct, written c 60
  Mark’s gospel, about how Jesus had secretly been the Messiah, written c 70
  Matthew’s gospel, which is Mark + Q + extras, edited for a Jewish audience, written c 80
  Luke’s gospel, which is Mark + Q + extras, edited for a gentile audience, written c 90
  John’s gospel, a bold retelling with an all-divine, not-at-all-secret Jesus, written c 100
Neat.  So, to point this out early, literally the only sources you've given here are from within the bible.  Even then, you're not addressing the points, you're simply engaging in revisionist history.  Let's take a look at a few of these 'questions.' For the sake of not taking up too much time, I'm going to leave his bible responses aside, and actually answer these SkepticalQuestions he's put forth, one at a time.
Skeptical Question: If Jesus was the Son of David, why was he from Nazareth instead of from Bethlehem? 
He wasn't.  He didn't exist.  This is too easy.

Alright, a serious answer.  You've provided no evidence that Jesus existed. Saying that 'the bible says Jesus was real' is exactly the same thing as saying that 'Spider Man is real because Marvel says so." Lots of fans of comics will ask why there are inconsistencies within the stories.  For example, Spider-Man has two different origin stories. One involves him being bitten by a spider, and one a bit more recently (though shorter than the span of time between when Jesus supposedly walked and when he was written about) wherein his powers are merely technology.  The question you're asking is no different than asking "If Spiderman was bitten by a spider, why does he need high tech stuff to make web?"

It's because they're two different versions of the same fictional character.  Even if Peter Parker's personality, mannerisms, physicality and so on were based on a real person, it doesn't make Spider Man a real person.  Without evidence that comes from another source, you cannot make any assertions about the validity of the historicity of the person in question.  This is called a Fallacy of False Premise, and it's a fundamental error in logic.  You're assuming that, because a story was written about someone, that story must be true.  It's exactly like saying that Harry Potter was, without question, a real person, because he appears in a book.

However, your main concern was that I answer your questions.  I shall not tarry here further.

I needed to include this here.  You do not speak for all atheists.  I do not speak for all atheists. 'Us atheists' isn't a group that exists.  The only thing Atheists share in common is that we do not believe in a god.  Period.  It's that simple.  Some think that Jesus was a literal real person, as you claim, and some like me are on the opposite side, and believe the entire bible is fiction with regard to its supernatural claims and so on.

It doesn't matter what evidence I'm familiar with. It matters only if you can provide it, as you are making the positive claim.
 SQ: If angels or wise men came to herald Jesus’ birth, why didn’t Jesus’ neighbors know he was special?
Because it didn't happen.  Again, you need that evidence you keep harping on about so.  If you can provide it, I will be required to change my opinion.  In the mean time, again, you've only given us a story that was written only by people who definitely were not there.  A fictional account of a fictional person, it would seem.  Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, it only takes a few clicks to provide it.
SQ: John the Baptist preached about a great apocalyptic figure to come, but he never named Jesus as that figure. Why didn’t John recognize him?
Well, for one, even within the bible, the apocalypse and second coming haven't happened yet.  Second, he wrote that story, one hundred years later, or so, according to your own numbers.  Can you honestly not see how you are being revisionist in exactly the same way you claim they were?  If John could make stuff up to fit his own narrative, and you're pointing out that he did, then why should I presume you aren't doing exactly the same thing?  Then again, when you get us that evidence, maybe we'll change our minds.  With that in mind, another tweet.


You're absolutely right, I don't have evidence, because I don't need evidence for a negative claim.  I don't need evidence in exactly the same way that I don't need it to claim that Uncle Sam, the Krampus, Harry Potter, Bilbo Baggins, nor Bugs Bunny are real.  There is absolutely no evidence that any of these are historical characters, and that's why it's a negative claim.  If someone found the grave of Bugs Bunny tomorrow, and found the cartoon corpse of an anthropomorphic bunny, then my claim would become a positive one.  Unless it was the corpse of Roger Rabbit, of course.

SQ: If the Holy Spirit came to Jesus the instant he was baptized, why didn’t John recognize him then?
Again, by your own admission, the stories were decades old before these authors recorded them.  This is because they likely never happened.  Sure, it's entirely possible that baptisms were common, but that's not the question here.  The question here is specifically why John didn't recognize the Holy Spirit.  It's because the holy spirit was never there.  We don't need to analyze four old pieces of paper, because they're all retelling the same fictional story.

