The Quadripartite Equine Riders, part 2 of 11

This is part two of an eleven part essay in which is a review of a conversation that took place between Prof. Richard Dawkins, Prof. Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Strident, Arrogant, Vitriolic, and or Shrill?
Part 3: Amazing Perplexity and Anonymous Confession of an Atheist Clergyman
Part 4: Tri-Theism? Nice Try
Part 5: Faith, Evidence and Doubting Thomas and It’s Absolutely Relative
Part 6: On Scientific Authoritarian Faith
Part 7: Cosmology and the Pathetic Bible
Part 8: On Cosmology, Theology and Eternal Regress
Part 9: Dennett the Mesmerist and Atheism is Humbler and Holier Than Thou
Part 10: The Universe is All About Me
Part 11: On Jihad and Abortion

Strident, Arrogant, Vitriolic, and or Shrill?
The discussion begins with Prof. Richard Dawkins asking, “One of the things we’ve all met is the accusation that we are strident, or aahm, arrogant, or, or vitriolic, or shrill, aah, what do we think about that.” The answers are basically that no matter how naughty or nice they are they simply cannot win because merely criticizing religion instantly labels them as strident, arrogant, vitriolic, or shrill. I personally believe in staying well away from these sorts of labels since they make it all too easy to fall into the logical fallacy of the ad hominem. I have no problem referring to, for instance, Prof. Richard Dawkins’ lazy scholarship since it seems very obvious to me that he is accepting vast amounts of research by others and merely repeating it uncritically (see my essay Planting God More Firmly on His Throne for some examples).

Sam Harris chimes in with one of his very common statements to the effect of, they are considered as such merely for breaking a taboo by criticizing religion. Of course, he is missing the point which is that whilst allegedly breaking the taboo by criticizing religion (which we apologists have been doing for millennia) they are, in fact, also strident, arrogant, vitriolic, or shrill. For example, Sam Harris could criticize religion without making statements such as, “‘If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.’”[1] Even Prof. Daniel Dennett gets into the act by peppering his book “Breaking the Spell” with virtual triple-dog-dares to the effect of, “I dare you to read this book and if you are reading my dare then I bet you won’t be able to finish reading this book.” How these are supposed to be a logical, philosophical or scientifically respectable statement is indiscernible. No, their critics are not verklempt due to shock at someone daring to question, or even besmirch, their fragile faith but because the Horsemen often come across as horse’s… well, you know the saying. Sadly, they are too easily dismissed as being too childish to be taken seriously. I say “sadly” because they aught to be taken seriously enough to have the arguments, which they hide like needles in hay stacks of childish rhetoric, dealt with. Many of us have done just that (I have written various responses to Sam Harris and Prof. Richard Dawkins and two to Prof. Daniel Dennett, here and here). Vox Day has carefully dissected many of the Horsemen’s claims that are premised upon statistics (The Irrational Atheist, freely downloadable). It is also interesting to note that four times criticisms of their works are referred to as “attacks.”

They are also surprised and disappointed that “our fellow secularists and our fellow atheists” are neither on their paint with a broom besmirching bandwagon but are often their staunchest critics. They appear to think that all secularists and atheists should convert to their particular, and peculiar, sect and become activists who join the fray by their prescribed rules of engagement.

[1] Jörg Blech, THE NEW ATHEISTS - Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists (October 26, 2006)
Continue reading The Quadripartite Equine Riders, part 2 of 11...

Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? - The Fleece

Part 1: The Apostle Thomas: Patron Saint of Scientists?
Part 2: Moses as Skeptical Scientist

To read/Or not to read

In Judges chapter 6 we encounter Gideon and his son Joash who lived during a period of Israelite history during which they were conquered by the Midianites and also accosted by the Amalekites “and the people of the East.”

In verse 14 God tells Gideon “you shall save Israel from the hand of the Midianites. Have I not sent you?”
What transpires next is interesting; Gideon asks for a sign that he is indeed being sent by God. He is not blindly acting but is seeking confirmation.

“So Gideon said to God, ‘If You will save Israel by my hand as You have said—look, I shall put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor; if there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that You will save Israel by my hand, as You have said.’ And it was so. When he rose early the next morning and squeezed the fleece together, he wrung the dew out of the fleece, a bowlful of water” (v. 36-38)

His experiment was set up to seek confirmation and he set the parameters: if dew only on the fleece but not on the ground. Moreover, he confirmed the results by ringing out the fleece.



Yet, he was not done. He set us another experiment

“Then Gideon said to God, ‘Do not be angry with me, but let me speak just once more: Let me test, I pray, just once more with the fleece; let it now be dry only on the fleece, but on all the ground let there be dew.’ And God did so that night. It was dry on the fleece only, but there was dew on all the ground” (v. 39-40).

Thus, Gideon set up two experiments which were to produce precisely opposite results. Having had each experiment succeed he was convinced. Keep our premise in mind; it is not what we think about whether this really happened but rather, how it is handled. It was handled skeptically and scientifically—this is the biblical pattern.

Continue reading Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? - The Fleece...

Dan Barker Intruded Upon the Solstice

I must admit that, as may appear obvious, find Dan Barker, of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, fascinating. Part of his allure is the fact that his self-appointed claim to fame, on infamy, is that he is an ex-preacher and yet he exhibits a stunning lack of knowledge of the Bible’s contents and I am not merely referring to theological minutia but to the most basic concepts.

To read/Or not to read

Another alluring aspect is his propensity to make very, very odd statements. I find that these either leave me flummoxed as they are so peppered with Barkerian-gnosis or they seem to provide a very, very troubling window into his mind’s inner workings.

Dan Barker spends time thinking about how to assert that rape is not absolutely immoral (see here).
He states the following about beautiful human babies in the womb, “…a fetus that’s the size of a thumb that has, what, what would you put it in a little locket and hang it around your neck?” (see here).
He stated the following regarding ethics, “Darwin has bequeathed what is good” (see here).

In any case, from the Barkerian-gnosis category comes the following statement, “people have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans.”[1]

Are Christians not humans or are Christians not trying to steal holidays from animals or…? ? ? ?



Well, I certainly support Dan Barker’s right to celebrate the solstice and am eagerly looking forward to seeing how he will do it.

Will, he simply give lip service to the solstice and use it as a lucrative way to both besmirch Christianity and file lawsuits that will provide him job security for the rest of the year?

Or will he go all out primal pagan and conduct human and or animal sacrifices on government property?



Will he be true to his new-atheist-neo-pagan roots or will he water down the solstice to the point that a pagan will be forced to place a poster next to his and state, “people have been celebrating the winter solstice long before the Barkerian version. We see Dan Barker as the intruder, trying to steal the solstice from all of us humans.”

In 1870 President Ulysses S. Grant declared Christmas as a federal holiday. How sad that the President of these United States of America, the Congress and the government at large did not know the Constitution as well as Dan Barker. Dan Barker claimed that nativity scenes at state capitols “insults” non-Christian. This sounds like a personal problem.
But what is his answer? It is to slap back with an insult of his own, an insult which no nativity sense ever dreamed. Taking time, energy, and money during a time of joy, family, friends and merry making to express his personal malice - how very sad.

[1] Jon Nicholas, Reverence And The Nativity Scene

Continue reading Dan Barker Intruded Upon the Solstice...

GUEST BLOGGER: The Neptune Delusion

Should Atheists Believe in Neptune?

Inaugurating Atheism is Dead’s guest blogger program is RD Miksa from the new and promising blog Miksa’s Musings.

