I know that many of you are philosophically running on empty. You've already dabbled with all of the traditional so-called proofs for the existence of God. You crave more proofs and it's got you down. Well, cheer up! I have the site for you! Exchristian.net has 300 (did someone say 300?) "Over…
I was trying to think of a way to impress Erika Price (see Erika’s comment here), when it dawned on me.
I was shopping at a big box toy store in St. Louis County tonight, accompanied by my wife and children. I was waiting for my family to make a purchase when I realized that I had a camera available in the car. I ran out to get the camera to snap a few photos to help raise a simple question: Are boys getting an overdose of the idea that violence is the best first approach to solving human conflict? Asked another way, how often is it that a toy marketed to boys suggests that there are ways of solving problems other than smacking someone on the head, stabbing them, shooting them, vaporizing them or slamming them into a wall? Based on the toys that one Toys R Us store displayed most prominently, the answer is not often. On what do I base this conclusion? Read on and enjoy the slide show.
Before you go thinking that I am a radical pacifist. Consider these things. I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Also consider that I loved superhero comic books growing up. Further, I supported military action against the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. Violence sometimes has a place in solving some situation, in my opinion.
But back to the store. There’s no hint of violence in the baby toys. There’s …
It’s in the September 11, 2006 issue of Newsweek. The article explores the issues presented by the following three books:
It is a good sign that Newsweek is acknowledging some of the basic points raised by these books. For example, Newsweek has this to say about the position of Harris on skepicism:
“Tell a devout Christian … that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible,” Harris writes, “and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.”
The Newsweek article presents the view of Dawkins regarding the basis for morality, as presented by many Christians:
“If there is no God, why be good?” he asks rhetorically, and responds: “Do you really mean the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward? That’s not morality, that’s just sucking up.”
Harris sharply questions the moral “lessons” of the Bible:
I'm writing to recommend this website, builditsolar.com, to anyone who is considering taking real life steps to stretch their residence energy dollar. I like a lot of things about this site: the combination of practical instructions on what one can and should do to save energy, combined with great photos to illustrate the…
I recently ran into a site called the Biblelands project. It was there that I found an article called “Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists,” by a man named Ron Rhodes. This article was typical of many conservative sites set up to rally the believers.
“I often ‘dialogue’ with atheists,” I thought. Maybe I should read Ron’s site. And yes, I did notice the quirk in his title. Interesting, how Rhodes assumes that anyone talking with an atheist would want to use his techniques.
In his opening paragraphs Rhodes points out, “No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians.” Fair enough. But I’m tempted to think, then, that the “natural” state of human mindset would be agnostic. Shouldn’t that remain the default position through life?
But on with the methods of dealing with atheists. Here are some of the things atheists say, according to Ron, along with how we should respond:
…“There is no God.” Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time — with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe — can make such a statement based on the facts.