Josiah Concept Ministries

Defending the Faith Against Its Detractors

Archive for the ‘Atheism’ Category

« Previous Entries

Another Atheist Double Standard

Posted by Cory Tucholski on July 2, 2009

I’ve been told that my answer to the final “proof” of God is Imaginary (here) is a non-answer because it involves personal experience. But, the WWGHA forums (the owners of the site God is Imaginary) have touted this post as proof positive that God is imaginary.

The problem? The post involves someone’s personal experience. How can that post be considered evidence for anything? If my answer is a nonanswer, then this post means nothing.

On the other hand, why should the man’s experience have led him to atheism? Why does he decry God for waiting to answer his prayer? The story makes it clear: God answered his prayer in an unexpected way, it just wasn’t soon enough.

This is par for the course for anyone who believes the crap on WWGHA and GII. God is only allowed to answer prayers in a specific box-like, automaton fashion and they must be answered immediately. And, moreover, God is not allowed to use intermediaries–the answer must miraculously drop out of the sky to be considered a bona fide answer to prayer.

The real reason this man is an atheist? He’s mad at God for waiting. I pray he gets over it.

Posted in Atheism, Prayers | Leave a Comment »

Atheist Double Standard

Posted by Cory Tucholski on June 23, 2009

My laugh for today is this comment, from a reader who identifies himself as Steve:

How in God’s name are you going to publish a book? You work in fast food and don’t have the credentials or credibility to even think about a book. It’s almost insulting to the people who have spent much time and money in their education and relevent [sic] work experience. You can’t just say “I’m going to write a book” There are prerequisites.

I have to wonder if this guy would have said the same thing to a fashion editor publishing on the history of religion (Christopher Hitchens), an evolutionary biologist publishing on philosophy (Richard Dawkins), or someone with a high school education becoming a fellow of an academic think-tank (Tom Verenna, aka Rook Hawkins).

Atheists, when they publish, are granted free license to write about any topic they so choose. As long as it serves the name of atheism or anti-theism, they are granted credibility by their audience of admirers whether they have it or not.

The site that I’m answering in my proposed book, God is Imaginary, is allegedly written by Marshall Brain, founder of HowStuffWorks.com. According to Wikipedia, Brain has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a master’s in computer science. This qualifies a person to maintain websites debunking religion? Yet, that site is often referred to as a resource for debunking Christianity by many atheists online. The site has a credibility that it should not have.

As academic layman in the category of religion, Brain and I are equals. No one would take on these sites from the academic community because they aren’t argued from an academic perspective. Having an academic, such as William Lane Craig, I take on these sites would be overkill. Therefore, I’m the perfect candidate to write a rebuttal, since I am an academic layman also.

What happens if the credibility factor does become a problem, and agents and publishers reject the proposal based on that? No problem, I have other writing projects that I am working on at the moment where credibility isn’t a problem. I can always try again with this proposal in a few years, when I will have the academic credibility.

That said, I would like to welcome long-time reader John C back! I hope that you find this blog more to your liking. I promise not to focus so much on Rey’s replies, as I should be taking on the best arguments from the other side, not the worst arguments from our own.

Posted in Atheism, Humor, Personal | 7 Comments »

Maybe There’s a More Constitutional Way to Do This?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 13, 2009

As much as I love Jesus Christ and Christianity, we live in a secular world with secular values. I have to begrudgingly admit that VJack from Atheist Revolution is right.

Apparently, the U.S. Army is promoting Christianity as the solution to soldiers who threaten suicide.

Before I say why I think VJack is right, I should remind my readers that studies have been conducted that show a causal connection between suicide and atheism. Further, suicide rates among the religious are lower, as are stress levels. Time Magazine recently published an article that links regular prayer with the ability to heal faster and better. No matter what the atheists say, religion is a good thing.

Unfortunately, living in the society that we do, it is illegal to promote one religion over another. Therefore, VJack is right in the sense that we shouldn’t promote Christianity alone to soldiers. What about the rights of the non-Christian chaplains who will be forced to present that material?