This is exactly like Cinderella.  Cinderella was an oral tradition for hundreds of years, and as a result, it's told in many different ways.  It's fundamentally about Cinderella, but it doesn't mean that Cinderella was an actual real person who received a visit from a fairy godmother, got magical shoes, or even ever went dancing.  The sole purpose of the story of Cinderella is to instill certain virtues within children via memetic device.  The Cinderella story isn't told over and over again because it was about a real person, it's told over and over again to drive home the morals held within.  Similarly, unless you can prove otherwise, it's exactly the same kind of claim as the one concerning Jesus.  So far, you've only demonstrated flaws in the story, but you claim to have some evidence.  With that in mind, let's keep moving right along.
SQ: But why did Jesus get baptized anyway? If he was the perfect Son of God, then why did he need baptism for the remission of sins? Was he a follower of John’s? 
When you've got a fictional story, rewriting it isn't hard. See Cinderella again.
SQ: If Jesus was the Son of God, why didn’t he tell people? 
I don't think anyone who has ever read the bible would ask this question.  Also, where's that evidence he existed at?
SQ: Jesus said that we in this generation wouldn’t get a sign, but if he had given people signs, wouldn’t more people have believed and get saved? Wouldn’t mighty signs have brought more people to your church? 
 That's a pretty good question.  I suppose it's probably for the same reason that Google Maps has never accidentally gotten a picture of the actual Bat Symbol, though Bruce Wayne should easily be able to send one up if he were real.
SQ: What did Jesus mean when he said that the hungry were the ones with God’s blessing? Going without food is a curse, not a blessing. And how can the poor be blessed? Wealth is a blessing, not poverty. Was he crazy, like his family thought?
Another good question, but what does it have to do with proving a god exists, or a mythical Jesus figure?
SQ: I talked with some other disciples, and they never said anything about Moses and Elijah showing up to give Jesus their endorsement.  
What do these questions have to do with proving Jesus existed?  Absolutely nothing!  So naturally, let's keep talking about superfluous nonsense.
SQ: While Jesus was alive, even Peter, James, and John didn’t say anything about Jesus meeting Moses and Elijah. 
Oral traditions of fictional accounts are a pain, aren't they?  What's it got to do with Jesus being real again?  Are you saying people couldn't possibly have made up a story?
SQ: If Jesus was the anointed king of the Jews and their savior, why did they reject him? If the Jews didn’t accept him, why should gentiles?  
If I claimed to be the son of god right now, do you think people would take me very seriously?  Even if I were?  Let's list a few example of people who claimed to be divine:
  • Jim Jones
  • Arnold Potter
  • Charles Manson
  • Krishna Venta
  • David Koresh
  • John Smith
  • Kim Jong Il
  • Every King and Queen of England
All of these people claimed to be god, or god appointed, and had people who believed they were god.  Do you accept their claim equally with that of your supposed historical Jesus or not?  If not, why not?  Is it because you'd like to have some outside evidence other than them simply saying it's true?  Is it something else?
 SQ: If Jesus was God’s Son and everything, why were the Romans able to nail him up on a cross like a runaway slave? 
Again, another wonderful question founded on a false premise.  There's no evidence it ever happened.
 SQ: If Jesus taught the disciples that he was going to die and then rise from the dead, why were they surprised when he was killed and when he rose from the dead? 
If I said exactly the same thing, right now, would it surprise you if it happened later?  These questions are utterly weak.
 SQ: If the crucifixion was all in God’s plan, why did Jesus cry out in despair as he was dying on the cross?
Because God is a Sadist.
SQ: So if the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified, does that mean Jesus was an enemy of Rome? 
You mean, if I claimed to be god, and declared that I should rule over America (Or the entire world)< do you think the response would be different?  It wasn't terribly different at Jonestown, after all.
 SQ: Bodies of crucified criminals are thrown to the dogs. How was there a tomb for Mary Magdalene to visit? 
Again, what has this got to do with proving Jesus existed?  You claimed these were questions for "Mythicists" but really, these sound much more like questions believers argue over in seminary.
SQ: You say Jesus supposedly “appeared” to a couple followers after his death. So what? Sometimes people see things. 
Good point.  Someone could have just made up a story or something.
SQ: Now that Jesus is dead, you Christians are claiming that he taught stuff that no one has heard before.
Apparently you're not even reading your own questions.  Jesus isn't actually dead, he rose from the dead and came back to life, in canon.  Then he ascended to heaven among the clouds.
SQ: Jesus never said that the disciples had any of his authority or set any of them up as a leader.
Good for him.  What does this have to do with whether or not he was a real person?  I mean, Superman once said that being a racist is anti-American.  Does that mean Superman was real?
SQ: Jesus never baptized anyone. Why are you Christians baptizing people? That was John the Baptist’s thing.
Another excellent point which has no bearing on whether or not the story is real.
SQ: I get having a meal in Jesus’ honor, but where does all this sacrificial blood imagery come from? 
I hate to sound like a broken record, but can you guess what I say next? What has this got to do with whether or not Jesus is real? Are you saying people can't form religions around things that aren't real?  Platonic Solids must exist because Plato existed?
SQ: When Jesus was alive, his sect was strictly Jewish. Now that he’s not around running things, gentiles are joining his sect, and they don’t have to convert to Judaism any more. 
This question is terrible for many reasons, not the least of which is that it has absolutely nothing to do with showing evidence of Jesus having existed.

