John W. Loftus recently edited a book called The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails (Prometheus Books, 2011). It includes a number of essays, written by scholars, all debunking Christianity as we know it.

Loftus has offered to give away a copy of the book to one lucky reader. Details on that below. First, a couple excerpts from the book:

There are many religions in the world we don’t take seriously enough to pay attention to them. There are many dead religions of the past that we ignore in today’s world, including several dead Christianities. They do not merit our thought or discussion. They are dead. They have no relevance for our lives. Unless we’re interested in the history of these religions we simply ignore them. We ignore their scriptures, their prophets, their religious duties, their rituals, and their threats of punishment in the afterlife. They no longer matter to us.

When it comes to Christianity two thousand years is enough. It’s time this ancient myth was put to rest. This present book calls for the same end of Christianity as the other religions we reject that are dead to us. Just as we ignore other faiths our hope is that someday we can ignore the Christian faith, because the future adherents will live in the cultural backwaters like the Amish people who pose no threat to the peace of the world.

…

In fact, as far as I’m concerned Christian theism has no more credibility than Scientology, Mormonism, Haitian Voodoo, or the southwest Pacific Ocean cargo cults… And it has no more credibility than the many different dead ancient religions of the past, including the faith of ancient Israel, several other early Christianities, or the many other resurrected savior cults (such as the cults of Zalmoxis, Romulus, and Osiris).

Skeptics reject all of these religious faiths because none of them offers satisfactory answers to basic questions nor do they present sufficient evidence to believe. So it is not the case that we single Christianity out for rejection, and therefore it’s not the case we do so because we have hardened, sinful, selfish, prideful, rebellious hearts, or that we had poor father figures, or any such nonsense. All such attempts to dismiss our rejection of Christianity tacitly admit that the Christian faith does not offer good reasons to believe based on sufficient evidence. For you would never see a serious scientist dismissing another scientist in the same manner by saying: “That guy had a poor father figure so that’s why he rejects my new theory!”

Since I’m a thinking person I cannot accept just any claim at all. Given the number of false beliefs that have been propagated down through history and in today’s world, I am right to require reasonable answers to basic questions, and I am right to require sufficient evidence commensurate with the claims being made before I will accept them. I can see no reasonable objection to this requirement at all. Even if there is a god he supposedly created me this way as a thinking person. So the existence of a god changes nothing, for it would be duplicitous and counter-productive of a deity to create me as a thinking person and not also provide me with the answers and the evidence that a thinking person needs to accept the Christian claims. There are Christians who object that we should not trust our intellect. But it seems utterly contradictory for them to appeal to our intelligence when arguing for why we cannot trust our intelligence. There are Christians who object that our thinking about such matters is unreliably clouded because our minds are fallen. But that means thinking people are hopelessly condemned because they don’t know any other way to search for the truth but by using their minds. There are Christians who object that it doesn’t matter if thinking people can’t understand the truth because all of us deserve to be condemned for the sin of our first human parents in a Garden of Eden anyway. But isn’t it obvious that only if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions can such a test be considered a fair one rather than a sham? Yet if some of us would not have sinned in the Garden of Eden then there are people who are being punished for something they never would’ve done in the first place.

There are Christians who object that we are in a cosmic war where thinking people are just unfortunately being deceived by Satan. But since humans are no match for Satan’s supposed intellect and power then God is to be blamed for allowing Satan’s continued existence or by not successfully helping us know the truth. It just seems unreasonable for God to demand that deceived people should ask for his help when they don’t even know they are deceived enough to ask for his help in the first place.

Loftus spends a lot of time in the book arguing for an “Outsider’s test of faith.” In a nutshell, it asks the question: Whatever reasons you have to dismiss other faiths, can I use it to dismiss yours?

If you’d like a chance to win a copy of the book, just leave in the comments an example of an argument Christians use to dismiss other religions that we can throw right back at them. (e.g. “The stories in your holy book never really happened!”) You must leave the word “Anthology” after your comment if you’d like to be considered for the prize.

