Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Advice for Future Apologists

In 1 Peter 3:15, Christians are commanded: "In your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." From the Greek word for "give an answer" comes the word "apologetics."

Christians are commanded to be apologists. But how do we go about this? In this video, seven experienced Christian apologists (Douglas Groothuis, Gary Habermas, Craig Hazen, Mike Licona, Nabeel Qureshi, Mary Jo Sharp, and Frank Turek) share their thoughts.

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Craig Blomberg: Jesus in Non-Christian Sources

While all Historical Jesus scholars go to the New Testament to learn about Jesus, ancient non-Christian sources report a number of facts as well. Interestingly, the facts we learn about Jesus in non-Christian sources support the Christian view of Jesus.

In this short video, Dr. Craig Blomberg shares the details we learn about Jesus from non-Christian sources.

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

The Privileged Species

Are humans the accidental products of a blind and uncaring universe? Or are they the beneficiaries of a cosmic order that was planned beforehand to help them flourish? The Privileged Species is a 33-minute documentary by Discovery Institute that explores growing evidence from physics, chemistry, biology, and related fields that our universe was designed for large multi-cellular beings like ourselves. Featuring geneticist and author Michael Denton, the documentary investigates the special properties of carbon, water, and oxygen that make human life and the life of other organisms possible, and it explores some of the unique features of humans that make us a truly privileged species.

Monday, December 21, 2015

The Information Enigma

Even the simplest life requires a tremendous amount of genetic information, so the amount genetic information required for the diversity of life in our world is simply unfathomable. Is it reasonable to assume that this information arose through unguided naturalistic processes? Or does the evidence point to an intelligent designer?

The Information Enigma is a fascinating 21-minute documentary that probes the mystery of biological information, the challenge it poses to orthodox Darwinian theory, and the reason it points to intelligent design. The video features molecular biologist Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer, author of the books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Ami Horowitz Enlists Yale Students to Sign Petition to Repeal the First Amendment

Yale University, one of the nation's most prestigious schools, member of the Ivy League, founded to be a beacon of "Lux et Veritas," and alma mater of five U.S. Presidents, 19 U.S. Supreme Court Justices, hundreds of members of Congress, and several foreign heads of state, lately finds itself a big, warm, fuzzy nest for the ignorant and self-referentially inconsistent.

In less than an hour, satirist Ami Horowitz is able to recruit 50 Yale students to sign a petition seeking to repeal the First Amendment. In case you need a little refresher, the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yes, that's right. Fifty Yalies just signed a petition to repeal their right to petition. Maybe their new motto could be "Tuta Custodia," except that's in Latin, which is elitist and rude.

If you're in the mood for a cringe-inducing horror show, watch "Ami on the Street: Do We Really Need the 1st Amendment?" highlighting Horowitz's encounters with these "enlightened" minds as they sign their rights away, sincerely thanking Horowitz for the opportunity to do so.


Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Leibniz’ Contingency Argument (William Lane Craig)

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
The German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz(1646-1716) was a philosopher, scientist, and mathematician who wrote in seven languages and co-discovered calculus (along with Isaac Newton). One of his arguments for the existence of God may be summarized as follows:
(1) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.

(2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

(3) The universe exists.

(4) The explanation of the universe's existence is God.
Here's an excellent short video on this argument by Reasonable Faith (William Lane Craig's apologetics ministry).

Friday, December 11, 2015

God, Science, and Atheism

As Dr. Lawrence Principe notes, "The idea that scientific and religious camps have historically been separate and antagonistic is rejected by all modern historians of science." Nevertheless, the idea that science and religion are in conflict remains extremely popular, thanks to certain politically motivated works written in the 1800s and a variety of more recent claims (most notably by the "new atheists"). Yet even a brief consideration of the views of the leaders of the scientific revolution and of history's most important scientists shows not only that belief in God has been quite prevalent among scientists, but also that it has been a driving force in their discoveries. This video presents a number of quotes to illustrate the true relationship between science and religion.

