Is This Representative of "Moderate" Muslims?

0 comments
A majority of Egyptian Muslims favor democracy, are against suicide bombings and Islamist extremism, but also favor segregation of men and women in the workplace, stoning adulterers, flogging and cutting hands off thieves, and executing apostates. LINK.

A "Moderate" Muslim

0 comments

Five Thoughts On the Present Atheist Wars

0 comments
I wasn't going to comment on the so-called wars taking place among atheists but I think I have something to say others have not yet said. I also want to respond to Christians who seem to be reveling in our disputes. I know that in this politically charged atmosphere there is probably little that can be written that won't draw personal attacks of its own. That's too bad. All I can do is hope for a charitable reading of what I'm going to write, which, if we at least tried doing that it could go a long way toward easing tensions. Here are three links to acquaint my readers with the atheist wars out of the many being written (sorry if anyone thinks I chose the wrong ones, since I haven't read them all). Mark Oppenheimer's essay asks, Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement? Michael Nugent responds to blogger Adam Lee, who previously argued that "Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name." [Nugent links to other essays, including one from Jerry Coyne where he says, "Enough is enough" along with an earlier essay where Nugent tried to be conciliatory]. Then creationist Vincent Torley caught wind of this and wrote one titled, The New Atheists: A House Divided. Torley asked whether the atheist house is crumbling and seems to revel in our so-called demise.

Welcome Back Debunking Christianty!

0 comments
On September 5th I changed the name of this blog to "Debunking Abrahamic Religions." Since that time the number of hits to this blog has dropped an average of 1570 a day! So in the interests of reaching more people I've changed the title back to "Debunking Christianity." The numbers dictated the results. It will stay that way no matter what topic I write about. There are lots of blogs with a title where the author(s) write about a wide variety of subjects unrelated to the title. So will I. Stay tuned. I'll writes them as I sees 'em.

Sam Harris's Book "Waking Up" is a NY Times Bestseller!

0 comments
I don't have Sam's new book yet, but he is always thoughtful and interesting when he writes, and I suspect there will be a number of people who will be better off having read his new book, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.To read a generous review of his book click here.

Michael Shermer: "The Fifth Horseman: The Insights of Victor Stenger"

0 comments
Here is Michael Shermer's excellent and fitting tribute to the late Victor Stenger, LINK. Don't miss reading Stenger's latest book, God and the Multiverse: Humanity's Expanding View of the Cosmos, which is now out.Stenger also wrote a chapter for Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails,which should be out in one month!


The Outsiders Test of Faith in Less Than Five Minutes: Enjoy!

0 comments



For those of us who have bought and read John's excellent text, then you need no introduction.  For those who haven't, this short video is for you!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Speech at Yale: "The Clash of Civilizations: Islam and the West."

0 comments
Her speech begins at about 10:30:

Richard Dawkins: "We Are Going to Die"

0 comments


Text is below:

“Symphony of Lies”: the Hilarious Left-Right Alliance to Defend Religion

0 comments
"Breivik in Not a Christian. That's Impossible."
If there is one thing that unites both ends of the American political spectrum today, it is their capacity for hypocrisy and deceit, including self-delusions. Their tendency to defend religious faith is a close second-even though we may be talking about different faiths, depending on which end of the spectrum we are talking.
And recent events have raised this "division in oneness" to comical levels.
I recently wrote about the wrong headed left wing pundits and journalists, the allies of Islamic organizations in echoing the latter's mendacious and presumptuous claim that Islam should not be blamed for atrocities committed by ISIS. As it happens, even I had underestimated the size of these leftists' egos, and the reinforcement power of their echo chamber.

Tim Minchin Brilliantly and Accurately Expresses My Thoughts! Listen Up Young Whippersnappers!

0 comments


I'll Be Teaching an Online Class Based On My Book "The Outsider Test for Faith" in October

0 comments
I'll be teaching an online class based on my book "The Outsider Test for Faith" in October at secularactivism.org. Of it Dr. James Lindsay says:
The Outsider Test for Faithis a silver bullet argument for understanding how to grapple with the religious diversity of our world and how to answer the central question raised by it: How can we know which religion, if any, is true?”
Dr. Richard Carrier says of it:
Though this idea has been voiced before, Loftus is the first to name it, rigorize it, and give it an extensive philosophical defense…The end result is one of the most effective and powerful arguments for atheism there is. It is, in effect, a covering argument that subsumes all other arguments for atheism into a common framework
Sign up today!

