School is in Session
My wife and I had the pleasure of going to the Sunday school class of Dr. Hugh Ross (1) last week. (2) I used to go several years ago, but had to stop going because life simply got in the way. For now, we do plan on going when he’s in town, which doesn’t seem that often, unfortunately. On a quick side note, I was pleasantly surprised to hear Ross on the Frank Sontag show the next day!
Photo Attribution: http://twitpic.com/ajwh7p
Yet another tactic that I see atheists use against God and religion, is visualized in the picture on the right (You’ll have to click on it a few times to read it) This picture is apparently trying to convey that the quality of life in these societies is better because they’re some of the least religious countries in the world. Such reasoning is quite problematic however, for various reasons. I think one of the biggest issues is finding/proving the causation for this assertion. I would like to know how they linked the two together. Did this study (or studies) take into account: the various cultural, economical, or social issues etc?
Does it follow that since the people in these countries are irreligious, then they are automatically atheists? Were such people specifically polled about their apparent atheism or just their non religious status? To be fair, this might not be the point of the picture (rather, that lacking religion equals a better way of life) but does this make a case for atheism if these people are just not religious, yet not atheists either? It could conceivably be a case against organized religion while being silent for the case of atheism. I know tons of people that don’t consider religion important at all, yet still maintain their religious status (when pressed; yet in a nominal fashion) of their heritage or upbringing. Was this scenario taken into consideration?
Description: Given the probability of chance for the hundreds of fine tuning examples in the universe, the better answer is that a fine tuner tuned the tunings rather than chance or accident.
Photo Attribution: Main121 (public domain)
Rule It Out First
There’s an interesting sentiment that I hear on occasion when conversing with atheists about God. I’ve been informed that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I admit that it seems to be convincing, but only to those that have no training in formal logic. After all, if there’s no evidence for God (in the form of tangibility -usually the type requested by atheists) then this absence seems to be a blow to his existence. Right? Not exactly. We’re going to examine the modus tollens argument (Latin; the way that denies by denying) to see if this type of reasoning is valid or not. The argument goes like this:
Photo Attribution: Wikipedia
On The March
As time goes on there seems to be an ever growing number of militant atheists that are on the march against God and religion. Though I feel this article could be directed at atheism as a whole (at least on some level) but I’m specifically addressing these militant types for today. Some of you may be wondering what I mean by “militant atheist”. I’m speaking of those that are hateful, obnoxious, rude, quick to judge and call names etc. Here’s a passage that sums it up: This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God. 
Description: This seems to be a trend where atheists use the “cruel God” of the Old Testament in a cumulative case to show that that God couldn’t possibly exist. I have had atheists flat out tell me that these “atrocities” prove that he is not real…their words, not mine.