Category: atheism

The Atheists and the Thought that Ends All Thought

In a recent post, I talked about Richard Dawkins’ discussion in his Delusion about why children gravitate towards fantasy and myth, etc, and alluded to GK Chesterton’s arguments about the ‘thought that ends all thought.’  This sentiment emerges in Chesterton’s book Orthodoxy in a chapter appropriately called The Suicide of Thought.  The previous post was […]

Share

Apologetics Academy of Atheists, Seekers, and Christians (Fall Session with Habermas)

The ministry hosting this website (sntjohnny.com) also puts on an online apologetics academy.  The fall session is coming up.  Dr. Gary Habermas will be guest lecturing on the historical Jesus and the evidence for the Resurrection.  It is possible to attend these lectures without being enrolled in the academy.  Those enrolled in the academy, regardless […]

Share

Richard Dawkins: Give me the Child and I’ll Give you the Man

Posted to The ChristianPost.com Religious leaders are well aware of the vulnerability of the child brain, and the importance of getting the indoctrination in early.  The Jesuit boast, ‘Give me the child for his first seven years, and I’ll give you the man,’ is no less accurate (or sinister) for being hackneyed. The above quote […]

Share

A Defense of Antony Flew’s “There is a God” from his Own Letters

A Defense of the Integrity of Antony Flew’s “There is a God” From His Own Letters

On Kindle | On the Nook

Several years ago, word came out that Antony Flew had rejected his atheism. What he accepted was in doubt and in dispute. In a conversation with Dr. Gary Habermas, I was informed that Flew was very disappointed with the introduction to “God and Philosophy” which was to have addressed his views. Concerned that Flew might die before he had a chance to set the record straight, I asked for and received Flew’s mailing address. I contacted him, urging him to settle things. To my surprise, he replied…

Share

Infatuation with the ‘New’: A Defense of the Old

‘New’ arguments would actually serve to put into doubt humanity’s epistemological foundations. Better- it isn’t a question of ‘new’ evidences or ‘new’ arguments, but a new perspective on what weight we give old evidences and arguments. I think that is a mark of sanity and maturity; I for one would view any ‘new evidence’ or ‘original argument’ or ‘innovative idea’ with great suspicion, especially if it implies we were all off our rockers before it was offered.

Share

The New Argument of the New Atheists

I don’t hate atheists.  I don’t like arguing for the sake of arguing and don’t have a ‘thing’ about winning a debate.  I discourse with atheists because I love them, and because I believe that I am right in my belief that God is going to call this world to account and if we do […]

Share

Christianity and Libertarians, the Republic, and the Consent of the Governed

This is why I led off with the John Adams quote. ‘Moral and religious people’ will continue to be ‘moral and religious’ whatever freedoms or restrictions are placed on them by the government. I might say: “Libertarianism was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the [government] of any other.” There are any number of forms of government that can work with a ‘moral and religious people.’ For an amoral or immoral or anti-moral or non-religious or anti-religious people, no kind of government is going to work for the long haul.

Share

Time to crack down on the Christian Fundamentalists!

Given how bad, bad, bad, Christians are, we’ll see calls that its time to crack down on Christian fundamentalists. The best part: they are unlikely to put up a fight.

Share

On the muzzling of climate change skeptics and your gullibility

The media knows that they have a significant role in shaping public opinion. They know that if they don’t report the ‘minority’ position you, my dear reader, will likely never hear it. If you are lucky enough to ever hear it, they can count on you to dismiss it without further thought, “If it was a valid viewpoint it would be in the papers” “This flies in the face of the scientific consensus, you idiot! They said RIGHT ON THE BBC that this is the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!” or “Why would the governments of the world be pushing this way if it weren’t true?”

But this article allows one to pull back the curtain, just a shade, to see the truth. They are manipulating you. You are being manipulated. You are a regular reader of the news and keep abreast of current affairs by watching the nightly news. You think you are informed. You aren’t. You are a gullible dolt being led by the nose by the powers that be to believe just whatever it is they want you to believe right now. At least, that is what the media thinks, and this article implies. And why would they think that way if it weren’t true?

Share

Epistemological Confusion about revelation and Revelation

When a Christian apologist invokes ‘revelation’ it is often understood by atheists and skeptics to refer to the “writings of the flawed goat herders of a bygone era that have been shown by modern science to be outdated, outmoded, and absolutely in error.  Certainly not the stuff we can think of as ‘divine revelation.’”  This […]

Share

Arguing about the morality of a thing with an atheist is pointless

In my view, it is pointless to debate the morality of anything with an atheist until he is willing to admit that moral assessments imply the existence of the immaterial and transcendental realities that must exist if those assessments reflect anything more than one’s favorite flavor of ice cream.

Share

June 2012 Fundraising Campaign for ACM

I’m setting June as a month of fundraising efforts for ACM.   I hope that all my readers will take some time to head on over to the campaign letter and check out how they can get a free, signed copy of my new book, “For No Reason At All:  A Romance.”  Here’s the link to […]

Share

News Flash: Boys have Penises, Girls have Vaginas / Contra Feminism

That’s really what you have going on here… you know, the old “A rose by any other name is still a rose” thing… a boy is still a boy by any other name, and likewise a girl… but you have some people who think that by throwing off definitions you can obliterate, change, or deny the underlying reality. Are there sometimes when definitions can be unhelpful? Sure, I can buy that. But there are limits to that observation. This is secularism: taking an observation into account but jettisoning the limits or notion of limits.

Share

KFUO Radio Presentation Today on Topic of Hell

Will be on the radio tonight at 5:30 p.m. CST discussing the topic of ‘hell’ and how to discuss it with nonChristians, and even if it should be discussed at all. Listen online:   http://www.kfuoam.org/ Includes a shout out to my atheist friends who were disturbed by my short story, Richard Dawkins Goes to Heaven.

Share
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 14 15 Next