 I realize this has stretched on quite long enough, so I'm going to continue this in Part 3, where I'll deal with the page entitled Historical Jesus beats Mythical Jesus.  This may in fact have been the set of questions he'd liked me to have dealt with, but the link he originally sent me linked to the one I've just torn apart today.  However, I'll close by responding to this bit one more time, for clarity sake.  Also, since Jonathan likes repeating that I haven't answered him all the time, I'll be doubly sure to answer every single quandary he could possibly posit via that page.

Today I was the guest speaker at Sunday Assembly Seattle. Sunday Assembly is a secular “church,” a celebration of life with singing and community. They asked me to talk on the topic of why atheists can act like jerks sometimes, based on my September 28th blog post. 
Repeatedly telling people they haven't answered your question, and being impatient.  Do those sound like things you've been working on, at all?  Do you not consider it kinda jerky to shrug off opinions you're not comfortable with in leiu of actually addressing rebuttals to your preconceived notions? Is it just me?  Odd.

Also, you're acting as though you speak for all atheists, when clearly you do not.  You do not speak for the general population of atheists any more than I do.  Begging the question (a fallacy no less) that atheists are just seen as jerks is a two-part problem.  The first problem is that it implies that belief in a deity is what makes a person not act like a jerk; the second is that most people in general, atheists included, are not jerks.  There's a third, more subtle point here, in that being offended is partially on the end of the recipient, and not necessarily at all on the part of the giver.  If I've offended you, it doesn't mean I've been offensive, merely that you've been offended.  Same thing with theism.  If a person believes in god, or that a mythical character is real, and someone tells them it's probably not the case, that doesn't make the person questioning the belief a jerk, nor offensive.  Perhaps some people are merely too easy to offend.
Today I’m addressing the topic in a less confrontational way and suggesting that atheists ought to achieve greater degrees of self-awareness, niceness, and humility. 
Again, atheism isn't a religion.  It's simply a lack of belief in a god.  That's it. Buddhists are atheist, as are a great many religious folk.  Followers of Astrology, for example, can very easily be atheist.  Most deists are, in fact, theist, because deism doesn't presuppose a god.  Similarly, you're begging the question again that somehow, being a theist fundamentally makes a person more self-aware, nice and humble, by virtue of the corollary: the absence of theism makes people less self-aware, nice and humble (through some unexplained mechanism).

I don't really care if you respond to my rebuttals, but I'm far from done.  I have tried to be nice and take everything in due time, but you've forced me to be perhaps less charitable to your arguments than perhaps I would have been.

Also, blindly repeating "You've not answered my questions" isn't an argument.

See you all next time.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Response to Secular Sunday School


I did this video yesterday, in response to the twitter comments mentioned.  I haven't yet directly addressed the questions posted by the author, because I need first to break down the premises given.  It would be folly for me to simply jump right in and start dissecting the arguments which are based, it seems, on a few key fallacies, a couple of which are kinda subtle.

Let me today go one step further than the video, and create a list of simple responses, of which I will cover much more greatly in future videos.  Again, if you're interested in listening to me break down these kinds of arguments, by all means subscribe to my channel. It's the simplest way to keep up with what I'm doing.