Here’s the giant “but.” BUT, what about promoting religion in general as an answer to suicide? That is not illegal, and it even has benefits (outlined above). It should satisfy everyone concerned–except the atheist, of course.

There is another reason why I would be against promoting only Christianity as the alternative for suicide. Christianity is not a coerced religion; it is a religion which one must freely choose to follow. If the military is forcing its soldiers to follow Christianity, then a major point of the Christian faith is lost. Suddenly someone is a Christian not by choice or by preference, but because the military says they are.

This problem is the same facing the Roman Empire under Constantine. Constantine forced people to adopt Christianity as the state religion, and all discipleship was lost. Discipleship is one of the keys to Christianity; a person must learn what it means to be a Christian as a disciple to someone who already knows. The link to the left on Discipleship 101 should help any readers with that point.

Bottom line: Christianity is a journey and it requires the Christian to be willing to undertake the journey. If Christianity is coerced by the Army, it isn’t Christianity anymore.

Posted in Atheism | 7 Comments »

The Beattitude Says That the Bible Commands Christians to Kill Unbelievers

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 12, 2009

Imagine my surprise when I found this post in my list of the most popular posts of the moment. A skeptic who goes by the moniker “The Beattitude” posts a few verses that seem to indicate that the Bible commands us to kill unbelievers. I suppose that commands like that make him nervous, being an unbeliever himself he doesn’t want to end up a bloody smear under a pile of rocks.

I can confidently say that that is not going to happen, because the commands given were directed at the ancient Israelites under the Mosaic Law, which is not in force anymore.

But moreover, I’ve refuted this crap already. Don’t atheists pay attention to what Christians say? That would be a lot of effort, and of course the fact that reasonable replies exist to their charges would shatter their comfortable God-less worldview.

Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Heresy | 2 Comments »

Atheist Renounces Atheism

Posted by Cory Tucholski on April 19, 2009

British writer and avowed atheist A.N. Wilson, author of Jesus: A Life, has recently annouced that he is returning to his Christian faith.

This is exciting news, and what I hope is the herald of other similar conversions. I think that it would be very glorifying to God if he drew several avowed atheists to himself, especially public figures like Wilson.

Welcome back to the family of God, Mr. Wilson!

Posted in Atheism | Leave a Comment »

Harris & Russell Make a big Mistake

Posted by Cory Tucholski on April 5, 2009

Atheism is Dead has an excellent post about a mistake being passed around by Sam Harris. In The End of Faith, Harris writes that Bertrand Russell:

had it right when he made the following observation: ‘The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured these infants went to Heaven.

‘No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so. In countless ways the doctrine of personal immortality in its Christian form has had disastrous effects upon morals….’

I find it amazing that “No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action.” I would like to know, first, what Harris’s definition of “orthodox” is, then I would like to know what definition of “logical” that he is working from.

Without that knowledge, Mariano provides the answer in Exodus 20:13: “You shall not murder.” Now, this is kind of dangerous. First, he doesn’t know what definitions of the terms “orthodox” and “logical” that Harris was working from. Second, he leaves himself open to the usual suspect charges of genocide in the Bible. Now don’t worry, Mariano, I’ve provided commentary on God-ordered genocide in the Bible right here.

Mariano then has a lengthy commentary on the Great Commision, which I agree with wholeheartedly. The purpose of the Christian is to baptize and then teach, not to baptize and then kill. That just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Great post, as usual, from the good folks over at Atheism is Dead. I highly reccomend reading it, as my summary doesn’t do it any justice. The post touches on themes that I’ve been blogging about over here for the last couple of weeks–that atheism has no grounds for morals. That’s not to say that atheists themselves are immoral, but that atheism itself provides no grounds for an absolute or universal moral law. We all know that one exists, there’s no point in denying it. The existence of such a law points to the existence of a Lawgiver: God.

Which makes me wonder: why are atheists always complaining that there is no evidence for God? If they mean empirical, scientific evidence, then I would say that there is plenty. Namely, the universe itself. Atheism has no answer for the ultimate philosophical dilemma: Why is there something rather than nothing? The apostle Paul said that men are without excuse for not knowing about God, because nature provides all the evidence that you need.

