Blog Archives

The REAL Christian Delusion

[Christians] need to wake up from the illusion that the America we now live in – not the America of our nostalgia or imagination or best ideals, but the real America we live in here and now – is somehow friendly to our faith. What we’re watching emerge in this country is a new kind of paganism, an atheism with air-conditioning and digital TV. And it is neither tolerant nor morally neutral.

— Archbishop Charles Chaput

Chritians Respond to the Extreme Claims of the Reason Rally

Image

Authors of new book highlight irrationality of atheists' claim to be defenders of reason

Leading atheist Richard Dawkins has said, “The time has come for people of reason to say: Enough is enough!  Religious faith discourages independent thought, it’s divisive and it’s dangerous.” Today, Christian thinkers from around the world announce the publication of the Patheos Press ebook “True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism.

Featuring chapters by Dr. William Lane Craig, Sean McDowell, and eleven other Christian scholars and thinkers, “True Reason” presents a well-reasoned rejoinder to the arrogance of the New Atheists and their upcoming “Reason Rally.” The book:

  • Demonstrates New Atheist leaders’ consistent failure in the use of reasoning.
  • Explains how the Christian faith and good reasoning work well together.
  • Clarifies the reasonability of Christian practice now and throughout history.

“This is a book to encourage, inform, and equip Christian believers. It’s also bound to raise controversy,” said general editor Tom Gilson. “The careful reasoning of this book will deliver a tremendous challenge to the New Atheists as they prepare for their ‘Reason’ Rally in Washington. And it will benefit Christians long after that, by equipping them for challenges to the faith that are bound to keep on coming,” added Gilson.

“True Reason” is co-edited by Gilson, a ministry strategist and author working jointly with Campus Crusade for Christ and the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and Carson Weitnauer, director of Telos Ministries, a campus ministry that reaches the intellectual elite at Boston area universities including Harvard.

The book is being released in conjunction with an initiative to bring dozens of thoughtful Christians to the Reason Rally, to create an obvious contrast between the Reason Rally and True Reason. The Reason Rally takes place on the National Mall in Washington D.C. on March 24, 2012, with headline speakers including Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, and Adam Savage of Mythbusters, and the rock band Bad Religion.

The united Christian outreach to the Reason Rally is being led by: Ratio Christi, ThinkingChristian.net, Reasons for God, The Apologetics Bloggers Alliance, and The Christian Apologetics Alliance.

What is True Christianity(tm)? (part 1)

It keeps coming up in discussions with atheists that I say certain Christians are wrong about particulars of Christianity.  And they are.  If I’m right on certain things (which I think I am), then necessarily others who disagree with me are wrong.  Not a radical notion.

What do you suppose happens when I call a Christian’s particular doctrine into question?  I always get the same response from the atheist.  He sarcastically tells me that I believe I’m the only one who has found True Christianity™ and that I believe every other Christian will burn, just like every other Christian he has spoken to, because believers are all that arrogant.

I think that is more evidence of the shallow thinking of the atheist, not to mention their complete ignorance of theology.  Atheists, I’m going to make this as plain as I possibly can:  There is no such thing as True Christianity™! Read the rest of this entry

Atheists Who Say I’m Mistaken Theologically, Consider This…

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

— 1 Corinthians 2:14

Controversy: The Vox Day Quote

Updated to clean up some awkward phrasing (9/21/11 @ 8:30am EDT)

Alex has had some strong words to say regarding my recent posting of a Vox Day quote and labeling it as the best quote ever.

He said the quote was ignorant and stupid.  I told everyone that it was meant humorously and to please lighten up.  Then, he said posting the quote makes me look stupid:

Oh, I always have fun, however that shouldn’t justify stupidity. And it’s a bit scary that the quote is supposed to be awesome in a theistic perspective; you’re embracing unsubstantiated and stupid claims, said in a poor way, using words he doesn’t understand. And you think that is awesome? No, Cory, it makes you look stupid next to it, and hopefully that isn’t what you intended.

And then he tries to shame me into investigating why by bringing up my recent declaration that I seek truth.

But, I don’t think the quote is stupid or that it makes me look stupid.  I’m going to examine why that is, but first, I would like to whine.

Why do I have to justify everything I do to atheists?  None of them justify a single argument, even when I’ve asked.  All I ever seem to get is the whole burden-of-proof-is-on-me-the-theist talking point.  Fine.  But in a court case, the defense still presents an argument.  So man up and stop asserting stuff with no justification.