John Shertzer Hittell On Miracles, From "The Evidences Against Christianity"

0 comments
God may have done a plethora of miracles in the ancient past and may do so again in the future, but as Hittell argued in 1857, following David Hume, there isn't any reason for us to accept these miracle claims unless miracles are taking place today. This is the only reasonable conclusion. People who believe anyway are not being reasonable. To the question of whether miracles happen today, which ones are convincing to outsiders? Which ones have solid objective evidence for them? Which ones are not performed by tricksters and/or magicians? Which ones can be understood as self-healing via the placebo of faith? Where has an amputee's leg ever been made to grow back? Which ones are merely the result of chance? Required reading on the chance factor is David J. Hand's book, The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day.As yet, not one religious apologist worthy the name has dealt with Hand's book. They would prefer building intellectual deductive castles in the sky unrelated to the actual statistical analysis of rare events, which happen every single day.



LINK.

Does the Qur'an Promote Violence?

0 comments
Summary Answer:

The Qur'an contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Qur'an are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Qur'an.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Qur'an have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history. LINK.
For a list of the top ten hateful verses in the Qur'an see here.

Nathan Phelps "I'm Not My Father's Son"

0 comments

Can you imagine saying you are not your father's son? Nathan Phelps does. His father was founding pastor of the Westboro Baptist--"God Hates Fags--Church, who died not long ago after being excommunicated.


Would you want to know the story of how Nate (pictured on the right) and his brother escaped Westboro Baptist Church? Watch this documentary trailer, make a donation, and help them complete "Not My Father's Son." Donate if you will for a good story and cause. I did. Nate also contributed a chapter for Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails, titled "Abusive Pastors and Churches."When writing on this subject he knows what he's talking about from personal experience.

The Importance of a Secular Democracy for All

0 comments

Terrorism And "Moderate" Islam's Culture Of Irresponsibility

0 comments
On the thirteenth anniversary of the attacks of September the 11th, sadly, there is no shortage of Islam-related news: whether it is Nigeria or Iraq, Syria or Pakistan, Islamic Jihadism continues to claim victims in the thousands (mostly Muslims, as it happens). But the "moderate" Muslims, whom we are told nonstop we should court because they are our allies in fighting terrorism, are turning out to be more and more part of the problem every day. Because for any change in the situation, recognition of the problem would have to be the first step; and yet Muslims who are not involved in violence, rather than ever admitting that Islam has anything to do with the motivation of the Jihadis, continue to come up with every conceivable excuse to disassociate the two, hence delaying the reforms that their faith needs to move on past being recognized as the religion most often synonymous with violence. (Which is precisely what Christianity went through in the 17th and 18th centuries.)
Among the most popular fallacies among such people: making the claim that the Jihadis are "unislamic". In effect what they do is "excommunicate" the Jihadis. (No word on how they got the authority to excommunicate anyone.)

Welcome to the Blog "Debunking Abrahamic Religions"

0 comments
At the suggestion of team member Harry McCall I've changed the name of this blog from Debunking Christianity to the one you now see. After all, many of the arguments we make equally apply to all three of the major monotheistic faiths. Why focus on just one of them when they all come from the same cognitive bias of faith? The blog name might not stay that way, but for now I like it.

Jerry Coyne On ISIS Apologists: "What Is 'True' Religion?"

0 comments
As ISIS slaughters its way though Syria and Iraq, it became inevitable that we’d hear from the apologists who claim that ISIS is not in fact “true Islam,” and that its depredations are due to something other than religious motivation. Those motivations, say the apologists, are political (usually Western colonialism that engendered resentment), cultural (societal tradition), or anything other than religion.

The apologists have yet another form of denial. Yes, they say, jihadis may be motivated by Islam, but it’s not “true” Islam. True Islam is peaceful, and its adherents would never slaughter apostates, behead journalists, or forcibly convert non-Muslims. Their religion is simply a perversion of “true’ religion.