Following is the guest essay:

To read/Or not to read

Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. As I stood in the shower, this one word kept repeating itself in my mind, for I was thinking most intensely about the constant demand made by atheists to be provided some form of empirical evidence for God’s existence. And then, quite suddenly, the most peculiar question intruded upon my “deep” reflections: should atheists believe in Neptune? Although the shower’s running water may have you thinking that I am referring to the Roman god of the sea—and perhaps that was indeed the catalyst that made me think of Neptune in the first place—this is not the case, for I am speaking of Neptune in terms of the eighth, and furthest, planet in our solar system.

Now, I am also being a little disingenuous with my question, because I am not actually asking if atheists should believe in Neptune, but rather, should blind atheists believe in Neptune? Let me explain. As previously mentioned, when debating the existence of God many atheists continuously demand that theists provide them with some empirical evidence for their belief. Just show me a little empirical evidence, they say; just give me some objective sensory experience and I will believe in a God, they add. In these cases, therefore, it is the sensory evidence that atheists find lacking for God’s existence and it is this demand which is directly related to the question at hand. Should a blind atheist, demanding the same sort of empirical evidence as is so often asked for in the case of God, believe that the planet Neptune exists? The blind atheist will certainly never touch, hear, smell or taste Neptune and, being blind, this empirically minded atheist will obviously never see it either. So, with the blind atheist making a defiant stand against the Neptune delusion—at least until some hard empirical evidence is presented to him—how would a seeing atheist convince the blind atheist of Neptune’s existence?

Would the seeing atheist explain that various scientists have made calculations and predictions to show that Neptune exists—as they did when Neptune was first discovered in 1846 by mathematical prediction rather than direct observation? The blind atheist would simply reply that this is an appeal to authority for which no direct empirical evidence exists. Would the seeing atheist argue that millions of people believe in Neptune and have seen it? The blind atheist would simply retort that these are subjective experiences and are therefore invalid until hard empirical evidence is personally received. Would the seeing atheist simply state that if the blind atheist could see, then he would see that Neptune exists and could believe? Obviously, the blind atheist, seeking hard sensory evidence, would simply scoff at the blatant use of “if” and “could” and “would” and “believe”. In fact, should a blind, empirically-minded atheist even believe in the existence of the moon, the sun or any of the other planets?
Invoking Occam’s Razor, the blind atheist could state that, since he has seen no hard empirical evidence for these heavenly bodies, there is no need to unnecessarily complicate matters; the earth is a self-contained unit and it is all that is needed, required and is the only thing that empirically exists. The heat that the blind atheist feels on his face, which other people claim comes from the “sun”, could easily be postulated by the blind atheist to come from some earthly heat source rather than some floating sky-ball heat-lamp. And here we are only speaking of the sun, let alone such things as other galaxies! “Other galaxies”, the blind atheist would gasp, “what are you, supremely delusional!” Nor would he be off the mark for claiming this; indeed, there would be absolutely no need for the blind atheist to complicate his existence by adding invisible and non-empirically verifiable heavenly bodies that are as likely to him as fairies, unicorns or a flying-spaghetti monster.

To make matters even more bizarre, if the empirically minded seeing atheist has never seen Neptune through a telescope, why should he believe in its existence? At best, should the atheist not remain agnostic about the Neptune delusion until he does empirically verify its existence? At the same time, such an evidence based atheist should also remain agnostic about many other things until he personally experiences them with his own senses. Such events as the earth revolving around the sun should be an agnostic belief until the empirical atheist flies out into space and personally sees it happening—especially since common sensory and empirical experience from earth makes it seem that the sun actually revolves around the earth. Or, to give a specific example relating to Neptune, this time as a sea god, an atheist in a land-locked country should be wholly agnostic on the existence of seas and oceans until he gets some personal empirical evidence concerning them. But if he never does get said evidence, then he should never believe, regardless of how many people bring him cups of salted water from the so-called “sea”. Thus, there must be a vast number of commonly accepted scientific discoveries and occurrences that the evidence demanding, empirically minded atheist must honestly remain agnostic about because he has never personally verified them through empirical means.

With all this in mind, we can finalize by asking all atheists two major questions. First, should a blind atheist, asking for the same type of empirical evidence as is demanded for God’s existence, believe in the existence of the planet Neptune or any other “heavenly” bodies? And if such empirical evidence cannot be produced for the blind atheist, does this mean that only our subjective sensory realities are true for those demanding sensory evidence of God?

For the seeing atheist, the existence of Neptune is empirically true because he can state that he has personally seen it through a telescope. But for the blind atheist, the existence of Neptune is empirically false, because he will never (at least in this lifetime) see it or touch it or taste it or smell it or hear it. Therefore, is the existence of Neptune both true and false depending on an individual’s current, and thus subjective, sensory input? And if this is so—and here we arrive at the second question—then should not the evidence demanding atheist accept that an individual’s subjective sensory experience of God, such a seeing a vision or feeling God’s presence, is a perfectly valid reason, from an purely empirical sense, to justify belief?

Yet perhaps even more important then these questions, are the implications that the Neptune delusion raises for atheism itself, for it inherently forces various atheists into different camps, all based on their subjective sensory input. Thus, the camp of blind atheists would claim that seeing atheists are delusional for both believing in God and for believing in such things as heavenly bodies, which to them are no more likely to exist than angels. Indeed, to a blind atheist, the seeing atheist Richard Dawkins is as delusion for believing in Neptune as the God believer is for believing in God. And these blind atheists could righteously chuckle at seeing atheists for their irrational belief in “orbiting space meat-balls”—to coin a term that relates to the so-called “flying spaghetti monster”.
At the same time, seeing atheists could state that blind atheists for delusional for not believing in these heavenly bodies. But the insanity is not finished yet, for deaf atheists could call both seeing and blind atheists delusional for believing in anything as irrational as “sound”. Certainly, it is more parsimonious for the deaf atheist to postulate that all non-deaf people simply use some type of hyper-fast lip-reading skills to communicate rather than believe in the existence of invisible sound waves. Invisible sound waves are just as likely as invisible fairies, these deaf atheists would say. Furthermore, atheists who are color blind could heartily laugh at anyone that could be so deluded as to believe in the existence of “redness” or “greenness”. And we have not even touched on atheists who do not possess any sense of smell or touch or taste.

Clearly, the Neptune delusion implies that there exist a great number of deluded atheists roaming the streets. In fact, the Neptune delusion creates a literal smorgasbord of atheistic delusions, with each different camp of empirically minded atheists positively affirming that the other is delusional in its beliefs; indeed, watching all these different atheist camps try to agree on the existence of anything would be quite interesting. And yet, each group of sensory specific atheists would be fully correct, empirically speaking, in claiming that the other groups of atheists are delusional. But does this, therefore, mean that all atheists are, in some serious ways, delusional? If a blind atheist can claim that Neptune does not exist and a seeing atheist can claim that it does and they are both empirically correct from their own points of view, then each can correctly claim that the other is delusional. Furthermore, does this mean that atheism itself is delusional, as you could never trust an atheist to not be in some way empirically deluded, thus substantially weakening atheism claim of being wholly rational and evidence based? Now, while I certainly do not wish to venture forth and answer this question, I can happily profess that after exploring the Neptune delusion, I am quite glad that I am not an empirical-evidence-only atheist!

So, the next time an atheist asks for personal empirical evidence for the existence of God, ask him if he has ever personally verified the existence of Neptune by empirical means or did he just take its existence on another person’s authority? If he has simply done the latter, then ask him if he should really believe in such a personally unverified—and therefore, from an individual perspective, non-empirical—delusion? Oh, and if the atheist just happens to be blind, then you are really out of luck!

Continue reading GUEST BLOGGER: The Neptune Delusion...