Monday, November 23, 2015

The Great Commission for Apologetics (1 Peter 3:15...Get it Straight)

David and I have just come back from a week of philosophy and apologetics conference sessions. There was no shortage of the oft-quoted, passion-instilling, lock-yourself-in-a-room-to-read-Plantinga inducing slogan for apologetics that is 1 Peter 3:15—“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” I’ve seen and heard this phrase quoted more times than I can count. It has essentially become the Great Commission for Apologetics.
The exhortation is simple: Christians need to be ready to defend what they believe. This verse provides the biblical charge for Christians to engage in apologetics. But this is not all that we are commanded to do in 1 Peter 3:15. The beginning portion of the passage is rarely, if ever, quoted as a charge to those engaging in apologetics. Yet it provides the foundation for apologetics! Without it, apologetics is utterly useless.
Here is the entire passage, in context:
But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:15-16)
The first thing we are commanded to do is to set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts. This is the foundation for our apologetic. To “set apart” Christ as Lord means to acknowledge that he holds the reins in every area of our lives. We ought to dedicate and consecrate our hearts for God, making Jesus the Lord of our desires, motives, inadequacies—all of who we are. This makes our apologetic more than a mere intellectual exercise; it’s an opportunity to defend the hope we have within us.
We must first have this hope before we defend it. If Christ is not the foundation of our lives from which our apologetic can spring forth and produce fruit, then it is done in vain. All the long hours of study avail nothing if they are not built upon the foundation of who Christ is and what he has done in our lives.
Defending the faith cannot simply be an intellectual pursuit for the faithful apologist; it must be an earnest endeavor to make Christ, the hope of glory, known to those around us. Our defense should stem from the lordship of Christ, who is our hope. Because God has made us “born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3), we can build our apologetic on this very hope. This is the hope we need to express, articulate, and defend to those who ask us. This hope should drive our apologetic.
And because Christ is Lord in our lives, we can fulfill the end of the passage, as well: “do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” That part essentially speaks for itself. No senseless quarreling. No name calling. No outbursts of rage. We must present ourselves and our arguments with gentleness and respect, always seeking to truly understand opposing positions and being charitable in our responses.
To sum it up, the Great Commission for Apologetics gives us three commands:
1. Set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts.
2. Be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope within you.
3. Do this with gentleness and respect.
The next time you feel the urge to quote 1 Peter 3:15, it might be helpful to share the whole passage. Then let the late nights studying Plantinga commence.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Loathe Thy Neighbor? Don't Pray for Paris? A Response to the Responses to #PrayforParis

One of the recent disturbing absurdities that has become increasingly common in response to reports of tragedies in the news is the attempt to redirect sympathy elsewhere by diminishing the importance of the original report. The image below, circulated on social media within hours of the massacre in France, in which over a hundred people were murdered and hundreds more wounded by Islamic terrorists, is a prime example:


Aside from some of the more obvious fallacies inherent in this kind of manipulative propaganda exists a more basic and fatal flaw, namely the implicit notion that human compassion must be limited and thus only distributed to the most worthy of causes.

The result of this implication is that supporters of various causes raise competitive clamors, “Our tragedy is worse! Care about us not them!” as if pity is a sport, and everyone can only be loyal to one team, while despising all the rest. See the following example of a tweet condemning expressions of solidarity for Parisians in the wake of this devastating mass murder rather than the more legitimate concern regarding “microaggressions" at #Mizzou.


We may speculate that perhaps one reason why the “limited compassion premise” is hidden is that while its users are aware that compassion is not limited, money, resources, and political influence are. Therein lies the real competition: “How can I make people care for, contribute to, and spread the word about my issues before they exhaust themselves and their pocketbooks elsewhere?”

Now even if we allow for people to run out of compassion, weirdly, the “limited compassion premise” is even extended to God and prayer. Don’t pray for Paris, we are told, as we must instead pray for Iraq or pray for Syrian refugees or pray that everyone will start posting about why #BlackLivesMatter. God’s infinite compassion and all the treasuries of heaven are not enough for the world, apparently.