I’ll pick a random winner next week and contact that person directly!

By the way, until July 27^th, the publishers are offering the Kindle version of the book for only $2.99. After that, the price goes back to normal.

We know all too well how children have been sexually abused in the Catholic Church and how kids have been killed (or nearly killed) because their Christian Science parents refused to take them to a doctor.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how children have been harmed by their religious families and communities.

Janet Heimlich, a former freelance reporter for National Public Radio, has documented this awful epidemic in her new book Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment.

It’s one freaky book, covering topics like physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and even circumcisions. (You can read Valerie Tarico‘s interview with the author here.)

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins talks about how indoctrinating children with a faith and labeling them with a religion before they’re old enough to even understand it (“a Catholic child”) should be considered “mental child abuse.” That’s arguable — I was raised in a religious faith and I don’t think my parents “abused” me in any sort of way. But Heimlich covers the spectrum of how religion can really hurt children and her examples are ones theists would have a hard time arguing against.

Two exclusive excerpts are below (reprinted by permission of Prometheus Books), as are instructions for how to enter to win a free copy of the book.

RELIGIOUS CHILD MALTREATMENT

A subset of this larger phenomenon, religious child maltreatment is child abuse or neglect that is largely caused by religious beliefs held or propagated by perpetrators or a surrounding community. Religious child maltreatment manifests itself in many ways, including

• justifying abusive physical punishment with religious texts or doctrine;
• having children engage in dangerous religious rituals;
• taking advantage of religious authority to abuse children and procure their silence;
• failing to provide children needed medical care due to a belief in divine intervention;
• terrifying children with religious concepts, such as an angry and punitive god, eternal damnation, or possession by the devil or by demons;
• making children feel guilty and shameful by telling them they are sinful;
• neglecting children’s safety by allowing them to spend time with religious authorities without scrutinizing the authorities’ backgrounds;
• inculcating children with religious ideas;
• and failing to acknowledge or report child abuse or neglect to protect the image of a religion or a religious group.

Religious child maltreatment happens for a host of reasons, some of which mirror general child maltreatment. For example, perpetrators may be responding to a desire to dominate and overpower victims. Mental illness can also be a factor. However, this book focuses on cases involving adults who are convinced that their acts are righteous expressions of piety.

Phil Quinn gets across this point in Spare the Rod: “Too many parents are willing to do just about anything to their children if they believe… that it is God’s will… They most often appeal to a higher principle, such as religious duty or love of their child… My adoptive parents told me hundreds of times, during the endless beatings, that they loved me. If that was their way to love, they very nearly loved me to death!”

…

FIRST STEPS

Can religion be bad for kids? The answer to this question is a resounding yes. So where do we start to try to do something about it? The first step is to acknowledge the fact that religious child maltreatment exists and to learn how to recognize it. Of course, getting even that far means coming to grips with the fact that religion can be a force for both good and bad.

This duality was made especially clear to me after interviewing two women, my friend Mary Ann and Cheryl, the woman who was molested by her minister as a teenager. Like Mary Ann, Cheryl told me that she, too, cries when she hears religious hymns. However, her emotions come from a very different place. Whereas Mary Ann’s reaction is one of overwhelming joy, Cheryl’s tears are of sadness and loss.

Presbyterian minister Keith Wright explains this dichotomy well in Religious Abuse: A Pastor Explores the Many Ways Religion Can Hurt as Well as Heal:

We need to give up the idea that religion is perfect — that the church of which we are a part is perfect or infallible. Religion, like our parents, has the capacity to bless us and to wound us and it inevitably does both at different times… Only when we are aware of the capacity of religion to abuse can we guard against that abuse and take steps to curb it where it exists.