Scientific Cenobites, part 1 of 9

This is part one of a nine part essay which merely seeks to present what scientists have to say about science and scientists.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9

Introduction: What if…
What if I were to state something to the likes of, “I’m a theist and I believe that atheists contradict themselves. They state that science does not, and cannot, deal with the supernatural but that it disproves the supernatural. They claim to be atheists because science has proved that everything can be explained by naturalistic means without any need of a supernatural being”?

What If I were to state, “I’m a theist and I believe that atheism has, in the guise of science, established its own priesthood and mythology”?

What if I elaborated and stated that, in fact, the science that some atheists rely upon as a foundation for their worldview is often based on personal preference, social preconceptions, bias and that the personalities of scientists influence ideas?

What if I stated that the concept of fully rational and objective scientists is a self-serving mythology?

What if I stated that science has, for some people, become such a strong faith based belief system that even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer such a hypothesis is excluded due to a prior commitment to materialism?

What if I said that atheistic scientists are forced by an a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive?

What if I claimed that they, in fact, purposefully will not allow a divine foot in the door?

What if I thought that atheists are so desperate to deny a creator, an intelligent designer, that they are willing to neglect scientific facts such as ordered complexity?

What if I state that some atheists would be willing to argue that an eye is no more complex than dust whirling in a puff of wind?

What if I said that scientists bully people into belief by stating that all knowledgeable people agree and preempting statements with the term surely?

What if I stated that scientists sometimes take positions simply in order to oppose other scientists and take dogmatic positions almost to the point of discounting the evidence?

What if I said that parts of the theory of evolution are a festering mass of unsupported assertions that read like imaginative literature rather than science?

What if I claimed that the scientific literature seeks to fill gaps in the data with speculations and nothing more and evolution is thus seen as a series of blind alleys?

What if I claimed that the concept that even minor types of organization can be evolved from the specialized end-products of the great evolutionary tree seems a rank impossibility?

What if I stated that the essence of the argument is that these theories are actually tautologies that cannot make empirically testable predictions?

What if I claimed that they are thus not scientific theories at all and that evolution is outside of empirical science since it cannot be refuted by any possible observations?

And if I said that every conceivable observation can be fitted into it and that evolutionary dogma accepted by most scientists as part of their training?

What if I stated all of these things?
Would you commit the ad hominem and say, “You’re one of those fundamentalists aren’t you?”
Would you say, “Atheism is not a religion and therefore has no priesthood.”
Or would you ask me from whence I have gotten such odd, and obviously wrong, ideas?
Would you brush my statements off and claim that they are nothing but the propaganda of creation science and the intelligent design movement?

Well, let us put aside any and all statements by creation science and the intelligent design movement. Let us disregard the opinions of theists and anyone other commoner that has made similar statements. Let us hear what the people in the field have to say. Let us hear from anthropologists, paleoanthropologists, biologists, morphologists, cosmologists, Darwinists, atheists, etc. Let us hear what they have to state on the issue.

We will see what they have to say about subjectivism, emotionalism, elitism, and authoritarianism in what is supposed to be unbiased, truth seeking science. We will also see what they have to say about filling in the gaps of evidence with worldviews which inform interpretations of evidence.

In the next post I will begin presenting the information from the horse’s mouth.
Continue reading Scientific Cenobites, part 1 of 9...

The Quadripartite Equine Riders, part 1 of 11

This is part one of an eleven part essay in which is a review of a conversation that took place between Prof. Richard Dawkins, Prof. Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Strident, Arrogant, Vitriolic, and or Shrill?
Part 3: Amazing Perplexity and Anonymous Confession of an Atheist Clergyman
Part 4: Tri-Theism? Nice Try
Part 5: Faith, Evidence and Doubting Thomas and It’s Absolutely Relative
Part 6: On Scientific Authoritarian Faith
Part 7: Cosmology and the Pathetic Bible
Part 8: On Cosmology, Theology and Eternal Regress
Part 9: Dennett the Mesmerist and Atheism is Humbler and Holier Than Thou
Part 10: The Universe is All About Me
Part 11: On Jihad and Abortion

“We're just the beginning of a new wave of explicit
attempts to shake peoples’ faith”—Prof. Daniel Dennett

Introduction
Prof. Richard Dawkins’ website is advertising a yenta session between Prof. Richard Dawkins, Prof. Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens which is entitled “The Four Horsemen.” I certainly do not know who entitled it as such nor if the four agreed to it. However, it does strike me as indicative of either just how self-important these men think they are or just how much their adherents exalt them. This video may be viewed or heard online or read in transcript form. Although the transcript is a little bit sloppy and makes some mistakes in ascribing who is speaking and sometimes missing a word or two such as when Sam Harris refers to, as the transcript has it “people who kill (inaudible) doctors,” when he can be clearly heard to say, “people who kill abortion doctors.” Yet, I am not crying conspiracy, this is just the sort of thing that happens when, on occasion, more than one person is speaking at the same time.



The fact that this is a self-congratulatory back-patting session is excusable since I am sure it is how many of us would sound whilst gabbing with our friends in an atmosphere virtually free of contention.
There is actually little substance to this two hour discussion perhaps due to the fact that it was not a scholarly setting. Rather, it was friendly banter which devolved into witty repartee. Actually, by the end all of them are too busy trying to figure out what Christopher Hitchens is talking about.

Each participant seems to slide into characteristic pat answers:
Sam Harris’ perpetual—abolish theistic religion and establish a religion of reason (can you say 1700s?).
Prof. Richard Dawkins—sounding like the background of Thomas Dolby’s song She Blinded Me With Science, occasions a cry of “Sciiieeence!” “Sciiieeence!” “Sciiieeence!”
Prof. Daniel Dennett—with his ubiquitous “Those people don’t think” one-liners.
And, Christopher Hitchens going in one hundred directions at once in ever expanding circumlocutions.



Some interesting question are brought up which are unfortunately simply lost in the shuffle. It may that at some point the adult beverages were taking their expected effect. I simply do not know but the overwhelming majority of this conversation was tantamount to teenyboppers gossiping about nothing in particular.
This is certainly not the making of “Great Conversations” and also not the makings of a $20.00 DVD but well worth watching, listening to, or reading online for gratis and also nice for seeing four friends enjoying each other’s company.

One thing to note is that they base their discussion on the term “religion” which is unfortunately grossly generic and completely undefined. The problem is that when they make statements to the likes of “religious people do…” “or believe…” etc., you are left wondering which of the grand majority of the planet’s population they are addressing.

Continue reading The Quadripartite Equine Riders, part 1 of 11...

Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? - Moses as Skeptical Scientist

Part 1: The Apostle Thomas: Patron Saint of Scientists?

What would you do if you saw a burning bush? A bush that had every appearance of being on fire and yet, was not being consumed by it?

To read/Or not to read

Would you instantly say, “Lord God Almighty!!!!!!!!!”

Would you say, “What a fascinating coincidence! The natural laws are interacting in a rather unexpected manner. Perhaps, someday we will find a materialist answer. S'mores anyone?”

Well, if you were like Moses you would do neither. Yet, in a way, he a bit of both (short of the s'mores).

In Exodus 3:2-3 we find Moses at Horeb and we learn that “Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, ‘I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.’”



Moses’ first reaction is to think critically, skeptically and scientifically: he thought about what he was seeing, he planed a course of action, he approached the phenomenon and he determined to examine it.

Then, “When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, ‘Moses! Moses!…I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.’ At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God” (Exodus 3:4, 6). The reference to looking at God is in reference to v. 2 which stated, “There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush.” Angel of the LORD being a term synonymous for God Himself. It is likely a reference to a Christophany, a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. But this is theological minutia which goes beyond the scope of this essay.

Now, what would you do if God told you, very clearly, to go and do something?

Would you instantly say, “Yes, of course, here I go!”

Would you say, “Wow maaaaaan, I’m like sooooo hallucinating!”