“Oh well you mustn’t pray for Paris specifically, but we shall allow you to pray for the world,” our sage and righteous social activists inform us, thereby revealing their blindness to the human heart. Time, space, energy, and earthly life spans may be limited, but not love. Love is the renewable resource, so much so that it increases the more it is spent. Just as a muscle grows when exercised, the spirit expands when it loves, yet the spirit is not bound in space and time as a muscle is. Thus, a love that springs from a connection to the ultimate source of Love, viz. the triune, eternally-existing God, can be limitless.

The enlightened social justice warrior scolds us narrow-minded people for only caring about what happens to the “towers and cafes we find so familiar” instead of more distant, exotic locations. False dilemmas and mistaken assumptions abound, of course, but there is also a failure to see that love begins with the familiar because love begins with family. Love towards my actual neighbor, the people I know and see everyday--whether in seeking to console, speaking hope and light into a darkened mind, or providing for an essential physical need--grounds me against the merely abstract form of “love,” which for some appears as nothing but a passing whimsy of concern.

Everywhere, someone is hurting. The mistake is to think that the importance of one kind of tragedy obliterates the importance of another. It is a mistake to think that by loathing our family and neighbors, we will show more love towards other nationalities and races. In the long-run, this oh-so-urbane self-loathing diminishes the empathy for all causes, even the "right" [or is it "left"?] ones. Furthermore, it is elitist and tribal, thereby serving as the very stuff of opposition and violence.

By caring for those who are close, we train ourselves to see those distant people as neighbors, who can and must be loved. How can I help the distant neighbor? By encouraging active love in my home. Then in my neighborhood. Then in my city. Then in my country. Then, and only then, in my world.


Thursday, November 5, 2015

Eric Metaxes: Is God Dead?

Here's an excellent short video on the existence of God by best-selling author Eric Metaxas:

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Calvinists and Arminians on the Problem of Evil: Who Can Say What? (Guillaume Bignon)

Christians believe that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good. But how can we reconcile belief in God with the abundance of human and animal suffering in our world? Since Christians have different beliefs about God's role in our decisions, responses will vary. In this lecture, theologian Guillaume Bignon discusses the explanations available to Calvinists and Arminians (including Open Theists, Classical Arminians, and Molinists).


In case you're not sure where you stand on the issue of free will, here's the chart from Guillaume's lecture:

Sunday, June 21, 2015

The Problem of Evil and the Skeptic's Dilemma

The Argument from Evil (also called the "Problem of Evil") is the most important argument against theism. But are atheists consistent when they use this argument? In this lecture, I show that atheists often employ an inconsistent methodology when they examine arguments for and against the existence of God. Demanding consistency, however, puts atheists in a dilemma (the "Skeptic's Dilemma").

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Daniel Buttafuoco: What Man Intends for Evil, God Intends for Good (Some Real Life Examples)

Here's a lecture by world-class attorney Daniel Buttafuoco on the "Problem of Evil" (the problem of reconciling God's existence with the abundance of evil in our world).

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Apologetics Conference in New York This Saturday


For those of you in the New York area, we're having a conference on the Problem of Evil this Saturday (June 13, 10:00am-6:00pm) at Christ Assembly of God (47 Pacific St, Franklin Square, New York 11010). The conference is sponsored by Reasonable Faith NYC, Ratio Christi, New York Apologetics, and Acts 17 Apologetics, and the speakers include Philip Murray, Daniel Buttafuoco, David and Marie Wood, Guillaume Bignon, Paul Rezkalla, Nick Mitchell, Anthony Uvenio, and Julie Miller.

Here's the schedule:

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Jennifer Fulwiler: From Atheism to Christianity

Jennifer Fulwiler was a lifelong atheist. While following a number of Christian-atheist discussions, she noticed that Christians have a fuller picture of human experience. Here's her story.

