Non-Atheist Blog

God Evidence

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 19:45:50 -0500

a citizen of some other place.: Attention: Self-Proclaimed Critical Thinkers

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:46:37 -0500

a citizen of some other place.: Attention: Self-Proclaimed Critical Thinkers:

There are very few things about the internet more annoying than the “Lists of Over Nine Thousand Bible Contradictions.” This is not because I’m a sheltered Christian who’s afraid of them. I am willing to admit there are some contradictions in the Bible. Not 5,000. Not 1,000. Not even 300. But…

Why Not Atheism?

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:00:21 -0500

In an interview with philosopher Douglas Groothuis, who spent more than 8 years producing his 752-page tome Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, Lee Strobel asks the following question:

Q. You offer a compelling case for the resurrection of Jesus. What’s the strongest counter-argument to him rising from the dead? And why does that alternative fail?

To which Groothuis replies

A. None of the counter-arguments are as rationally strong as the claim that Jesus left an empty tomb and rose from the dead in space-time actuality. The naturalistic accounts all fail to explain key elements of what we know from history.

However, in recent years, the hallucination theory has generated the most attention, as Gary Habermas has pointed out. This theory affirms that Jesus did not objectively rise from the dead; instead, his followers subjectively hallucinated a resurrection and subsequently built their movement on this delusion. While this counter-argument may be “the best of the bad,” it is still very bad indeed.

First, hallucinations are not group phenomena, but rather individual experiences. But we have well-attested records that many people in their right minds observed the risen Jesus at the same time, as well as other individual appearances (as to Paul).

Second, if many people were deluded about Jesus and began a movement in his name, the Roman government could have put a stop to the young Jesus movement by producing his corpse publicly. They had both the means and the motive to do so. But we have no record of anything like that.

Third, Jesus’ followers did not expect him to rise from the dead. This was not part of their theology and they did not understand Jesus when he made reference to this fact before his resurrection. N.T Wright strongly argues for this. But hallucinations usually involve some form of wish fulfillment: people strongly desire something, and then hallucinate about it. This does not fit the objective historical evidence about Jesus’ followers at all.

Read the full interview for more answers for “why not?”

Darwin’s Heretic: Did the Co-Founder of Evolution Embrace...

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:23:55 -0500

Darwin’s Heretic: Did the Co-Founder of Evolution Embrace Intelligent Design?

The Ghosts of Atheism

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:07:57 -0500

Atheists don’t believe in the supernatural so they naturally don’t believe in ghosts.

Well as Robert Velarde demonstrates in his article, Ghosts for the Atheists even atheists have ghosts.

It’s not that they don’t exist, it’s just that like so many other things, they simply try to deny their existence.

Originally seen here.

'fulfilled covenant': What's Left of Atheism

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:57:49 -0500

'fulfilled covenant': What's Left of Atheism:

sungyak:

I’ve received various responses to my posts on ‘Science and Faith’ (unlike certain atheists who are concerned with nothing more than exercising their photoshop skills on Tumblr, some have actually engaged in something like a rational dialogue). I think most of these responses understand what I’ve…

Good word

Original Source

The Unfriendly Atheist: Reason

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:33:00 -0500

The Unfriendly Atheist: Reason:

apple-beverage:

rudderandbit:

At the heart of unbelief is not reason, but the desire to self-determine right and wrong in order to justify sin. Press a person hard enough and you’ll quickly see that it’s not a matter of intelligence that they don’t believe, but that they don’t like a particular teaching or command of God. If there is no God, there is no reason not to do whatever I want.

The appeal of unbelief is not reason but sin.

unfriendlyatheist:

Alright kids, what logical fallacy is this? Strawman argument, giving a false definition behind something and then arguing against it from this false definition?

At the heart of belief is not reason, but the desire to self-determine right and wrong in order to justify human rights violations. Press a person hard enough and you’ll quickly see that it’s not a matter of intelligence that they believe, but that they don’t like a particular minority or group different than themselves. If there is a personal deity, there is suddenly supreme justification for whatever I want.

The appeal of belief is not reason but bigotry.

So is what you’re saying similar or different to what’s going on with the Chinese government and the Christian Church?

I find it conveniently overlooked that while secular humanists are busy accusing Christians of the inquisition, which we repeatedly deplore, the humanistic Chinese government has been just as busy persecuting the Christian church. The same happened in the former USSR.