As I made clear in the introduction, this book is not a diatribe against all religion. It does not intend to praise one faith over another or to talk anyone into abandoning his or her beliefs. In the words of British actor and writer Stephen Fry, “It would be impertinent and wrong of me to express any antagonism towards any individual who wishes to find salvation in whatever form they wish to express it.” Americans have the right to practice the religion of their choice, and parents should be allowed to teach their children whatever faith gives their own lives meaning. Many children are raised in loving homes by responsible religious parents, and children certainly suffer abuse and neglect in nonreligious homes and communities.

But there are times when the teaching and practice of religion crosses a line that should not be crossed — a line that the United States Supreme Court drew back in 1944. In Prince v. Massachusetts, the Court states, “The right to practice religion freely does not include the liberty to expose the community or child… to ill health or death.”

With a renewed, realistic, and balanced understanding of faith’s capabilities, we can begin a discussion on how to raise children in a safe and healthy religious environment. Recognizing the connection between faith and child abuse and neglect is the first step to reducing the impact of religious child maltreatment and ensuring that a religious upbringing is a positive experience for all children.

Those excerpts are from Chapter 1. The entire 23-chapter book goes into much more depth.

I think there’s a general consensus among atheists that religion is harmful, period. So instead, I’m asking for your stories.

Was religion a bad thing for you growing up? If you feel comfortable sharing, how?

Or maybe, like me, it wasn’t such a horrible thing. It was just something you grew out of later in life. Was that the case for you?

If you’d like a chance to win a copy of the book, you must live in the U.S. and you must leave the words “Ken Ham” at the end of your comment. If you don’t wish to answer the questions but still want to win the book, that’s fine, too. Just say the magic words. If you’re the winner, I’ll email you next week.

Bart Centre is the man getting all sorts of press — again — for his Eternal Earth-Bound Pets service, where (for a fee) he promises to take care of your pets after the Rapture. Brilliant.

His latest book (under the alias “Dromedary Hump”) is called The Atheist Camel Rants Again!

Bart’s giving away a free copy of his book, but first, here’s an excerpt from a chapter entitled “The Holy Foreskin Obsession”:

It seems that Jesus’ foreskin holds a revered place in Christian lore. Who’d have guessed that a religion whose followers are so… uh… “flaccid” when it comes to their icon’s Judaic roots and practices would have such a fixation? But for over fourteen hundred years there has been a rather unhealthy affinity for Jesus’ penis tip. Call it “holy penis envy.”

On January first each year, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox Catholics observe the holiday called “Circumcision of Christ.” This holy day marks Jesus’ submission to Judaic law and tradition. In accordance with Jewish law, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. The Catholic Church decided back in 1969 to quit observing the fourteen-century-old holy day of the “Feast of Circumcision” (appetizing), and instead decided to rename it “Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God” day. Small wonder, given the former feast’s implied menu.

If that weren’t bizarre enough, there have been at least twelve official and unofficial Jesus foreskin relics revered and passed along among churches, popes, and devout nobles throughout Europe from the ninth through the sixteenth century. These were the Holy Prepuces. They kept them in special jeweled boxes, “whipping them out” only for very special occasions and celebrations… each church and owner attesting that only their prepuce was the one true foreskin of their Lord and Savior. Think I’m making this up? Here’s a “tip” for you: Google “Holy Prepuce.”

In fact, medieval paintings depicting the circumcision of Jesus were a hot commodity in the good old days.

Well, things got so out of hand, what with all of this unseemly Jesus penis talk, that in 1900 the Catholic Church threatened excommunication for any “putz” daring to write or talk about Jesus’ holy member. The penalty became “stiffer” in 1954, when violation of the rule earned the highest level of excommunication, which included being shunned.

Unfortunately, during the Reformation and French Revolution, almost all of these penis pieces were destroyed or lost. Only one remained into the twentieth century, The Holy Prepuce of Calcata, which was “exposed,” put on display, and taken for a walk through the streets of that Italian city annually as recently as 1983. The yearly practice would probably still be going on today had they not been “shafted” by some thief who stole it, jeweled box and all. What a “dick”!