I will direct your attention now to this page, but do be warned, the blog does have some apparent scripting issues which may bog down your browser (although probably not intentionally).  I'm simply going to go casually through here and hit a few main points, in no particular order.
Be warned, the site loads funny for me, and it might do for you also.
We are better educated, savvier, and harder to fool than ever. Today we find it easy to read between the lines and guess at an author’s motives. The Christian gospels were written for a less sophisticated audience, so it’s easy for us to see through them. The gospels were written generations after Jesus’ ministry, and all four of them plus Paul’s letters include “elaborations”. With our modern eye for shams, we can see the authors struggling to make the historical elements fit their mythic Christ figure.  
"New Testament Plot Fixes" 
 Here we have, one should think, the basic crux of the entire argument.  One could be forgiven for thinking that "this is a website with the aim of promoting evolution and agnostic atheism!"  Indeed, I might have thought such a thing myself, were it not for a line from another page, as referenced in the video above:
Online and at atheist gatherings, I’m likely to challenge atheists when their criticisms of religion are unfair. For example, saying that there’s no evidence for a historical Jesus is a flat-out error.
"Am I a Fake Atheist?"
It would seem that these two ideas are at odds with one another, and I should imagine that they are.  There's a special sort of cognitive dissonance at work here.  As Jonathan is quick to point out,
We atheists pride ourselves on being evidence-driven. 
"Am I a Fake Atheist?"
However, if we turn our attention to this section, we can clearly see the contrast.  Evidence isn't necessary when there's a preconceived notion to introduce bias:
 [In response to the anecdotes he gives to how the bible explains various things] 
All these cover stories point back to a historical Jesus.
"New Testament Plot Fixes" 
Just to retain the context and address one last point, I present to you this, in the same context as the last.
If there hadn’t been a historical Jesus doing things like getting baptized, the reasoning goes, then there would be no need for these layers of justification.
"New Testament Plot Fixes" 
This is clearly a fallacy of false dichotomy, as well as false cause.  It's a false dichotomy/false cause fallacy for two reasons:
  1. The author would have us believe that, since there are stories about Jesus, Jesus must've existed.
    1. The author neglects to address many simple, and many more complex, reasons why these stories might exist.  Such examples are as follow:
      1. Why is the false premise engaged that anything for which there are stories must be true?
        1. Does the author also presuppose that Uncle Sam was a real person, because there are stories about him?
        2. What about Heracles, Odysseus, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and so on?
          1. Would the author really have us believe that the only reason there can be such complex stories about these individuals is the fact that the individuals existed?
      2. The second false premise engaged is that the stories must fundamentally be true because they exist.
        1. By that logic, Bilbo and Gandalf exist because they have extravagant backstories.
        2. Similarly, Santa Clause, the Krampus, the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Bigfoot, Brownie Monsters, the Loch Ness Monster, Peter Cottontail, the Cadbury Bunny, and Nigel Tufnel also meet these criteria.
      3. The author presumes, falsely, that the only reason a story needs layers of justification is if it is true.
        1. This point is the simplest to address, and I like it least.
        2. Lies.  This describes lies.
          1. I don't need to justify gravity when I can simply demonstrate gravity.
          2. In the same way, I don't need to justify the Bible if I could simply show it was historically accurate.
          3. Einstein dropped his cosmological constant from his equation that describes relativity, for exactly this reason.
            1. It required too much justification and didn't appear to actually exist.
I'm not going to go any further today, except to posit this:

Since the story of Odysseus is so long and drawn out, and has so many justifications for the actions within it, does the author accept that Odysseus was a historical figure on par with any other?  Or would the author like a bit more evidence that he actually lived, let alone blinded a cyclops?

In fact, let me walk through this in a piecework, backward fashion.  Imagine that tomorrow, I decide to claim that Romeo Montague was a real historical figure.  I mean, we know that he has a particular sort of past, and he did things that might need many layers of justification.  We also know that Shakespeare probably wrote about him after reading about someone else writing about him (although we unfairly called it 'plagiarism' by comparison).  Would the author accept, therefore, that Romeo must certainly have been based explicitly on some actual figure, who lived perhaps a few decades before Shakespeare actually wrote about him?  Or would Jonathan require a bit more evidence of this supposed 'historical figure?'  If I were to claim that it's an outright lie to say that Romeo was not a real person, would Jonathan accept this explanation and contrarian justification?

I should think that Jonathan would be a bit more skeptical.  Especially considering that he seems to have a very solid grasp of evolution in general, and the general (though far from specific, and sometimes quite off-the-mark) ideas about atheism, to which he simultaneous claims to be party:
All these factors give me hope, and I’ll keep expecting reasonableness from my fellow atheists.
"Am I a Fake Atheist?"
and yet somehow claims he can be removed from by people who aren't like him, in literally the next sentence:
At least until they take my atheist card away and kick me out of the tribe for real.   
"Am I a Fake Atheist?"
With that in mind, my final parting thought is this: if you're actually an atheist (and I am actually a card-carrying one, though that's only in America, mind: It's not actually a religion, but it is here for equal protection purposes), how exactly would you posit that other (but somehow different?) atheists would not let you be one?

Perhaps Jonathan is merely misguided in this respect, or perhaps he's swinging hard from the Atheism+ stuff that others have done recently, but I don't think either of those is the case.  Also, a last word from Penn Jillette, so we don't keep making the Atheism=Agnostic mistake:


This has been Rev. J.R.
Signing off.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)