Well, if ISIS is not Islamic, then the Inquisition was not Catholic. The fact is that there are no defensible criteria for whether a faith is “true,” since all faiths are man-made and accrete doctrine-—said to come from God, but itself man-made—-that becomes integral to those faiths. Whatever “true faith” means, it doesn’t mean “the right religion: the one whose God exists and whose doctrines are correct.” If that were so, we wouldn’t see Westerners trying to tell us what “true Islam” is....Everyone who is religious picks and chooses their morals from scripture. And so, too, do religious apologists pick and choose the “true” religions using identical criteria: what appeals to them as “good” ways to behave. The Qur’an, like the Bible, is full of vile moral statements supposedly emanating from God. We cherry-pick them depending on our disposition, our politics, and our upbringing....By all means let us say that ISIS is a strain of Islam that is barbaric and dysfunctional, but let us not hear any nonsense that it’s a “false religion”. ISIS, like all religions, is based on faith; and faith, which is belief in the absence of convincing evidence, isn’t true or false, but simply irrational....In the end, there is no “true” religion in the factual sense, for there is no good evidence supporting their truth claims. LINK.

Samson: Bible Hero or Terrorist

0 comments
Since leaving Christianity, I have become acutely aware of the strange disconnect that believers have with the violent acts of the Bible.  It seems that no matter how horrid the atrocity, once sugar-coated with divine approval, Christians swallow it quite easily.  Another factor in Christians’ blithe acceptance of violence is that the blood-soaked events in the Bible have been depersonalized and spiritualized; reduced to mere props in service of religious lessons.  Empathy for the suffering in stories such as the worldwide destruction of living creatures in the flood story, the killing of the Egyptian firstborn, and the genocidal stories of Canaanite conquest is pretty much absent from the thinking of the average Christian.

Interesting and Provocative Books on Islam

0 comments

Sleepwalking Toward Armageddon, by Sam Harris

0 comments
In a new post Sam Harris argues against what President Obama said in his recent speech. Here's a few money quotes:
A belief in martyrdom, a hatred of infidels, and a commitment to violent jihad are not fringe phenomena in the Muslim world. These preoccupations are supported by the Koran and numerous hadith. That is why the popular Saudi cleric Mohammad Al-Areefi sounds like the ISIS army chaplain. The man has 9.5 million followers on Twitter (twice as many as Pope Francis has). If you can find an important distinction between the faith he preaches and that which motivates the savagery of ISIS, you should probably consult a neurologist.

Understanding and criticizing the doctrine of Islam—and finding some way to inspire Muslims to reform it—is one of the most important challenges the civilized world now faces. But the task isn’t as simple as discrediting the false doctrines of Muslim “extremists,” because most of their views are not false by the light of scripture. A hatred of infidels is arguably the central message of the Koran. The reality of martyrdom and the sanctity of armed jihad are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity.
------------
The idea that any book was inspired by the creator of the universe is poison—intellectually, ethically, and politically. And nowhere is this poison currently doing more harm than in Muslim communities, East and West.
------------
Religion produces a perverse solidarity that we must find some way to undercut. It causes in-group loyalty and out-group hostility, even when members of one’s own group are behaving like psychopaths.
Bravo Sam!

Sam Harris On 9-11 and Faith

0 comments

Let Ayaan Hirsi Ali Speak!

0 comments
Hemant Mehta reports:
Hirsi Ali, in her bestselling books Infideland Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations,made no secret of the fact that Islam, as interpreted by militants, extremists, and even (in some cases) casual believers, was not only untrue but harmful to the world. Between female genital mutilation, honor killings, the idea of martyrdom, and the murder of her friend Theo van Gogh, you could understand why she would courageously put her own life on the line to speak out against the horrors of the faith. In her mind, the problem wasn’t radical Islam. It was Islam, period. That’s why she was very blunt in a 2007 interview about her goal of trying to defeat Islam because she didn’t believe the “religion of peace” was capable of being saved in its current form.

Almost immediately after the announcement of her honorary degree, Muslim groups began to protest her selection. LINK
Enough with the liberal mindset that a religion, any religion, should not be criticized, enough!
Let Hirsi Ali speak, and students are welcome to respond and challenge her views. This notion that she’s unfairly critical of Islam is one that anyone is welcome to refute. She’s hardly someone who’s critical just for the sake of getting a rise out of people — she has plenty of reason to find fault with the faith.

I hope that these students who would rather she not be invited at all actually attend Monday night’s event. Don’t just protest outside and leave. Listen to her story and respond if necessary. That people are so sensitive to criticisms of Islam is reason alone for why her invitation is a welcome one.

Quote of the Day, By Loftus

0 comments
Believers have denied the evidence for so long they're projecting when claiming scientists would do the same if they found contrary evidence.

Is Radical Islam More Dangerous Than Radical Christianity?

