Pitfalls for Atheists to Avoid

Through countless discussions surrounding atheism, it has become apparent that someone must be feeding bad advice to atheists. Since the following errors are made repeatedly, this partial list has been populated to warn atheists of this underground movement in order for them to avoid these pitfalls. If you are an atheist and hear any of the following advice, realize that if used, it will be harmful to your cause.

1. Assume that because you compare theism to believing in pink unicorns or fairy tales that you have made a good argument.

2. Become hostile and use degrading vulgarities while maintaining that Christianity is an immoral religion.

3. When you are having trouble answering an argument posed by a Christian theist, simply say, “well even if this were true, it doesn’t prove the existence of the ‘Christian’ God.”

4. Assume that simply because you explain a phenomena from a naturalistic perspective that it constitutes an argument which must be true.

5. When arguing against the Christian God, simply say that you only believe in “one less god” than most people, as if that does not require you to defend an atheistic understanding of cosmology, anthropology, ethics, philosophy of history, philosophy of politics, philosophy of science, and epistemology.

6. Make metaphysical statements that suggest that metaphysics are a useless waste of time.

7. Argue that we should only believe things proven by empirical evidence without proving it with empirical evidence.

8. Use logic like it is a universal, transcendent, unchanging reality when atheistic naturalism cannot account for universal, transcendent, unchanging realities.

9. Argue that there is no evidence to believe in the existence of God because all the evidence that is produced fails to pass the standards of evidence which have been constructed from the belief that God does not exist.

10. Argue that human beings are robots, puppets, and machines programmed by natural selection in a closed system of cause and effect, and then argue for free thought and moral agency.

11. Place your ultimate trust in human reason while believing that man’s mind evolved from lower animals such as monkeys and will continue to evolve until we become the monkeys from which the minds of the future will have evolved.

12. Claim that you could never worship an egotistical, jealous God when ultimately you are the final authority and defend it zealously.

13. Claim that the Bible can’t be trusted but appeal to other ancient writings without questioning their origin or authenticity.

14. Claim that you are a “skeptic” but never defend it as a worldview by which you live your life daily.

15. Define faith as “believing in something you can never prove,” when science asserts that nothing is ever “proved.”

16. Argue that there is little to no good evidence that Jesus ever lived without explaining that the Bible as an ancient text is the best existing written evidence that we have of any ancient events whatsoever.

17. Argue that the Bible is scant evidence because it is only one ancient book out of all the sources available without explaining that the Bible is actually 66 ancient books of differing authors, eras, and genre.

18. Put your faith in other atheists.

The Reliability of the New Testament Text

An introductory presentation on the reliability of the New Testament text by Dr. James White of Alpha Omega Ministries.

Be sure to check out Apologetics.com Radio this week

A Brief interview with Vishal Mangalwadi, The guest this Friday November 28th 2008 on the Apologetics.com radio program on KKLA 99.5. Listen in as we hear a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the Indian situation in regard to Christian-Hindu-Muslim relations and the influence of the Bible on Eastern civilization. Magalwadi's recent film series, "Must the sun set on the West?" is the first intellectually satifying attempt to engage the place of God's revelation in the formation and continuation of the West since Francis Schaeffer's "How should we then live?" CN.

Vishal Mangalwadi (1949-) is an international lecturer, social reformer, political columnist, and author of thirteen books. Born and raised in India, he studied philosophy at universities, in Hindu ashrams, and at L’Abri Fellowship in Switzerland. In 1976 he turned down several job offers in the West to return to India where he and his wife, Ruth, founded a community to serve the rural poor. Vishal continued his involvement in community development serving at the headquarters of two national political parties, where he worked for the empowerment and liberation of peasants and the lower castes.

His first book, The World of Gurus, was published in 1977 by India’s Vikas Publishing House, and serialized in India’s then-largest weekly, Sunday. It was Mangalwadi’s books, In Search of Self and India: The Grand Experiment, that first brought his works to the attention of the American public. In demand worldwide, Vishal is a dynamic, engaging speaker who has lectured in 32 countries. He enjoys simplifying complex ideas and inspiring despairing hearts with hope.

Vishal and Ruth are currently in the United States exploring The Soul of Western Civilization - the Bible. This study was inspired by Vishal and Ruth’s recognition of India’s need for the reforming power of the Bible. The first fruits of their research are available in (i) Eight-Part lecture series “The Book of the Millennium” and (11) Eleven-part lecture series “Must the Sun Set On the West?” available from www.SoughtAfterMedia.com.