On the other hand, there is also much philosophical evidence for God. The moral argument, the ontological argument, and the teleological argument (which, contrary to popular opinion, has not been refuted completely).

Yet, point any of this out, and the atheist rationalizes it all away, still complaining that there is no evidence for God.

Posted in Apologetics, Atheism | 16 Comments »

2 Thessalonians 2:11 Illustrated

Posted by Cory Tucholski on March 30, 2009

Atheist Revolution’s VJack has a very interesting post about whether or not atheism is voluntary. Atheism, it seems to VJack, is “less voluntary than many other beliefs.” It seems that atheism is something that someone is left with after exploring all other beliefs.

VJack says:

Sitting here today, knowing what I know, experiencing what I have experienced, living the life I have led, I am not sure that I could now convince myself to believe in the Christian god or associated dogma even if I desperately wanted to do so. It is as if I have passed a point of no return. (source, emphasis added)

I think that it is interesting that he chose that particular phrasing. Because the Bible teaches that there is, indeed, a “point of no return” for the faithless. Consider this:

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 The 2:9-12, emphasis added)

This means that, eventually, God will allow you to believe what you choose to believe about him. And moreover, he will send you a powerful delusion so that you will always believe that, no matter what happens. This is God’s judgment on the sinner.

It seems that VJack has crossed a line, and now can no longer believe in God. This is very sad news. VJack has, through his life, brought a strong judgment from God upon himself.

It doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love VJack. Quite the opposite–God loves everyone, including VJack. It means that VJack can still repent of this and turn his faith to God, and God will welcome him with open arms. Unfortunately, VJack’s own words seem to preclude this possibility, and God has judged accordingly.

The line has been drawn. I hope VJack knows what he’s doing.

Posted in Atheism, Theology | 3 Comments »

Atheists Dodge Their History of Violence

Posted by Cory Tucholski on March 28, 2009

It is common for atheists to cite religious violence as “evidence” against God. How this is evidence against God is unclear in my mind; if anything it is evidence that we have definitely not gotten everything right. It is evidence, in other words, that religion doesn’t always adhere to the teachings of its holy Scriptures. And that isn’t a surprise, since we’re fallible humans.

Somehow, it’s okay for atheists to cite ad nauseum the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and the Salem Witch Trials as evidence that Christiantiy is a violent religion. But it isn’t okay for Christians to cite atheist regimes like Pol Pot for the same effect. Dinesh D’Souza counters that argument in this short video, which I couldn’t resist posting since I’ve been on about atheism in my last few posts.

Posted in Apologetics, Atheism | 14 Comments »

Is this the Best Atheists can Do?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on March 25, 2009

Image via I Can Has Cheezburger.com

Image via I Can Has Cheezburger.com

I’ve been entertaining arguments from the atheists that drifted over here from Unreasonable Faith. It’s been interesting, to say the least.

In reading the various comments that have flown my way, I have come to the conclusion that we, as theists, should be utterly ashamed of ourselves for losing anyone to atheism. If the non-arguments that I’ve been getting in my comment section from atheists is any indication of the broader arguments for their worldview, I don’t see how anyone could be convinced. For one thing, most of the non-arguments that fly in my direction don’t even address the issue that I did.

I charge that Daniel Florien gets his morals from the Bible. In response, I’m asked how ancient people got their morals before we had the Bible. This is a point in the argument? How, exactly? I never charged ancient people before the Bible with getting their morals from the Bible, I charged Daniel Florien with getting his morals from the Bible. No one has convincingly responded that Mr. Florien gets his sense of morality from anywhere else, not even Mr. Florien himself. But somehow, ancient people having morality before the Bible was written is supposed to convince me that Mr. Florien gets his morals elsewhere. Pretty shaky logic.

I also have two people bring up the fact that animals have rudimentary morals, as if that somehow breaks my argument. It doesn’t. It actually strengthens my position that the world was created with a specific order in nature, and that points at the universe having a personal beginning.