Well, if you were like Moses you would do neither.

“‘I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt.’ But Moses said to God, ‘Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?’ And God said, ‘I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain’” (Exodus 3:10-12).

Moses does not march off in lockstep but questions why he is chosen and for the task at hand. God recognizes that Moses, a sheep herding nobody, will need some evidence that it is God who is talking to him, sending him to confront Pharaoh who at the time was one of the, if not the, earth’s most powerful ruler. God states that Moses will succeed in bringing the Israelites out of Egypt and that they will enjoy the freedom of worshipping God at Horeb.
Thus, Moses will engage upon a scientific experiment, as it were. He engages upon an act knowing that he will either be unsuccessful or successful.

That he would be unsuccessful is most likely since Moses was one single man, who was a nobody, with no authority, and no army (and not even the support of the Jews, at that time). This would be evidence that God did not send him but that he just ate a bad falafel the night before which caused him to hallucinate.

That he would be successful would quite literally a one man against the world scenario. This would serve as confirmation that he had an encounter with God.

Next comes an exchange from which there is much to infer:

“Moses said to God, ‘Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?’ God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:13-14).

God declares that He is the I AM, “I am who I am,” or “I will be what I will be.” This is understood to mean the self-existent one, the one who is, the one who is not moved by any greater external force. God is known as the one who is, was and is to come, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega.



Consider that time, space and matter came into being at a particular point, at the very beginning of time, space and matter. The Bible’s very first verse states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
Look at it this way: “In the beginning [time], God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].”
Moreover, consider it this way: “In the beginning [time], God [a preexistent being] created [infused with energy, omnipotentlly designed] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].”

Furthermore, it is reasonable to draw the following inferences:
Since time came into being at a particular point—whatever existed “before” then was timeless, or eternal.
Since space came into being at a particular point—whatever existed “before” then was infinite, or not restricted to locality.
Since matter came into being at a particular point—whatever existed “before” then was immaterial, or spirit and not affected by any natural laws.



Moses’ skeptical and scientific inquisitive nature would come into play time and time again as is exampled in life his story as found in the Bible.

Continue reading Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? - Moses as Skeptical Scientist...

Richard Dawkins - Looking for God in All the Wrong Places (and in all the wrong ways)

During a conversation between Prof. Richard Dawkins and Dr. Alister McGrath that took place at Oxford, Prof. Richard Dawkins stated, “What I care about is what’s true; I want to know, is there a God in the universe or not?”

To read/Or not to read

I freely admit that it may have been a simple misstatement but this little sentence is jam packed with various typical atheist fallacies.

In this essay I would like to address a few of the fallacies:

It is certainly admirable that Prof. Richard Dawkins is interested in truth, seeks to acquire truth and wants to know, really know, if God does or does not exist. He has claimed that God’s non existence is almost a certainty which he has quantified to 99% certainty. Incidentally, other scientists have quantified the likelihood of God’s existence at 62% (see the Statistical Probability portion of my parsed essay “Is Richard Dawkins a Fundamentalist?” for more on both percentages). He is interested in truth—science is about ascertaining our best guess thus far and its conclusions are necessarily are tentative. Thus, he cannot find God through scientific means alone since he could never claim to have the final scientific word on the subject. This is probably why Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents claim that discoveries in the natural world serve to point us towards a super intelligent cause.

But this is getting way ahead of ourselves. Let us consider what Prof. Richard Dawkins is looking for, “is there a God in the universe or not?” He, at least in this particular statement, has in view a God who, if it exists at all, exists in the universe. This means that he seeks for the God of a very particular theology: not a good who is outside of the universe, not one that is the universe, not one that is part of the universe, or whatever else one can imagine. Rather, he seeks a God who would be inside of the universe. It is perhaps in conceiving of God according to this particular theology that Prof. Richard Dawkins would think to apply the scientific method to seeking to ascertain God’s existence.

But this is getting way ahead of ourselves. Since Prof. Richard Dawkins does not know God, does not know what God is like, he does not know if God exists or not so how does he know what to look for and how does he know how to look? Prof. Richard Dawkins is an adherent of a sect of atheism and scientism which asserts that one cannot come to supernatural conclusions until one has exhausted absolutely every possible materialistic explanation. This not only refers to material causes of which we are aware but it is also the expectation that if we cannot explain it materialistically now, today, we may uncover as of yet unknown material causes tomorrow, or next week, or in one hundred years, or one million years. This is the fallacy of validation by expectation of future human omniscience.

In other words, this sort of scientifically façaded atheist asserts that you cannot appeal to a supernatural agent until we humans know everything that there is to know about everything and we know everything that there is to know about everything that there is to know. Until we know everything, and how it all interacts in every scenario any and everywhere they reject supernatural concepts that have at least some merit and instead accept materialistic concepts that have no merit. For example, consider the concept of miracles: atheists generally claim that the do not ever occur—they do this without having investigated all such claims or sometimes not even one. They make the claim based on the presumption that the natural laws cannot be broken—they do this while not knowing if we know all of the natural laws, nor if we understand them fully, nor if there are as of yet undiscovered ones, nor if we understand their interactions in every situation. Alternatively, they claim, without evidence, that miracles are not divine occurrences but the out-workings of as of yet unknown or not understood natural laws. Prof. Richard Dawkins has a particular and peculiar view of miracles which plays of off our imperfect knowledge of natural laws—he claims miracles are really coincidences, it had to happen that way at some time and in some place (see the Miraculous portion of “Is Richard Dawkins a Fundamentalist?”).

But this is getting way ahead of ourselves. Prof. Richard Dawkins is asking for evidence.
But why?
Why?
What do I mean by asking, “Why ask for evidence?”?
Well, I would ask him to please show me the evidence upon which he bases his claim to require evidence. Also, if science is the manner by which to acquire knowledge of God it must first be scientifically demonstrated that science is the manner by which to acquire knowledge of God. He is asking for evidence of God without knowing if God gives off evidence. Prof. Richard Dawkins may be seeking material evidence of an immaterial being. Do we look for wet evidence of a dry object?
This is why he is ultimately seeking for a God in the universe.

Thus, Prof. Richard Dawkins is looking for a particular god, in a particular way, in a particular location—let us see what he uncovers.

Continue reading Richard Dawkins - Looking for God in All the Wrong Places (and in all the wrong ways)...

Penn Jillette Lays it Down

Penn Jillette, of the illusionist due Penn and Teller, is an adherent of the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence sect of atheism.

To read/Or not to read

I posted about him previously.

In this video he lays it down and makes some great points about passion for the “truth.”

Continue reading Penn Jillette Lays it Down...

Atheism and Archaeopteryx

A little birdie told me that some atheists claim that science has found a transitional form from reptile to bird and that this, somehow, has something to do with God’s non-existence.

To read/Or not to read

Don’t ask me where this bird brain gets these ideas but this is what my little birdie friend, whose name is Archaeopteryx, tells me. Archaeopteryx has virtually come to be worshipped as an idol by the sect of atheism that considers “science” as somehow evidencing absolute materialism or rather, disproving God existence. Reginald Finley, aka The Infidel Guy, is one such personage (see here and here for some discussion of him).



Here, I merely wished to provide the following information from the peer-reviewed science journal Science, in three segments all of which feature the research of Alan Feduccia.