Christians are often called bigots who are simply opposed to minority groups that don’t share their same beliefs. This is a convenient argument if you wish not to address any facts, but would rather create smokescreens to persuade the gullible.

Sounds like you’d like a society that simply consists of people who think exactly like you and you’ll do whatever it takes to get it.

How are you different?

Making sense of how an atheist is made

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:29:00 -0500

Making sense of how an atheist is made:

Interesting article on the book, The Making of an Atheist. A few quotes in particular:

The problem of evil, and issues of science are largely smokescreens that mask atheist’s immorality and guilt.

When atheism fully sets in, what results? “Spiritual deadness ensures that we can’t discover our spiritual deadness” (p. 90). Further, “it is difficult for theists to reason with atheists about worldview matters when such basic features of spiritual life are so denigrated. For this reason, we should not expect atheists to respond positively to rational arguments” (p. 101). But Spiegel balances this perspective with the admonition to always be ready to give a reason to everyone who asks.

Original Source

The Reason Rally

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:07:00 -0500

The Reason Rally:

Long article but great insight on how ridiculous Richard Dawkins, et al. really are.

Second, although Eagleton isn’t sure about how far to take biblical stories such as the fall in Eden as actual history, he confesses to having found its narrative of creation and the fall as “far more radical” and compelling than the cheerful myth of perfectibility and progress, “with its eminently suburban, smugly sanguine trust in the efficacy of a spot of social engineering here and a dose of liberal enlightenment there.” At the heart of Christian theology, Eagleton observes, is a humanism more radical than atheists can muster and an appreciation for the tragedy of the human condition that they are emotionally opposed to even considering. Christianity is the sort of faith expressed “by a human being at the end of his tether, foundering in darkness, pain, and bewilderment, who nevertheless remains faithful to the promise of a transformative love.”

A Sceptical Student encounters Jesus Original Source

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:43:00 -0500

A Sceptical Student encounters Jesus

Original Source

Why Not Unicorns?

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:22:00 -0500

In their post, Can Reason Lead Us to Relationship with God? the author counters the commonly false assertion that a non-belief in God is no different than not believing in unicorns. The author states:

I knew what she meant, and I acknowledged that I was struggling with putting these thoughts into words. “No, there is a difference that you’re not seeing. Believing in unicorns is a function of faith; there is no evidence for them, and no good reason to believe they exist. But if you had actual evidence – from trusted sources – that such animals existed, your “faith” in them might eventually become reasonable. The problem isn’t that believing in exotic animals is irrational; the problem is that believing in such animals when there is no evidence - no reason - to support that belief is irrational.”

You can say you don’t agree with the reasons, or the evidence or even that you don’t want to believe in the evidence, but you can’t say there is not evidence or there is no valid reasons for people to believe there is a God.

Just because you don’t like the evidence doesn’t mean the thing the evidence points to doesn’t exist.

Faith in God is not blind faith. Even Jesus tells us to reason, to consider, to look and see the evidence.

Original Source

Analysis & Response to 'Zeitgeist'

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:09:25 -0500

Analysis & Response to 'Zeitgeist':

johnnyis:

Dear every-anti-theist-ever,

Please read this article well, so that we don’t have to waste time explaining why the 19th century Jesus Myth theory died out so rapidly and can move on to some real objections.

Sincerely,

Every-time-I-see-a-“Jesus-myth”-post-I-scream.

Rudder & Bit: River of self

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:14:34 -0500

Rudder & Bit: River of self:

rudderandbit:

The worst kinds of religion and unbelief share this one thing in common: pride.

Religious pride is presenting God the checklist of duties you’ve determined to accomplish in order to earn God’s favor and demanding he notice. There is no need for God, and especially no need for Christ, if you can…

Scientific Study Requires a Christian Worldview

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:43:25 -0500

Great article over at The Resurgence on Why Science Needs the Christian Worldview. Justin Holcomb lists nine “borrowed elements” of the Christian worldview required in order to even accomplish scientific, deductive reasoning, which without would produce nothing more than confusion, circular reasoning and flat out chaos.

These presuppositions include:

The uniformity of nature
Induction
Ontological/Epistemological reasoning
Mathematical realism
Methodological, epistemic, and ethical values
The reliability of the human mind and sensory factories
Ontological/conceptual categories
The usefulness/adequacy of human language to describe nature
The existence of singularities, ultimate boundary conditions, and brute givens

Strict atheism cannot account for any of these. To see an explanation/example of each of the above nine presuppositions, see the article on The Resurgence.