Okay, atheists, listen up: I don’t have to answer for any culture other than our own because my charge was at our own culture and the fact that our morals are biblically based. Bringing other cultures into this is just misdirection. The fact that the Bible has not been around to influence every culture, yet every culture has similar moral absolutes does not strengthen your argument, it points to the existence of a universally applicable moral law and that strengthens my argument.

Furthermore, pointing to animal morality does nothing to further your case. It actually cements mine. If God created the universe, as I’m arguing he did, then we would logically expect to see an order to the natural world, even rudimentary morality in lower forms of life. Your “arguments” actually help my case out, whether you realize they do or not.

Finally, quit bringing up “points” that you think denigrate the Bible but actually show that your theological knowledge is sadly lacking. I’ve already answered all of that crap before and I’m tired of wasting blog space answering it again. We’re not under Old Testament Law anymore, so enforcing the penalties is solely God’s domain now. We have no right to stone to death anyone for violating a commandment. The penalties are there to show us how seriously God takes what we think are only “minor” sins like working on the Sabbath or disobeying our parents.

If you are still hellbent (pardon the pun) on proving that Old Testament morality is antiquated or insane, consider Paul Copan’s response here. If you think you know better than the President of my own Evangelical Philosophical Society, then try to answer his article. I’ve issued that challenge in the past to one of your own, Reed Braden of Homosecular Gaytheist, and I’m not holding my breath for a response from him. I’ve generally found linking to that article is a good way to silence critics of Old Testament morality.

So, atheists: Is what I’ve seen so far really the best that you can do?

Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Personal | 33 Comments »

Daniel Florien Denies His Morals Come From the Bible (Surprised?)

Posted by Cory Tucholski on March 24, 2009

Daniel Florien of Unreasonable Faith denies a charge I leveled at him: that his morals come from the Bible, same as mine. Where do his morals come from?

I get my morals from myself and my society. I treat others like I want to be treated, because that’s how I want others to treat me. I don’t steal because I don’t want to be stolen from. I don’t murder because I don’t particularly want to be murdered. And so on. (emphasis added)

In his book He is There and He is not Silent, Francis Schaeffer spends a chapter on this sort of mentality. The Greek philosophers tried to discover where morals come from, and one of their hypotheses was the polis, or city. For the Greek philosopher, the polis represented more than the physical city; it represented the entire social structure as well. The philosophers eventually rejected that notion, but it seems that modern thinkers are much more enlightened than the ancient Greeks, because the idea of morals stemming from the polis is back among atheists.

Rather than morality ruling society, society rules morality. It reduces morality to a majority vote. But morality is not, nor ever will be, a majority vote. The Greeks knew that, which is why they rejected the idea that the polis is the source of morality. Why don’t modern atheists see the same thing?

So is the self the source of morals? The Bible seems to support the notion that morality is the heart of people (Jer 31:33). The problem that we encounter when we make self the source of morals can be summed up by taking Florien’s expercise a step further.

He doesn’t steal or murder because he doesn’t want someone to steal from him or murder him. Fair enough. But what if he doesn’t mind it when his girlfriend cheats on him? Is it then acceptable for him to cheat on his girlfriend because it’s okay with him if she does the same? Well, I doubt that Mr. Florien’s girlfriend would agree (if he has one).

We can agree that the self may contain some morals. But it isn’t a perfect source for morality, as I’ve demonstrated above. There has to be some other source, some factor that guides our morality, a source that is perfect. We instinctively know that this source exists, somewhere. It isn’t the self, because the self is not perfect. It isn’t the polis, because that would reduce morality to a majority vote of various imperfect selves.

So what is that elusive source of morality that we all know exists? It must exist outside of self and outside of the polis, since it guides the actions of both rather than the other way around. I submit that that source is God, and that Mr. Florien (along with his atheist friends kind enough to visit my humble blog) draws his morality from God whether he knows it or not.

Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Morality, Theology | 26 Comments »

« Previous Entries