This first segment is from: Alan Feduccia (Department of Zoology, University of North Carolina and Department of Vertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian Institute) and Harrison B. Tordoff (Bell Museum of Natural History, University of Minnesota) “Feathers of Archaeopteryx: Asymmetric Vanes Indicate Aerodynamic Function,” Science, Vol. 203, 9 March 1979, pp. 1021-1022

Vanes in the primary flight feathers of Archaeopteryx conform to the asymmetric pattern in modern flying birds…

evidence from flight in Archaeopteryx has been available for more than 100 years…

Ostriches (Struthio) and rheas (Rhea and Pterocnemia) are flightless and are thought to have evolved from flying birds…

the basic pattern and proportions of the modern avian wing were present in Archaeopteryx and have remained essentially unchanged for approximately 150 million years…

The next segment is again from Alan Feduccia in his paper: “Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx,” Science, Vol. 259, 5 Feb 1993, pp. 790-792

The Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx has been thought to have been a feathered predator adapted to running that represents a terrestrial stage in the evolution of true birds from coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Examination of claw geometry, however, shows that (i) modern ground- and tree-dwelling birds can be distinguished on the basis of claw curvature, in that greater claw arcs characterize tree-dwellers and trunk-dwellers, and (ii) the claws of the pes (hind foot) and manus (front hand) of Archaeopteryx exhibit degrees of curvature typical of perching and trunk-climbing birds, respectively. On this basis, Archaeopteryx appears to have been a perching bird, not a cursorial predator…

Two major theories for the evolution of avian flight—the cursorial theory, in which flight evolved from the ground up, and the arboreal theory, in which flight evolved from the trees down—are based on interpretations of the paleobiology and behavior of this primal bird…

To determine if the geometry of the claws of the pes is a useful index for arboreal versus terrestrial habits in birds, I examined more than 500 species of birds, photographed approximately 400 claws (digit III), and traced and measured the claw arcs…

The major separation of birds on the basis of claw arc measurements is between ground-dwellers and all others…

[Archaeopteryx ] had the feathers of modern birds, unchanged in structural detail over 150 million years of evolution…exhibited the classic elliptical wing of modern woodland birds…exhibited a hypertrophied furcula (fused clavicles)…which effect the downstroke of the wing…

Its tail was designed to provide lift in flight and was not loosely constructed; not did it show signs of fraying, which is characteristic of terrestrial birds…

Archaeopteryx was arboreal arvolant, considerably advanced aerodynamically, and probably capable of flapping powered flight to at least some degree. Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in the modern sense, a bird…

This last segment is from Virginia Morell, “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,” Science, Vol. 259, 5 Feb 1993, PP. 764-765

Since the first Archaeopteryx specimen was discovered in Germany in 1861, scientists have been pecking at each other like bantam roosters in an attempt to sort out the creature’s true place in evolution. The latest phase of the controversy pits ornithologists, who consider the 150 million-year-old creature a bird, adapted to life in the trees and capable of powered flight, against paleontologists, who claim Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur that spent most of its life on the ground…

Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill argues that the claws of Archaeopteryx indicate that it did live in the trees and was unquestionably a bird. ‘Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur,’ Feduccia says. ‘But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that’”…

[Following upon Henry Huxley’s position (in the late 1860s) that birds are descended from dinosaurs, in 1973 Yale University paleontologist John Ostrom wrote to Nature and] “asserted that the skeleton of Archaeopteryx was ‘that of a coelurosaurian dinosaur…Since Archaeopteryx apparently lacked breastbones for anchoring flight muscles, he questioned whether it could fly at all and suggested that its claws resembled not those of high fliers but the feet of lowly ground dwellers such as quail and roadrunners”…

if Archaeopteryx ran on the ground, then avian flight probably originated when creatures like Archaeopteryx began leaping up (after insects, say) rather than swooping down from the treetops…

now even paleontologists concede Archaeopteryx was capable of flight. ‘Okay, in the vernacular sense, it is a bird,’ grouses Jacques Gauthier, a herpetologist at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco and a supporter of Archaeopteryx’s dinosaur ancestry. ‘If by that you mean something with feathers that sort of flies’…

its claws resemble those of birds that spend most of their time in the trees. To substantiate his claim, Feduccia measured the curvature of the foot claws (Archaeopteryx also had claws on its wings) of the three best Archaeopteryx specimens, then compared this arc with 500 species of modern birds. The fossil’s arc fell comfortably in the range of definitive perching birds…

the fossils’ curved claw on the reversed first toe…is ‘strictly a perching adaptation; it would be a tremendous obstacle to running on the ground’…

‘The claws are extremely similar’ to the foot claws of modern trunk-climbing birds, he [Feduccia] insists. ‘In fact, if you compare the claws of a wood creeper with the manus claws of Archaeopteryx, you would be hard pressed to tell them apart. They are virtually identical’…

Continue reading Atheism and Archaeopteryx...

Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles?

I am beginning a series of essays on the question of how the Bible handles miracles.

What I have in mind is those instances in which a miracle is not merely mentioned but when its occurrence is focused upon and the reaction of those present is mentioned.

Let us consider the premise to be just that: how those present at the time reacted.

Thus, within this series what you or I think about miracles is irrelevant.

Regardless of what we believe about miracles our study consists of how they are treated within the Bible.

I thought to begin this series by directing your attention to a previously posted essay entitled: The Apostle Thomas: Patron Saint of Scientists?

Continue reading Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles?...

The Godless Unholiday Tree

Margaret Downey, formerly of the Atheist Alliance International (which I commented on here) and founder of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, is promulgating her particular and peculiar form of atheist unholiday cheer.[1]

To read/Or not to read

Margaret Downey erected a tree, at the old Chester County Courthouse in West Chester Pennsylvania, adorned with copies of book covers amongst other things. The Bible and the Koran (Qu'ran) are hanging on the tree, which is referred to as the “Tree of Knowledge.” Yet, the focus of the tree is anti-theist rhetoric. The tree is peppered with covers from Ibn Warraq, “Why I Am Not a Muslim” Christopher Hitchens, “A Portable Atheist,” Randel Helms, “Gospel Fictions,” Rene Salam, “The Myth of Nazareth,” Bart Ehrman, “Misquoting Jesus” (see Misquoting Truth and Misquotes in Misquoting Jesus) and from the photo I thought that I discerned Richard Dawkins, “Growing Up in the Universe” (which I reviewed).



An onlooker asked, “Why do they have do that now?” I suppose it is because while celebrators of Christmas, Hanukah, Kwanza, Ramadan and even the Solstice and Festivus are merry making, Margaret Downey sect of atheist cannot go without expressing prejudice and they must be on the offense at all times and thus, be offensive.

Staks Rosch, a member of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, stated, “I’d like to break up that monopoly so we have a free market of ideas - just to balance things out.” Fair enough, but a majority is a majority and will have a majority showing. Also, have atheist not had their fair share of books, articles, movies, lectures, debates, TV and radio interviews, etc.? I say, again, let them have their own holiday although sadly the atheists on the forefront of pushing an atheist holiday are the militant-activist-anti-theist sect who give the friendly atheist next door a bad name—sorry.
Staks Rosch also stated, “This tree of knowledge is a celebration of good ideas, of science, of history.” Of course, it is more than that, it is about belittling and besmirching. For example, I have yet to see a Christmas tree with copies of Vox Day’s “The Irrational Atheist” hanging on it or anything of the sort. By the way “The Irrational Atheist” is available on Amazon.com or as a free PDF file—hey, this is not a Christmas tree :o) Nor have I seen a copy of Arthur J. Lelyveld’s “Atheism is Dead” hanging on a Hannukiah (aka: a Hanukah menorah).

It is rather interesting that Margaret Downey is promoting her own brand of prejudicial cheer and stated “We’d love to see Kwanza candles and a Buddha statue, too.” Yet, in 2001 she “sued the county to remove its large [81 years old], bronze Ten Commandments plaque from the face of the stately courthouse.”



As I have stated before, Margaret Downey seeks to put a happy face on atheist as a self-appointed PR agent—I say mazel tov, nice try but, and keep trying.