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Yeah, I Took My Kids to See "Mad Max: Fury Road"

The Mad Max series runs on violence, and the most recent installment adds two tanks of nitrous oxide to the engine. Rafer Guzman of Newsday calls Fury Road "a sonic-speed juggernaut of violence and destruction." Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune dubs it "a gargantuan grunge symphony of vehicular mayhem that makes Furious 7 look like Curious George." For Geoff Pevere of the Globe and Mail, the film is "a double-barrelled shotgun enema straight to the senses."

Here's the plot.

Following a nuclear war, vast wastelands are controlled by anyone who can get enough water and gasoline to dominate the people around him. "Immortan Joe" (Hugh Keays-Byrne) leads a cult centered around the flourishing of his own sons, many of whom have a genetic disease that requires regular blood transfusions as treatment. Mad Max (Tom Hardy), the antihero of the series, is captured and turned into a human blood bank. When "Imperator Furiosa" (Charlize Theron) is sent out in her war rig on a mission to retrieve gasoline, Immortan Joe soon realizes that she is attempting to escape, along with his five wives (called "breeders"), one of whom is pregnant. The rest of the movie is the most epic, violent, and stylized car chase in film history.

So why would I take my kids to see such a savage spectacle?

It's simple really. One of the most grievous errors of our time is that many people (especially leaders, educators, and the media) thoroughly misunderstand human nature. The prevailing view is this: Human beings are basically good and only want comfortable lives. Cruelty and selfishness arise when people are prevented from living comfortable lives. Hence, by combatting poverty and oppression, we can eventually achieve a utopia.

This is the silly perspective behind the U.S. government's insistence that we can defeat jihad by giving jobs to terrorists.

The writers of dystopic films tend to have a better grasp of human nature, and George Miller (who wrote all four of the Mad Max films) has a unique ability to peer directly into the human soul. He is somehow able to visualize what the world would be like if the current grounds of ethics and civilized behavior were to break down. The result? "The future belongs to the mad."

We live in a world that has been heavily influenced by Christianity. Even those who reject Christian doctrine have been affected by Christian teachings (e.g., "Love your neighbor as yourself," "Do unto others as you would have them them do unto you," etc.). Many atheists, thoroughly unaware of how Christianity has shaped their convictions, are convinced that their own cherished values will endure even if Christianity were completely forgotten. But the world doesn't work like that. Values may take longer to subside than beliefs, but if those values are based upon the beliefs, they cannot endure without them. Gravity has no pity on a building that has lost its foundation.

Watching a Mad Max film is like reading about certain pre-Christian societies (e.g., the Canaanites or Ammonites) and adding in modern vehicles and weapons. Sure, it's a bloody mess. But if we want our kids to understand what fallen human nature looks like, there's no better way to show them.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

JurassicGate: Chris Pratt Blasts Political Correctness

Our society claims to promote tolerance. Yet what we mean by "tolerance" nowadays seems to be "throwing a tantrum over anything that could conceivably offend anyone, until people pretend they agree on everything."

Tolerance presupposes disagreement. If I agree with your views, I don't need to tolerate them. Tolerance only comes into play when you believe something, I believe something quite different, and we want to make sure we don't start killing each other over our differences.

Yet any departure from the status quo, no matter how trivial, is now perceived as a cringeworthy offense, and is met with howling intolerance by the mindless stormtroopers of political correctness.

Chris Pratt draws attention to this unfortunate cultural degeneration in a recent Facebook post, where he apologizes for the inevitable offense he will cause in the Jurassic World press tour. Here's his scathing "apology":

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Ravi Zacharias on Buddhism, Christianity, and Suffering

According to Buddhism, the source of suffering is desire. Eliminate desire, and you eliminate suffering. The goal, then, is complete detachment.

When his son was born, the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) famously declared: "A fetter has arisen." That is, he perceived his son as an obstacle to his enlightenment. The Buddha then abandoned his wife and child in order to pursue detachment.