Dose of Schaeffer

The humanists push for “freedom,” but having no Christian consensus to contain it, that “freedom” leads to chaos or to slavery under the state (or under an elite). Humanism, with its lack of any final base for values or law, always leads to chaos. It then naturally leads to some form of authoritarianism to control the chaos. Having produced the sickness, humanism gives more of the same kind of medicine for a cure. With its mistaken concept of final reality, it has no intrinsic reason for being interested in the individual, the human being. Its natural interest is the two collectives: the state and the society.

Francis Schaeffer – A Christian Manifesto (1981)

An Introduction to Textual Criticism

Psalm 138:2 I will bow down toward Your holy temple And give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.

Proverbs 30:5, 6 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Psalm 119:89 Your word o' Yahweh is eternal, it stands firm in the heavens.

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.

I think it's very important to know God's word, and know it well. God gave us an intellect and I think He expects us to use it. I know it's hard work to study diligently, it's not as if we just sit back and soak in God's word miraculously. But if we're to minister to those who are not Christians, who don't claim the word of God as a source of authority, or to those who claim the name of Christian but reject the inspiration and inerrancy of God's word, then it will take work on our part to know why these people believe the way that they do and have an answer to them.
I believe the verses of Scripture quoted above, but I don't believe them with the kind of faith that turns my mind off to the history and text of Scripture. I believe that the facts concerning the Bible, where it came from and how it came to us in the form that it is in today, line up with the teachings of the Bible concerning its own nature and that's why I try to share information like this.

Now is a good reminder too because it's not long until the James White vs. Bart Ehrman debate and conference in January.

So here's some excellent series of articles on textual criticism from Colin Smith of AOMIN.org

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 1

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 2

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 3

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 4

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 5

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 6

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 7

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 8

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 9

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 10

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 11

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 12

An Introduction to Textual Criticism Part 13

More quick thoughts on Abortion [Human Life and Human Rights]

Can we still take it for granted that political candidates for the highest office are educated people? You would think so, at least on the simplest subjects. But considering one presidential candidate's statement that when human life begins is an unknowable matter of theological or scientific belief that is above his paygrade* you might want to think again.
By using some common sense I think we can establish that what we're talking about at human conception is both human and alive. There are only so many qualifying categories and so either it's alive, dead, or some kind of inanimate object. Progress in science has revealed to us a world of molecules and atoms and protons and so defining what life is can be complicated considering all the intricacies and philosophical presuppositions. But generally we don't qualify things like rocking chairs and fence posts and coffee cups as alive or dead, they're just sitting around kinds of things. Things that are alive move and eat and metabolize, and we can always recognize something that is dead by the fact that it used to be alive but now isn't.
In human conception there is one egg--which by common sense is a living thing--and one sperm--which by common sense is a living thing (and I know of no successful conception using dead ones) so do you think the product of conception is alive or dead? If it continues the natural process from conception eventually is born an infant human child--which presupposes that it was a living human entity earlier on because nothing else is ever born a living human child except living human children.
I think some understanding can be found considering that it was more of a mystery what exactly happened at conception before the science and technology caught up, but the sciences have really caught up so that nobody can deny anymore that the product of a human conception is obviously human and alive. Anyone who says differently is very under-educated on these things or depending on an education from a long time ago, or they're in some kind of strange denial of the obvious, or they might be replacing common sense with politics because it suits their purpose. No matter what one's motivations it seems strangely out of place for someone who wants to be a leader of the free world to not get a grip on things as simple as the fact that from conception it's human and it's alive. You can't argue reasonably that anytime between conception and birth it's something other than living and human or that there's a point in time when suddenly it becomes alive and human.
Everything is alive before the conception, everything is alive at and during the conception, and everything is alive after the conception and either it's human or it's something else--and nobody reasonable is really claiming that it's something else. Seems like calling it anything but alive would be silly, calling it anything but human would be unscientific, and to deny it human rights would be blatantly uncompassionate.

*Statement attributed to Senator Barack Obama in response to the question of when human rights begin as delivered at the Saddleback Civil Forum on National Leadership held Aug. 16, 2008 in Lake Forest CA. Forum can be viewed in its entirety at www.saddlebackcivilforum.com/thepresidency/index.html

Adapted from Human Life, and Human Rights by Chris Neiswonger