So, why this Christian “hard-on” for Jesus’ foreskin? Hey, who knows what makes Christian cultists tick. Headhunters have their shrunken heads, voodoo practitioners have their dried bats and such, and Christians favor their man-god’s manhood. I guess one could say all other religions’ relics just don’t “measure up.”

As a non-believer, I tried to equate this to some peculiar secular practice. But I never heard of anyone claiming to own Woody Allen’s, Sigmund Freud’s, or Isaac Asimov’s excess penis part. For some reason, freethinkers just aren’t “hung” up on the attraction. Maybe it’s because we aren’t “schmucks.”

I think all I need to do to get a conversation started here is say the word “Circumcision.” (Discuss!)

If you live in the U.S. and want a chance to win a signed copy of Bart’s book, just leave a comment in this thread and put the word “pumpkin” at the end of it! I’ll email you next week if you’re the winner.

Hank Fox is an atheist from upstate New York and he’s just put out a book of his thoughts regarding religion called Red Neck, Blue Collar, Atheist: Simple Thoughts About Reason, Gods and Faith.

This book is far more emotional than the other atheist books you may have read — it focuses on the transformation that takes place when you become an atheist (and leading up to it), instead of all the reasons why someone should become an atheist.

A couple excerpts from the book are below (I really like the second one):

From the Foreword

Getting religion out of my head was a beautiful, intense emancipation. The sheer awesome clarity that came to me after that, the peace that descended on me, is not something I could easily describe.

It wasn’t the peace of supposedly knowing some holy book was the ultimate answer, if I only gave up enough of my questioning mind to accept every word of it.

It wasn’t the elusive peace of believing I’d done every ritual and abasement correctly, that I had scraped and bowed and sacrificed enough that some god would mercifully refrain from killing my loved ones and might even let me into eternal paradise.

It was the peace of understanding that, while there might be quite a lot of the world unknown to me, there was nothing purposely concealed. There was nothing “man was not meant to know.” The whole of the universe was this honest, trick-free place that I myself could come to understand, with the only limits being my limits — of intelligence or energy — and not those imposed by the hallucinatory scribblings of Bronze Age shepherds.

I discovered that there were no all-wise holy men who talked to powerful but secretive gods in ways that were denied to me. There was no magic ritual I needed to perform each day in order to avoid burning in fire.

There was no mystical superbeing looking down in prissy, embarrassed fury every time I got an erection. No mean-spirited creator of the universe taking down my name in purse-lipped concentration each time I wanted to crack open a science book. No small-minded, vengeful holy telepath glaring into my mind and angrily noting my every traitorous, blasphemous, independent thought.

There was no threat built into the universe, no lightning-wreathed fist waiting to smash me for making the slightest misstep.

From Ch. 19: The Doorway to Freedom

I distinctly remember being disturbed, at the age of 7 or so and beginning to be an avid reader, when I came across the words “fiction” and “non-fiction.”

There was this made-up thing and then there was this real thing, but the made-up thing had its own name, whereas the real thing had to borrow the fake thing’s name and tweak it a bit in order to allow people to talk about it.

The real thing — which was everything, every subject, the power of all the knowledge in the whole world — was named only as a negative of this comparatively tiny category of entertaining-but-fake stuff that was just made up in somebody’s head.

Fiction. NON-fiction.

It just didn’t seem right.

I feel the same way about the words “atheist” and “atheism.” It’s as if the believers — theists — are the only ones deserving of formal recognition, and the rest of us are mere also-rans.

Hank’s offered to give away a copy of the book to one of you!

All you have to do is tell us how you felt the moment you became an atheist… in five words or fewer.

Be enlightening. Be entertaining. Be honest.

I’ll contact a random winner next week. You must be in the U.S. and you must put the word “silver” at the end of your comment if you want to be considered for a prize.