The reason I whined about that is because that is all Alex does.  Specifically, between two comments in that post, he asserts that the quote:

  • is a remarkably stupid example of argument from ignorance
  • demonstrates poor understanding of the concepts touched on
  • makes unsubstantiated assertions
  • misuses “esoteric”
  • states its point poorly

None of his own claims are substantiated, yet I’m about to expound on why I think this is a great quote.  Fine, let’s get this over with. Read the rest of this entry

Best Quote Ever

I am saying that they are wrong, they are reliably, verifiably, and factually incorrect. Richard Dawkins is wrong. Daniel C. Dennett is wrong. Christopher Hitchens is drunk, and he’s wrong. Michel Onfray is French, and he’s wrong. Sam Harris is so superlatively wrong that it will require the development of esoteric mathematics operating simultaneously in multiple dimensions to fully comprehend the orders of magnitude of his wrongness.

— Vox Day

Jennifer Fulwiler on Bridging the Gap Between Faith and Reason

Atheism: The Paper Tiger

Robert Kunda has an excellent post on the futility of atheist arguments.  Excerpt:

I was [an atheist]. I joined in all the thoughtless rhetoric. I’ve since grown up (at least in some measure). And I still hear the same nonsensical rants spouted off that I used to, as if Christians have never heard the bumper-sticky slogans before. (It’s worth noting that in many of the debates mentioned, like the overwhelming majority of Christian critics, the Christianity that’s being argued against generally bears little or no resemblance to biblical Christianity. These guys put all this effort into rebutting beliefs no one holds. I believe Christendom as a whole warrants a large portion of the blame for failing to present a cogent description and defense of their faith to the population as a whole.)

Why isn’t atheism very dangerous to Christians with a firm foundation in their faith?  Because “[i]t’s hard to convince someone that someone that they actually know doesn’t actually exist.”

The real threat comes from inside the church!

Read the rest

Twitter Facepalm: @biblealsosays

I’ve been engaging a Twitter “twit” who goes by @biblealsosays.  In one of our conversations, he insisted that he knew the Bible better than any Christian, especially me.

After reading a recent tweet from him, I respond (with all due respect to Brian Van Hoose): “You are wrong, now let me tell you why!”

The tweet in question:

https://twitter.com/#!/BibleAlsoSays/status/64852405308768256

How could Billy Graham possibly know that?  Likely, Billy read this:

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1 Cor 15:35-49)

That’s pretty clear.  And it’s in the Bible that @biblealsosays insists he knows better than Christians like Billy Graham!  The Bible unequivocally states that, in the Resurrection, we will receive new bodies–bodies that aren’t corrupted by sin like the ones we wear now.

So, kids, our lesson today is as follows: “Please read carefully that which you wish to criticize.  Otherwise, you run the risk of looking really stupid.”  Class dismissed.

Monica’s Longer Arguments No Better Than the Tweets, part 3

Yesterday, I promised that we would see how shallow the typical atheist seems to read the Bible.  I actually learned that long ago with my failed foray into the forums of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees.  It didn’t take long for the crew to harp on one of their favorite passages in the Bible, where Jesus says that if we pray for a mountain to move, that it will get up and move (Mt 17:20).

Obviously, if I pray for Mt. Everest to levitate over the ocean and land in the Appalachian Mountains, we know that won’t happen.  Which leads to two general conclusions about that passage.  Either Jesus was speaking metaphorically, or the Bible is total bull.  WWGHA concludes the latter without even considering the former.

If a Christian argues that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, then the whole forum membership throws a collective fit and claims it is impossible to discern metaphors and literary devices in the Bible from the literal parts.  Which leads them to believe that the entire Bible is to be taken at 100% face value, no matter what.

The TV series Police Squad! was a straight-laced cop drama that took place in an alternate universe where there is no such thing as figurative language.  If someone said that a name “rings a bell,” then a distant bell would ring.  A running gag was for Lt. Drebin to offer a witness a cigarette by holding it to them and simply saying it’s name.

“Cigarette?” he would ask.

The witness would make eye contact with Drebin and reply, “Yes, it is!”

This is how the atheists of WWGHA read the Bible–as though it were absent figurative language.  This atheist looks at an obvious example of metaphor and says, “Well, the Almighty God said it, he would be clear about it, so it must be true that you can move a mountain as Jesus says here!”  They realize that you can’t, because no one can move a mountain like that.  So, they force the conclusion that the Bible is completely false, based only upon their erroneous interpretation of the text.

This is an example of the same sort of fallacy.  Here, Monica (Twitter user @Monicks) is reading and interpreting a passage correctly.  However, she isn’t thinking deeply enough about what the ramifications of it really are. Read the rest of this entry