Archive for the ‘Atheism’ Category


Atheists Aren’t Any Better At Being Atheist Than Religious People Being Religious

June 2, 2013


CNN’s website gave a list of famous atheists along with some quotes. I wanted to give my thoughts on these particular ones which stuck out to me, as they are tantamount of the views and assumptions held my many atheists I’ve come across. I realize I don’t have the full context of their words, but I still wanted to say a few things about the quotes given:

Keira Knightley: “If only I wasn’t an atheist; I could get away with anything. You’d just ask for forgiveness, and then you’d be forgiven.”

Right off the bat we see that Keira hasn’t thought things through very much. One could just as easily say the same as an atheist, namely, there is no such thing as “forgiveness”, it’s just an illusion caused by random neuron firings in the brain, thus do whatever you want. In addition, she’s not critiquing Christianity, only a one-sided misconception of Christianity. And she’ll probably never realize this because atheists hardly care to look into these things and be balanced. James 2 teaches that faith without works is dead, meaning dead faith. Works will evidence whether or not our faith is real.

Andy Rooney: “I don’t understand religion at all. I’m sure I’ll offend a lot of people by saying this, but I think it’s all nonsense.”

I wish I could ask him to be more specific. Does he really believe it’s “all” nonsense, including the world wide care and relief that is given due to the belief that God has called us to help those in need?

Read the rest of this entry ?


Talking Snake

May 24, 2013

(talking snake part starts at 5:40)

You can also watch Bill Maher interview Dawkins about it. Maher has been throwing this around as an attempt to trap people into looking dumb for believing the Bible’s stories. I wish I could be on his show and answer his questions. I would simply ask him that if he believes that since human animals evolved to talk, then why does he preclude the possibility of snakes having once done so? According to his worldview there’s no logical reason one should reject the possibility, unless Maher is perhaps a speciesict (= a racist towards other species) and believes that only the human race can evolve to talk. I am not advocating macro Evolution, but am simply pointing out the logical inconsistency that the atheist is ignoring given their own assumptions. If to them one can evolve, why not the other? I’d really like to know.

From the Biblical perspective God is revealing to us his grand story of redemption. And it is a story which is multifaceted. One of the parts is that we must defeat a type of dragon. And if we’re honest, we know that all good stories include this theme.

Read the rest of this entry ?


Discussion With An Atheist (Whom Is A Former Christian)

May 17, 2013

coffee short

This is an ongoing discussion I’m now having with James Stillwell. You can easily find his youtube channel by searching. He formerly did open-air preaching with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. I guess the “crock-o-duck” wasn’t convincing him enough.

What I want you to notice is how the atheist assumes their stance is a purely neutral stance, and that theists must answer all the tough questions, while they somehow get a free pass. They often assume they possess no “positive” assumptions about he world and reality, but only a “negation” of beliefs (God). What we must do is point out to them that they do possess many positive beliefs about the world, hence morality, logic, and purpose rising from non-morality, non-logic, and non-purpose, etc. Enjoy, and please feel free to comment below.


I’ve watched some of your videos and think it’s interesting that a former Christian whom did open air preaching with Kirk and Ray is now an atheist. I’ve watched a few of your videos and figured I try to start a friendly dialogue with you on this one. So here goes… First, you say you are a former Baptist, and I must strongly assert that a Baptistic hermeneutic is more like a brute fact approach to Scripture, rather than a typological approach, whereas the latter is much more consistent.

Read the rest of this entry ?


The Foolishness of Materialistic, Relativistic, Humanism (It Leads Us To Crap)

July 20, 2012

My opinions on this topic are taken from lectures I’ve heard on gnosticism and insights I’ve gathered from the late Francis Schaeffer.

The supposed utopian implications of naturalism are that God can supposedly continue to be justifiably pushed out of the media, the arts, and science so long as Evolution is not openly challenged. As long as Evolution stands un-questioned, naturalism will supposedly remain justified. As long as naturalism is predominant, objective morality, beauty, truth, and meaning will go down the drain. It will be replaced with our invented morality and invented truth which will ultimately end in destruction. The unforeseen downfall to all this is that naturalism inevitably brings about humanism, autonomy, and hedonism in the worst ways. These will become, and have already become the guiding factors of our societies worldview.

Read the rest of this entry ?


Why The Beef With Intelligent Design? (Naturalism Is At Stake)

May 24, 2012

ID became more popularized in 1985 after the publication of Michael Denton’s book “Evolution: A Theory In Crisis”, and in 1999 after the publication of Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”. You can go to my other thread here and read my responses to commonly raised objections to ID. For the purposes of this thread, however, I want to touch on what I see as being the heart of the matter, or the heart of why ID is so controversial. The heart of the matter is that ID poses a threat to philosophical naturalism (matter is all there is), and where there is a threat to philosophical naturalism, there is also believed to be a threat to methodological naturalism (empiricism is the only way to attain true knowledge).

Around 250 years ago it was primarily the influence of philosopher David Hume whom sparked the modern notion that empiricism (observation via the 5 senses) leads to the truth of the world. This has morphed into many assumptions that atheists currently have, ie. the idea that something shouldn’t be believed unless it can by physically demonstrated. It gives the atheist an excuse and means they supposedly are justified in their rejection of God. They fail to consult God as a prime cause (personal starting point for everything). Nor do they wish to acknowledge God through final causes (purpose and order behind creation), but only wish to limit their inquiry of God to Hume’s 5 senses.

Read the rest of this entry ?


Surface Level Bible Contradictions (People Still Hate The Bible Even When You Clarify)

October 29, 2010

The genealogies of Jesus


“Why are the number of generations explained in the gospels of Matthew and Luke tracing the lineage between King David and Jesus not the same? Or even the same # of generations? How would Jesus be a descendant anyway if he was born of a virgin? Its hilarious”


“Mathew traces it through Joseph’s line by 3 groups of 14, which numerically = the name of David in Hebrew. Luke does so thru Mary, or Mary’s father Heli, who may not have had sons – which defaults it to Mary. Jesus is both an earthly descendant and a heavenly one. Lineages are abridged even in the OT (1 Chro 6, Ezra 7).”

Read the rest of this entry ?


Arguing TAG (Transcendental Argument of God) With Naturalistic Atheists

June 9, 2010

Here is a discussion I had with some atheists online where I argue for God’s existence using TAG (Transcendental Argument for God’s existence):

atheist: [talking to someone else] “I am an atheist who has lived his life well and tried to be a good human being, and you are saying that God in his almighty wisdom will send me to hell? Purely for not believing in something that has no evidence? If we are all God’s children he will forgive all non believers, but you clearly think he is some kind of vindictive bastard who will take joy in letting a good human being burn for all eternity?”

me: “You’re not critiquing Christianity or Scripture detours. You may be critiquing something, but it certainly isn’t Christianity. God doesn’t send you or anyone else to hell because you don’t believe, but because you’ve broken His law (you haven’t loved God and others perfectly). And without Yahweh, you can’t account for proof and evidence to begin with, that’s proof of His existence. Not everyone is “God’s child”. That’s no where in Scripture. The gospel is believe and repent to know if you are.”

Read the rest of this entry ?