[1] I gleaned David O'Reilly, The 'Godless Holiday Tree' Goes Up

Continue reading The Godless Unholiday Tree...

Happy Holidays Everyone!

I'm gone for a while, so have a merry Christmas everyone!

Peaches,

Josh

PS. I hope you all get a bunch of cool swag.
Continue reading Happy Holidays Everyone!...

Answering Atheism - Buttons

Get your buttons below:

To read/Or not to read

In case you dropped by to check out project Answering Atheism and wanted to pick up a button, please feel free to choose from below and hyperlink them as follows (in case the hyperlink I placed in them do not stick when you save image as or cut and paste):

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/12/answering-atheism-welcome-introduction.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Continue reading Answering Atheism - Buttons...

The first premise of the KCA

I was doing a bit of link-chasing tonight when I ran across this article critical of William Lane Craig's KCA. Just a few thoughts...

Read more...

Although Dr. Craig's support for it is uneven, I find the arguments used by atheologians in this regard to be inadequate also. The energy used to argue "infinity" is energy wasted, when modern cosmology does not posit that the universe is infinite, and when the term itself is ontologically negatively defined. While infinity has great use in mathematics, it is a mathematical abstraction, nothing more: and we should not attempt to apply it any more than we should seek a perfect circle or the square root of -1.

This is a revealing sentence. I've always been struck by the claim of "ontological negativity", but I must admit that I don't quite understand it. For example, atheists will throw around this little zinger that we can't understand what "supernatural" is without the natural, or the immaterial without the material. Putting aside the "so what" answer, is that really true? Is infinity ontologically negative? And what would that mean? While I can't grasp what infinity is, I certainly believe an unlimited thing could exist with having some kind of negativity buried at its core. But I digress...

He does support it elsewhere by using two arguments: our observation of the caused entities around us, and causality as a principle of human thought. Dr. Craig is no doubt aware, however, that to infer a necessary causality on a whole -- the universe -- on the basis of observation of such attribute in the parts -- the existents around us - is a fallacy of composition. The attribute being transposed here, being caused, is relational and therefore cannot be transposed. Thus he cannot generalize from caused entities around us to the universe in this matter.

This is the heart of the matter. I'll ask you all to do a bit of thinking about what he just said about the fallacy of composition. Is it really true that it is improper to- in all cases and at all times- infer a characteristic from the parts to the whole? Bricks are hard, and I suggest that the hardness of a wall can be inferred from the composition of a collection of hard things. On the contrary, there are new properties that arise from collections of lower level properties. To flip it backwards, just because water molecules are wet does not mean that quarks are wet. What we need to consider, then, is the nature of causality and the universe as a whole and in parts.

I'd say that our observation of causality in everyday life is evidence that effects must have causes. There is no physical substance known as cause, and there is no reason to think that all this physical stuff around us necessitates causality. From those intuitions (which, I believe, are reasonable and ought to be believed by every thinking person) we come to the conclusion that causality governs the physical.

But back to our problem with the jump from parts to the whole. Of course, there are times when one ought not make that leap. But usually there is an obvious reason not to. For example, if I were to say molecules are tiny, and a wall is made of molecules, therefore this wall is tiny, you would cry foul. That is because there is something blatantly quantitative that carries over when you are adding things like sizes. But hardness does not add up this way (in the case of bricks and the wall) because it is qualitative. To the best of our knowledge, is there something qualitatively different about the universe-as-a-whole from the universe-in-parts? There are some differences, obviously. Some parts of the universe are very hot. Is the universe itself hot? Or, parts of the universe are dark, but that wouldn't suggest that the sum total of physical substances is dark (the question seems nonsensical).

All of this to say that the first premise of Craig's argument is something that rests on an "either you see it or you don't". If you don't see why causation is not just some physical maneuvering within the parts of the universe, then the best I can do is point out the same intuition in different lights until you get it. It seems like a lot of ad hoc escapism, but maybe there are good reasons for denying the universality of causation. I just don't know of any.

Continue reading The first premise of the KCA...

Answering Atheism - Welcome / Introduction

Answering atheism
Introduction:

CLICK HERE TO EXPAND LIST

Project Answering Atheism is dedicated to a consideration of atheism.
Atheism will be considered from a polemical point of view.
That is to say that what project Answering Atheism has in view is a critique of atheism.
Answering atheism
This is not merely a wikipedia.org info based project, nor an infidels.org nor atheists.org nor atheism.about.com pro-atheism project.
Refuting atheism
Project Answering Atheism will serve as a directory to criticisms of atheism available online.
This is in no way a complete list of all criticisms of atheism on the World Wide Web.
If you know of anything that would fit the premise of project Answering Atheism please let me know through the comments section (also, please report dead links).
Debunking atheism
Project Answering Atheism includes the following categories.
Answering atheists

Welcome / Introduction.
Refuting atheists
Specialization: these are websites / blogs that specialize in atheism. That is, either the main or only topic covered is atheism.
Debunking atheists
Partial Relevant Content: these are websites / blogs that include particular articles dealing with atheism. That is, a website / blog may include quite a few items related to atheism amongst the variety of other topics which they cover.
Atheism and science
Articles / Essays / Posts: these are particular articles / essays / posts, sometimes listing more than one by a particular author.
Atheism and morality
Audio: lectures, debates, etc.
Atheism and religion
Books: various vantage points covered by various authors
Atheism and belief
Video: lectures, debates, etc.

Atheism and Christianity
Atheism and death
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is atheism wrong
Is atheism on the rise
There is a lot of curiosity about atheism, many questions asked, much information sought and much written.
Is atheism a faith
You may have wondered about and or searched the following information:
Atheist, atheist, New Atheism, atheist quotes or atheism quotes, atheist experience, atheist definition or atheism definition, atheist forum, atheist blog, atheism in America, atheism and beliefs, history of atheism, spirituality atheism practice or atheism ‘spirituality’, Descartes on atheism, what is atheism, atheism atheist, atheism symbol or symbol of atheism and even atheism t-shirts and atheist bumper stickers, atheist events, famous atheists, atheist religion, atheist belief, atheist jokes, difference between agnostic and atheist, conservative atheist, atheist films, atheist opinion poll, what do atheists believe, how can a atheist person be moral, celebrity atheists, spore atheist, atheist debate, the portable atheist, anti-atheism, or even atheisme and ateismo.
Are atheists bad
Maybe you have even wondered about skeptics or skepticism, perhaps agnostics or agnosticism. Or how atheism and atheists relate to morals or morality, ethics, or the science of biology, anthropology, astronomy, cosmology, evolution, Charles Darwin or Darwinism or Darwinian evolution, microevolution, macroevolution, creationism or creation science, intelligent design, religion, philosophy, reason, rationality, the Bible, or any of life’s questions relate to atheism and atheists.
Are atheists moral
What of some of the well know atheists of history or contemporary atheists such as: Charles Bradlaugh, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, G.A. Wells, Marquis de Sade, Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre, Ayn Rand, Ernst Haeckel, Margaret Mead, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Voltaire, Paul-Henri Dietrich / Baron d'Holbach, Denis Diderot, Aldous Huxley, T. H. Huxley, Julian Huxley, Oscar Wilde, Bertrand Russell, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Arthur Schopenhauer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Earl Doherty, Madelyn O′Hair, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Dan Barker, Michael Shermer, Michael Martin, PZ Myers, Richard Carrier, Stephen Carr, Jeffery Jay Lowder, Kyle Gerkin, Farrell Till, John Loftus, Austin Cline, et al.
Are atheists happy
Have you ever wondered about ex-atheists such as: C.S. Lewis, Anthony Flew, Lee Strobel, Steve Beren, Anders Borg, Whittaker Chambers, Francis Collins, Joy Davidman, Andre Frossard, Eugene D. Genovese, Nicky Gumbel, Keir Hardie, Anna Haycraft, Ignace Lepp, Felix Leseur, Alister McGrath, Claude McKay, Lacey Mosley, William J. Murray, Bernard Nathanson, Marvin Olasky, Enoch Powell, George R. Price, Gerald Priestland, Dame Cicely Saunders, Edith Stein, Peter Steele, Stewart Traill, Fay Weldon, John C. Wright, Simon Greenleaf, William Ramsay, et al.
Are atheists evil
What about the varieties of atheism such as: strong atheism, positive atheism, explicit atheism, critical atheism, weak atheism, negative atheism, implicit atheism, anti-theist, non-theist, misotheist, Brights, Freethinkers, Humanist, Secular Humanist, Naturalist, Materialist, Rationalist, Philosophical Skepticism, Universism, et al.
Against atheism
Project Answering Atheism content:

Welcome / Introduction

Specialization

Partial Relevant Content

Articles / Essays / Posts

Audio

Books

Video
Answering atheism
Answering atheism, Refuting atheism, Debunking atheism, Answering atheists, Refuting atheists, Debunking atheists, Atheism and science, Atheism and morality, Atheism and religion, Atheism and belief, Atheism and Christianity, Atheism and death, Is atheism true, Is atheism wrong, Is atheism on the rise, Is atheism a faith, Are atheists bad, Are atheists moral, Are atheists happy, Are atheists evil, Against atheism, Against atheist

Continue reading Answering Atheism - Welcome / Introduction...

Answering Atheism - Specialization

Project Answering Atheism content:

Welcome / Introduction

Specialization

Partial Relevant Content

Articles / Essays / Posts

Audio

Books

Video

Keep in mind that you can use the CTRL+F function to search this post.

These specialize in atheism. That is, the main or only topic of the website / blog is atheism.

Atheism is Dead



Atheism Dissected



Atheism “Article of the Year”



Atheism Succinctly



Richard Dawkins – Scientist or Activist?



Sam Harris – Mythbuster or Mythmaker?



Dan Barker – One of America’s Leading Atheists



Atheism Analyzed



Atheism Analyzed: The Reality Approach - Using Logic and Rational Processes



Miksa’s Musings



CARM, Atheism



Frank Turek’s Cross Examined



Atheism’s Fallacies



Debunking Atheists



Is There a God?



Does God Exist?



Does God Exist? - Journal



Does God Exist? Free Download Site And Store Entrance



Why Pain and Suffering?



Investigating Atheism



The Absurdity of Atheism



Contend for the Faith,
Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics

The Scientific Perspective



World Wide Christian Web's Arguments for the Existence of God



Christian World Index



When Post Modern Skeptics Ask!



The Unreasonableness of Atheism and Other Barriers to Belief



All About Philosophy - Atheism Defined



The Reign of Christ Ministries, A Fool's Heart: Answering the Village Atheist



Theism Beats Atheism



Michael Patrick Leahy, Letter to an Atheist



Militant Atheism Exposed



Atheism Sucks!



Answering Infidels



Evangelical Resources - On Atheism



Ex-Atheist



Proof That God Exists



SCAE // Acts of the Apologists



Atheism Presupposes Theism



Dandy Designs



Chaim, The Absurdity of Atheism



Herbert Vetter, Is God Necessary? NO! and YES!



Michael Hamblin, Evangelical Resources on Atheism and Modernism



All Time Truths - The Fingerprints of the Creator



Atheistic Violence



Makarios
Continue reading Answering Atheism - Specialization...

Answering Atheism - Partial Relevant Content

EXPAND LIST

Project Answering Atheism content:

Welcome / Introduction

Specialization

Partial Relevant Content

Articles / Essays / Posts

Audio

Books

Video

Keep in mind that you can use the CTRL+F function to search this post.

The partials are those websites / blogs which include particular articles dealing with atheism. That is, a website / blog may have quite a few items related to atheism included in their variety.

Wherever you see “search results for ‘atheism’” it would be a good idea to conduct the search again so as to get the latest results. Also, keep in mind that searching for “atheist” or even “materialism,” or “naturalism” may yield other results.

Conservapedia,

Atheism “Article of the Year”

Atheism Quotes

Academics

Debate

Evolution

Mass Murder

Mental and Physical Health

Miracles

Morality

Uncharitableness

Agnosticism

Deception

The Problem of Evil

Agenda

Population

New Atheism

Brights Movement

Causes of Atheism

Definitions

Evangelical Atheist

Ex-atheists

Faith Freedom International

Godless liberal

His Dark Materials

History of Atheism

Internet Infidels

Militancy

Skeptics Annotated Bible

Strong atheism

Weak atheism

The God Delusion

There Are No Atheists In Foxholes

Creation Wiki,

Atheism

Theism

Evolutionism

Decline of atheism

Agnosticism

Secular humanism

Naturalism

Darwinism

Evolution requires naturalism Response to Talk.Origins

Evolution is atheistic Response to Talk.Origins

Christian Answers Network - About Atheists and Agnostics



Ralph Muncaster,

Answers to Questions - God

Answers to Questions - Why Does God Allow Pain and Suffering?

William Lane Craig,

Writings from William Lane Craig on the Existence of God - Articles: Existence of God

The Problem Of Miracles: A Historical And Philosophical Perspective

The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe

The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle

The Resurrection of Theism
No Ultimate Purpose Without Immortality and God

The Absurdity of Life Without God

Vs. Bart Ehrman

Vs. Ray Bradley

Vs. Quentin Smith
Vs. Quentin Smith

Vs. Edwin Curley

Vs. Kai Nielsen

Vs. Massimo Pigliucci

Vs. Corey G. Washington

Vs. Douglas M. Jesseph

Vs. Michael Tooley

Vs. Richard Taylor

J. P. Holding - Tektonics,

Outrageous Reasoning, A Closer Look at a Common Skeptical Tactic

Calculated Contempt: Why Bible Critics Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt

Why atheism is not absence of faith or ideology

You may be a fundamentalist atheist if....

Brains and Eggs - Or, A Quick Look at Some Insults to Our Intelligence

Great Expectorations - Or, The Apostate Who Wasn't All There

Letter to a Maladjusted Misotheist

World Net Daily,

search results for “atheism”

search results for “atheism” searching by author Vox Day

They don’t seem to list, The Clowns of Reason, part 1, part2, part 3

Vox Day’s Vox Popoli: search results for “atheism”


Atheism Remix By Albert Mohler Jr. - Chapter 1: The New Atheism and the Endgame of Secularism



Probe Ministries,

search results for “atheism”

The New Atheists

Jimmy Williams, Does God Exist?
John A. Bloom, Why Isn't the Evidence Clearer?