16 comments
[Re-dated and renamed post from 3/27/08] I debunk Christianity, Evangelical or Fundamental Christianity, because I know the most about it. That being said, I think radical Islam is much more dangerous to civilization than perhaps any other religion, especially more dangerous than Christianity. There are four things that make Christianity less dangerous than Islam in my opinion.

One) Christianity has a Virgin Mary who helped bring in the redeeming Messiah. The Catholics have even made Mary a co-redeemer. This feminine Biblical example exalts women to some degree. Women aren’t entirely worthless chattel. Islam only has an Eve, who is known for being a temptress to Adam. She is weak, needing to be ruled over, who can be blamed for bringing upon the earth such misery.

Two) Christianity has its Jesus, who is basically seen as non-violent and who laid down his life for humankind. Islam has no corresponding figure. Mohammed was a political ruler, whereas Jesus had no earthly political power. So the Koran reflects the political goals of religion, whereas in Christianity it’s merely implicit.

Three) Christianity has gone through an Enlightenment beginning in the 16th century with the rise of science and modern philosophy. The only version of Christianity we see in today’s world is one reflecting various degrees of this enlightenment. As a result the only Christians we see are “cherry-picking” from the Bible based upon their modern experiences and understandings. They do not take the Bible literally. They do not think it honors God to stone adulterers, kill witches, or keep women in submissive silence at home. By contrast, Islam has had no Enlightenment. Muslims still take the Koran at face value, and there are some pretty hateful things said in it about infidels, Jews, and women, along with some barbaric ways to punish criminals.

Four) Christianity does not have the same political power that Islam has within any country in the world today. There are whole countries ruled by Islamic law. There are no countries ruled by Christian law, although there is a heavy influence of Christianity in America, the most powerful nation in the world. Even many Christians think it’s best to have the separation of church and state. But in this nuclear age with WWD's, all it would take to destroy millions of lives is a rogue Muslim state or a small group of militant Muslims who gained access to them.

What do you think?

Jerry Coyne: "We can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty."

0 comments
He writes:
[T]here’s one bedrock of Abrahamic faith that is eminently testable by science: the claim that all humans descend from a single created pair—Adam and Eve—and that these individuals were not australopithecines or apelike ancestors, but humans in the modern sense. Absent their existence, the whole story of human sin and redemption falls to pieces.

Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.

Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.

These are the scientific facts. And, unlike the case of Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty. LINK.
In another place he adds:

Does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Disprove Evolution?

0 comments
Hell no!

The Atheophobic, Islamophobophobic Left Rears Its Ugly Head Again

0 comments
This is a guest post by the author of "No Cross No Crescent" who writes for Skeptic Ink Network:
I have already written about my amazement at the frequent flirtations between Islam and the western political left, which, ideologically one would think, should be each others' worst nemesis. But this is not the kind of cognitive dissonance that is going to go away any time soon; every once in a while, we get reminded that tearing atheism apart is perfectly politically correct, while the same is not true for Islam. (No one, perhaps, exemplifies this dichotomy in the political left more blatantly than the revolting Noam Chomsky.) And on cue, they have delivered again.

Steve Novella on consciousness: dualism is the new evolution for theists (Part 1)

0 comments
.
I was listening to a Reasonable Doubts podcast from a few years ago, and it was, as ever, cracking. This one was about consciousness, its hard problem, dualism, and how it, and neuroscience, are being co-opted as a philosophical area to argue for the "God of the Gaps" style argument in the same vein as evolution in the creationist and intelligent design movements

Sept. 4, 2014: UK: Woman beheaded in broad daylight by machete-wielding Muslim, police rule out terrorism

0 comments
This too is the kind of political correctness that makes me nauseous. LINK.

You Think ISIS is the Exception When it Comes to Barbaric Acts? Not So!

0 comments
How can people continue to say Islam is a religion of peace? It defies the facts when so many Muslims act in barbaric ways and justify these acts from the Koran! This makes me nauseous! LINK

Quote of the Day, By Ed Brayton

0 comments
As I’ve said many times, we need to stop thinking that there is such a thing as Christianity or Islam. There are multiple versions of each that differ from each other in hugely significant ways. Decent, compassionate people find all the support they need in those holy books to justify being decent and compassionate. Violent, hateful people find all the support they need in those books to justify being violent and hateful. They all pick and choose the parts of their religion that they like and find ways to explain away or ignore the rest. It’s also not reasonable to claim that one or the other of these versions is the One True Religion. LINK.