Tags » Objections

Thought on Atheist Apologetics and Their Implicit Argument to Stop Science

One of the most interesting and unnoticed things in the field of atheist arguments against religion is that when arguing against religion, there is an implicit argument in the atheist’s reasoning that can be used to undermine the study of what so many atheists consider most precious, namely “Science(TM)”, and to understand why, consider this:  atheists routinely rail against religious belief and argue, at least in part, that religious belief should be eradicated because religious beliefs are used as a type of tool that supports and spreads and exasperates war, violence, bigotry, and immorality in the world at large, and yet, by such reasoning, should not atheists also argue that science, or at least certain scientific enterprises, should be eradicated as well, for note that science has also been a tool that has supported and spread and exasperated war and violence and bigotry (racial theories, for example)–in fact, science has made war much worse than religion ever did (consider the “gift” of weapons of mass destruction, for example, something which only science could give us)–and so, by the atheist’s own reasoning, if certain societal ideas and tools should be avoided, or restricted, or removed simply because they can be used to assist in war and bloodshed, then it seems that a good atheistic case can be made to reduce scientific inquiry just as much as we should reduce religious belief; in fact, it is arguably more important to stop science than religion, for while religion may–and I stress… 108 more words

Thought on the Pathetic-ness of Atheists Lying for Nothing

It is without a shadow of a doubt that Christian apologists sometimes consciously twist arguments for the Christian faith, omit relevant facts that are not friendly to their position (such as, at times, avoiding certain Biblical verses that do not make the Old Testament look pleasant), exaggerate the strength of certain Christian-favorable evidences, and so on, and while this, to me, is rather deplorable and… 324 more words

Thought on Atheism's Euthyphro Dilemma

Atheists often assert that any moral arguments that theists try to make for the existence of God, or for the claim that God is required for morality, are negated by the so-called Euthyphro Dilemma–a dilemma which is meant to show that the theist must, allegedly, either accept that morality is utterly relative to God’s arbitrary will or that morality is independent of God, both of which are unacceptable options–but whereas the theist can easily answer the Euthyphro challenge made against him by pointing out that God’s commands and desires stem from His unchanging loving nature and thus cannot be arbitrarily changed (and the theist has pointed this out for years!), what the atheist does not realize is that his position suffers from its own Euthyphro Dilemma, and it is even worse than the theistic one, for the Euthyphro Dilemma that the atheist suffers from is one which points out that, 1) given the extreme difficulty in seeing how any absolute moral rules and duties could exist on atheism, and 2) seeing how many atheists themselves admit and argue that no moral rules or duties exist on atheism, and 3) given how many atheists even admit that God would be the best explanation for the existence of absolute moral rules and duties, then it is the case that in order to be a rational atheist, one should be, at the very least, agnostic about the existence of absolute moral rules and duties, and yet, at the same time, it is absurd and irrational to be agnostic about the fact that, say, child sexual abuse is absolutely wrong and we have an absolute duty to stop it or that extreme self-mutilation is absolutely wrong and we have an absolute duty to stop it, and so we can see that the atheist is indeed stuck in a serious dilemma, for he arguably cannot rationally affirm the existence of absolute moral rules and duties on his worldview and yet he knows that it is irrational to deny the existence of absolute moral rules and duties in some cases; so the atheist is in a hard dilemma, and anyway that he turns, irrationality awaits him, and that is the reason why the atheist has his own Euthyphro Dilemma to deal with, and it is a dilemma which is not as easily answered for the atheist.

Friday Faves - 2.5.16

As we hurtle through “resolution season,” the 90 days after New Years Day, are you still on track?  Maybe some of your initial plans were faulty, but changing course and bagging it to go back to yesterday’s methods will get you yesterday’s results.   80 more words

Selling Skills

What happens to those who have never heard the gospel?

If conscious belief in Jesus is required for salvation, how is that fair to those who have never heard the gospel?

Short Answer: God will make sure that those who would repent will have the opportunity. 603 more words


Thought on Why Jesus Could NOT Condemn Slavery

As has now been articulated in a number of previous ‘Thoughts’, we can begin to see that the idea of slavery, when looked at critically, is broad-ranging, and it can readily include what we in the West would call volunteer soldiers, and when we consider this fact, we note that no matter what an advanced civilized society does, whether it has a volunteer army (essentially, volunteering indentured servants) or a conscripted army (essentially, forced indentured servants), a society will always have these types of soldier-slaves in one form or another, and yet an advanced society needs a military (and police force) and cannot survive without one, and so it seems that any civilized society that wishes to survive must… 215 more words

Thought on the Definition of Slavery and Its Existence Today

Many people who condemn Biblical slavery–and who also condemn Jesus Christ for not speaking against slavery–do not like the idea that they themselves, as citizens and voters in a democratic state, are actually the slave-masters of the soldiers and emergency personnel whom they tacitly require to obey orders (even unto death) of the democratically-elected governments that control them, and yet when we understand that a slave, as commonly defined, simply means, at its core, that a person can be treated like property and that the person must obey the commands of another person (his master) on pain of punishment, we soon come to realize that at there is little but semantics and a dislike for the term ‘slave’ that prevents us “enlightened” moderns from calling our volunteer soldiers ‘slaves’, for the fact is that soldiers living in a democratically-elected state, once they volunteer for service (just like indentured servants do), essentially become the property of the citizens of that elected the government and these soldiers must obey the government even if doing so leads to their death or harm, and so, what this all means is that modern soldiers could indeed be considered slaves in a very real sense, and we, the citizens of democracies, could also be considered slave-masters in a very sense; and once again, the point of this comparison is to simply make us think on the fact that the Biblical injunctions supporting and controlling slavery may not only be much more reasonable than previously thought, but they may have been… 35 more words