Ray Cotton, The Holocaust: Ideas and Their Consequences

Rick Wade,

A Conversation with an Atheist
The Enlightenment and Belief in God

Northwest Creation Network, Atheism; and the scientific community



Victor Reppert,

Dangerous Idea blog: search results for “atheism”

Dangerous Idea 2 blog: search results for “atheism”

Glenn Andrew Peoples, Say Hello to my Little Friend - The Beretta Blog and Podcast: search results for “atheism”



God And Science, Evidence for God from Science and search results for “atheism”



Alexander Pruss, A defense of an ontological argument and search results for “atheist”



Christian Colligation of Apologetics Debate Research & Evangelism (CADRE),

Answering the Skeptics

CADRE Comments Blog

James White’s Alpha and Omega Ministries,

Search results for “atheism”

Also, “Letters to an Anti-Theist” between James White and Dennis McKinsey:
Introduction

1st Letter to Mr. McKinsey from Dr. James White

1st Reply to Dr. James White from Mr. McKinsey

2nd Letter to Mr. McKinsey from Dr. James White

2nd Reply to Dr. James White from Mr. McKinsey

3rd Letter to Mr. McKinsey from Dr. James White

3rd Reply to Dr. James White from Mr. McKinsey

Dealing With Common Questions and Objections

Answering Common Questions and Objections: Part I

Answering Common Questions and Objections: Part II

The Hall of Shame

Scott Gilbreath’s (aka StatGuy) Magic Statistics,

search results for “atheism”

Atheism’s Intellectual Pretensions

From our bulging “How not to do statistics” file

Scott Gilbreath’s (aka StatGuy) Nova Scotia Scott,
Christian think tank donates to atheist bus campaign

Probable atheist advertisements on London buses

Evangelical Philosophical Society, articles related to atheism



Thrice Holy, Answering the Atheists



William Dembski,

In Defense of Intelligent Design

Reflections on Human Origins

The Intelligent Design Movement

Science and Design

Skepticism's Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evil

Michael Behe,

The Evolution of a Skeptic

An Introduction to Molecular Machines and Irreducible Complexity

Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry

Greg Bahnsen,

Vs. Gordon Stein, The Great Debate: Does God Exist?

Vs. Edward Tabash, Does God Exist?

The Heart of the Matter: Knowing and Believing

Presuppositional Procedure

The Problem of Evil

Lion of Judah – Christian Apologetics, Refuting Arguments Of Critics - Including But Not Limited To Atheists, Agnostics, And Skeptics



Denyse O'Leary,

Post-Darwinist
ID Report
Colliding Universes
Design of Life
Mindful Hack
Overwhelming Evidence
Signs of the Times
Uncommon Descent

Love Changes Life

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest: What Truly Bright Mind Could Believe God Exists?

Conversing With Critics: How Do Jesus People Respond To The New Atheism? Download Transcript

A Cure For The Disease: Is Faith The Enemy Of Reason?

Bury The Bible: Is The Good Book Bad?

The Arrogance Of Faith: How Can Christianity Say It Is The One True Way?

You're Fired: How Can A Loving God Send Anyone To Hell?

The Great End Of The Church: Can Christianity Finally Compete With Atheism?

Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, Responses to Atheist Philosopher, Michael Martin



Shandon L. Guthrie,

Atheism Articles

Vs. anonymous atheist, Was the Universe Caused by God?

Vs. various bloggers, Religious Epistemology and Naturalistic Alternatives to the Resurrection of Jesus

Vs. Ed Brayton: Is Creationism or Evolution the Best Explanation of the Scientific Evidence?

Vs. Daniel Adams: Does God Exist?

Vs. Mitch Hodge: Is the Kalam Cosmological Argument a Good Argument for the Existence of God?

Paul Scott Pruett’s Pensées: Atheism, Debate, Skepticism



Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies: search results for “atheism”



Paul Copan, Christian Philosophy & Apologetics: search results for “atheism”



William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith: search results for “atheism”
Current Events Audio Blog



John Ankerberg’s Ankerberg Theological Research Institute: search results for “atheism”



Jim Virkler’s Science @ The John Ankerberg Show: search results for “atheism”



MedicineMan’s Gladio Mentis - The Sword Of The Mind: search results for “atheism”



Chad McIntos’ Doxazo Theos: search results for “atheism”



Leadership U: search results for “atheism”



Gregory Koukl’s Stand to Reason, search results for “atheism”



Ben Witherington’s blog: search results for “atheism”



CADRE Comments: search results for “atheism”



Summa Philosophiae: search results for “atheism”



bethinking,

Who Are You God? - The existence of God and the human need for God

Suffering

Truth and Tolerance

Science and Christianity

Right and Wrong

Resurrection and Miracles

Culture and Worldview

search results for “atheism”

American Vision / Gary DeMar,

search results for “atheism”

Gary DeMar’s blog Mashed Potatoes on the Anvil,
Search results for “atheism”

Also, search results for “atheist”

Dinesh D'Souza’s AOL Blog: search results for “atheism”



Discovery Institute: search results for “atheism”



ApologeticsIndex, seach results for “atheism”



MANDM: search results for “atheism”



The Skeptical Christian,

search results for “atheism”

Answering Atheist Arguments

The Refutation Station

Truth Evangelical Assistance Ministries, Reviewing the Philosophy of Materialism



Phil Fernandes, Institute of Biblical Defense (IBD),

RELIGION AND/OR NATURALISM: New Life For an Old Debate

Theism vs. Atheism Debate: Phil Fernandes and Michael Martin:
Part 1: Opening Statement by Dr. Fernandes - The Cumulative Case for God

Part 2: Opening Statement by Dr. Martin - Response and the Case for Atheism

Part 3: Second Statement by Dr. Fernandes - Response

Part 4: Second Statement by Dr. Martin - Response

Part 5: Third Statement by Dr. Fernandes - Response

Part 6: Third Statement by Dr. Martin - Response

Part 7: Dr. Fernandes' Closing Statement

Part 8: Dr. Martin's Closing Statement

Papers on Philosophical Apologetics:
The Cosmological Argument

The Moral Argument

The Ontological Argument

The Teleological Argument

The Failure of Atheism

The Failure of Other Worldviews

Is Belief in God Dead?

Miracles

Philosophers' War Over the Soul

Postmodernizing Religion

Refuting Moral Relativism

Religion And/Or Naturalism

The Problem of Evil

Papers on Scientific Apologetics:
Scientific Case Against Evolution

Scientific Case For Creation

Vincent Cheung,

Atheism as Non-Belief

Blinded by Atheism

Robert Morey, Faith Defenders,

The New Atheism

The Relative Logic of Atheists

Materialism

Atheism and Absolutes

Sharefaith,

Roberto Perez, Christian Arguments Against Atheism

Defining Worldviews -- Atheistic Versis Theistic

Worldviews of Atheists and Agnostics

Aaron Martinez, The Importance of Worldviews

The Christian Post, search results for “atheism”



Anthony Horvath, Christian Apologetics Ministry, St. Johnny,

Search results for “atheism”

Search results for “atheist”

Athanatos Online Academy, Christians Can Arm Against Atheism by Educating Themselves Using New Online Academy

Phillip E. Johnson,

The Church of Darwin

Vs. Kenneth R. Miller, How Did We Get Here?, 1-Kenneth R. Miller

2-Phillip E. Johnson

3-Kenneth R. Miller

3-Phillip E. Johnson

4-Kenneth R. Miller

5-Phillip E. Johnson

6-Kenneth R. Miller

7-Phillip E. Johnson

Alvin Plantinga,

Papers by Alvin Plantinga

Two Dozen (or So) Theistic Arguments

Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - Audio Lecture from Biola

Connections Interview with Hilary Putnam and Alvin Plantinga: The God Problem - Audio

Methodical Naturalism?

Theism, Atheism, and Rationality

The Dawkins Confusion

Frederick Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell



Phillip Johnson et al vs. Kenneth Miller et al, PDF transcript, HTML transcript



William Harris vs. Irwin Tessman



William Dembinski et al vs. Eugenie Scott et al



David Quinn vs. Richard Dawkins



Jason Gastrich vs. Johnny Skeptic



Monergism, search results for “atheism”



CRI: Christian Research Institute, search results for “atheism”



Access Research Network,

search results for “atheism”

Intelligent Design FAQ, html, pdf

Origins, Atheism Page



Thinking Christian, type “atheism” or “atheist” into their onsite search engine.



First Things,

The Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life, search results for “atheism”

Blog, search results for “atheism”

Free Republic—The Premier Conservative Site on the Net!: search results for “atheism” and “atheist”

Continue reading Answering Atheism - Partial Relevant Content...