Ravi Zacharias compares this response to suffering with the response of Christianity:
"It does not seem accidental that the night Gautama Buddha left his palace to pursue an answer to pain and suffering was the very night his wife was giving birth to their son. In his quest to eliminate suffering, he actually walked out and left his wife alone in the throes of her pain. Contrast this with the God of the Bible, who came into this world Himself in the person of His Son to suffer on the cross, to embrace pain and suffering for the sake of humanity. Buddha walked away from his son and from pain. In Christianity, God is part and parcel of the solution." (Why Suffering?, p. 131)

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Rodney Stark on the New Atheists

Rodney Stark
The "New Atheists" are rapidly becoming the atheistic equivalent of Westboro Baptist Church. Oddly enough, this mass of anti-intellectuals, mindlessly repeating whatever Dawkins & Co. say, happen to view themselves as champions of science and reason.

Dr. Rodney Stark has written more than 30 books and more than 140 scholarly articles and is Distinguished Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University. Here's his assessment of the scholarly prowess of the "New Atheists":
"To expect to learn anything about important theological problems from Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett is like expecting to learn about medieval history from someone who had only read Robin Hood." (Rodney Stark, What Americans Really Believe, p. 120)

Friday, May 15, 2015

Paul Copan on the New Atheists

Paul Copan
Here's a good description of the "New Atheists" by Paul Copan:
The Neo-atheists' arguments against God's existence are surprisingly flimsy, often resembling the simplistic village atheist far more than the credentialed academician. The Neo-atheists are often profoundly ignorant of what they criticize, and they typically receive the greatest laughs and cheers from the philosophically and theologically challenged. True, they effectively utilize a combination of emotion and verbal rhetoric, but they aren't known for logically carrying thoughts through from beginning to end. Their arguments against God's existence aren't intellectually rigorous—although they want to give that impression. Yes, they'll raise some important questions concerning, for example, the problem of evil, but again, their arguments are a collage of rhetorical barbs that don't really form a coherent argument. I've observed that while these men do have expertise in certain fields (biology and evolutionary theory in the case of Dawkins and Dennett), they turn out to be fairly disappointing when arguing against God's existence or Christian doctrine. And a quick check of Dawkins's documentation reveals a lot more time spent on Google than at Oxford University's Bodleian Library. (Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?, p. 17)

Friday, May 8, 2015

Debate: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (David Wood vs. John Loftus)

Jesus' resurrection is the heart of both Christian preaching and Christian living. In 1 Corinthians 15:17, the Apostle Paul said: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless." Hence, Christianity stands or falls with the resurrection of Jesus.

In order to discredit Christianity, atheists simply need to discredit the central miracle on which it is founded. But can atheistic explanations account for the historical facts? If they can't, is atheism a worldview in crisis?

In this video, David Wood (Christian, former atheist) and John Loftus (atheist, former Christian) debate whether Jesus rose from the dead.

Friday, March 20, 2015

Jennifer Fulwiler: How Modern Art Led Me to God

The idea of there being objectivity in art might seem counter-intuitive to most people. After all, art is simply about the expression of feeling and emotion, right? If all art is equally beautiful and good, then we must conclude that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony and Dire Straits' Sultans of Swing are just as good and aurally aesthetic as Justin Bieber's Baby. Perish the thought! All Justin Bieber roasting aside, it does seem that we can look at the grandeur of the Sistine Chapel and conclude that it is objectively more beautiful than a room of empty metal boxes. This is precisely what led atheist Jennifer Fulwiler on the path to Christianity. She wanted to affirm the existence of objective standards for goodness and beauty, but failed to explain how they could exist on an atheistic worldview. This is her story.