As Holcomb states:

My argument is that only the Christian description of the world offers these presuppositions necessary for scientific inquiry. The philosophical preconditions for science are in the pages of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.

Original source

59 Confirmed or Historically Probable Facts in the Gospel of John

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:24:54 -0500

Truthbomb Apologetics lists 59 Confirmed or Historically Probable Facts in the Gospel of John derived from Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel.

Here are 10 that particularly stood out to me:

Given the early Christian tendency towards asceticism, the wine miracle is an unlikely invention [2:8].
Archaeology confirms the proper place of Jacob’s Well [4:6].
Archaeology confirms the proper location of Bethesda [5:2]. [Excavations between 1914 and 1938 uncovered that pool and found it to be just as John described it. Since that structure did not exist after the Romans destroyed the city in A.D. 70, it’s unlikely any later non-eyewitness could have described it in such vivid detail. Moreover, John says that this structure “is in Jerusalem,” implying that he’s writing before 70].
Jesus’ own testimony being invalid without the Father is an unlikely Christian invention [5:31]; a later redactor would be eager to highlight Jesus’ divinity and would probably make his witness self-authenticating.
The rejection of Jesus by many of his disciples is also an unlikely invention [6:66].
The two predominant opinions of Jesus, one that Jesus was a “good man” and the other that he “deceives people,” would not be the two choices John would have made up [7:12]; a later Christian writer would have probably inserted the opinion that Jesus was God.
Archaeology confirms the existence and location of the Pool of Siloam [9:7].
“The Father is greater than I” is an unlikely invention [14:28], especially if John wanted to make up the deity of Christ [as the critics claim he did].
After the spear was thrust into Jesus’ side, out came what appeared to be blood and water [19:34]. Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid father in the sac around the heart called the pericardium. John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony.
Mary Magdalene [20:1], a formerly demon-possessed woman [Luke 8:2], would not be invented as the empty tomb’s first witness; in fact, women in general would not be presented as witnesses in a made-up story.

Read the full list here.

whiteflagxp: New Atheists: Intellectual Cream of the...

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:40:25 -0500

whiteflagxp:

New Atheists: Intellectual Cream of the Crop?

Hardly.

Question Evolution Campaign Responds

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:35:14 -0500

An interesting post on creation.com was posted today in which one of the authors systematically responds to a reader’s skepticism and confusion over the academic credentials of the site. After finding the site through a popular social news site and spending four hours reading through various articles he concludes his stumped how seemingly intelligent scientists could actually question naturalistic evolution and instead believe what the Bible teaches.

From the post:

Sam B. emailed us, having spent some hours reading articles on creation.com, after being alerted to CMI’s Question Evolution campaign by an atheist blog site. Sam’s email is presented in its entirety and then Philip Bell responds.

Read the full post:

Skeptic puzzled by ‘Question Evolution’ campaign - Atheist is both appreciative, but perplexed over CMI’s use of science

"If the defeated and depressed group of disciples overnight could change into a victorious movement..."

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:29:00 -0500

“If the defeated and depressed group of disciples overnight could change into a victorious movement of faith, based only on autosuggestion or self-deception—without a fundamental faith experience—then this would be a much greater miracle than the resurrection itself.”

- Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, p. 126.

http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/02/pinchas-lapide-on-miracle-of.html

Conviently the same

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:14:05 -0500

It’s curious that most atheists are happy to say science explains everything yet when the question raised falls outside of science they’re just as happy to frustratingly say it’s not science’s job to explain that!

It’s convenient to have a worldview that supposedly explains everything so long as it’s not forced to actually do so.

Oh, and to say science can explain it but we just haven’t evolved enough to figure it out is just as conveniently justifying your belief by faith that what you hope to be true is in fact true.

Compared to any other ancient document, the New Testament...

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:38:00 -0500

Compared to any other ancient document, the New Testament already carries the most compelling evidence for reliability. This chart shows the overwhelming evidence, as far as the number of manuscripts and the time span between the original and copy, that we can trust that what we have of the New Testament is what the authors wrote. Any further corroboration from possible earlier manuscript fragments of Mark is simply piling on top of what is already convincing evidence.

Original Source