Modern Art

There was a recent controversy in Tacoma, Washington because the Tacoma Art Museum considered showing the work of an artist named David Wojnarowicz. Specifically, they wanted to show a video montage he put together that was pulled by the Smithsonian because it was too offensive. The Tacoma museum’s curator responded to critics by saying, “For someone to come and have to confront this image, it’s not going to be easy but art’s not easy.”
Curious about what this non-easy art might involve, I did some searches and found a clip of the video on Youtube (it’s called Fire in My Belly by David Wojnarowicz if you’re interested, though I don’t recommend viewing it). It features images of ants crawling on a crucifix juxtaposed with flickering shots of a young man doing something pornographic.
Oddly, it was this kind of thing that helped lead me to God.
Shortly after I got married, my husband suggested that we check out an international modern art festival that had come to town. At one exhibit we walked into a large room where stylishly-dressed people wandered around rows of metal boxes, nodding and making approving comments. Were we in the wrong place? Had the organizers not had a chance to set the art out on the boxes yet? As it turned out, the metal boxes were the art.
As we walked through the other exhibits, I was amazed at what was considered art: a light bulb, a paper with some holes in it, even an entire building with some spray painting on the side. A favorite approach seemed to be to take something that traditionally symbolized purity and hope (e.g. a sacred religious object) and juxtapose it with something considered dirty and bad (e.g. excrement).
“It’s beautiful,” someone commented at one such exhibit. I recoiled at the statement. If someone wanted to say that this art was thought-provoking or interesting, I could have barely seen where they were coming from. But beautiful? No.
My husband teased me by joking, “Hey, one man’s Sistine Chapel is another man’s metal box!”
“Umm, no,” I mumbled.
At the time I was an atheist, and my husband responded with an interesting question. As we walked back through the rows of metal boxes, he said: “Are you sure that you can defend that statement from a purely atheistic perspective?”
Without thinking about it, I blurted out, “If not, then I denounce atheism. Because I know more than I know anything else that those boxes aren’t as beautiful as the Sistine Chapel.”

Continue Reading.

Friday, February 13, 2015

Another French Atheist Becomes a Christian

Alex was a French atheist, who thought that Christians were weak-minded. After deciding to commit suicide and having an out-of-body experience, he is now a Christian.

Friday, January 30, 2015

Another Atheist Calls for Book Burnings

I posted here about an atheist calling for book burnings, and here about atheists saying that people who believe in God should be wiped out or quarantined. Here's another atheist calling for book burnings. If this comment had come from a Christian, atheists would point to it as clear proof that religion breeds radicalism. But since it comes from an atheist, it's no evidence of anything. Welcome to the amazing world of double standards.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Searching for the Atheist Refutation of Jeffrey Dahmer

Jeffrey Dahmer was an American serial killer who raped and murdered 17 men and boys. He is chiefly remembered for cannibalizing some of his victims.

In his last interview on Dateline NBC, Dahmer explained that he had seen no reason to control his depraved urges, because he didn't believe he would have to answer for his actions.


I'm obviously convinced that Dahmer was wrong, but it's because I believe that there is an ultimate standard of right and wrong and that we are all accountable for our actions. When I was an atheist, I agreed with Dahmer that, in an ultimately meaningless world where humanity is a cosmic accident, we might as well do whatever we feel like doing.

Interestingly, Dahmer and I both eventually realized that we are accountable (because there is a standard of right and wrong) and that we will all stand before him. Here's the full quote from Dahmer:
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing. And I've since come to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, and I believe that I, as well as everyone else, will be accountable to Him."

Monday, January 26, 2015

Are Atheists Becoming More Radical?

A while back, I posted a comment from an atheist who was advocating public burnings of religious books. More recently, I've seen increasing calls from atheists to wipe religions from the planet. Here's an example:


A far more moderate atheist, instead of calling for wiping out Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc., prefers to deport non-atheists to a single continent (hopefully one of the larger ones).


These calls for book-burnings, forced segregation, and massacres are ironic, since the reason for ridding the world of various religions is supposedly that they lead to book-burnings, forced segregation, and massacres.

Oddly enough, however, if a Christian were to propose a book-burning, or the deportation of non-Christians, or violence against non-Christians, this would somehow be proof that Christianity is violent and intolerant. Yet when we see atheists regularly advocating the very same things, we're not supposed to draw any conclusions about atheism.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

Friday, January 23, 2015

The Moral Argument for God's Existence (Reasonable Faith)

Here's an excellent short video by Reasonable Faith (William Lane Craig's ministry) on the moral argument for the existence of God.

Thursday, January 8, 2015