This video quotes a few atheists on the absurd implications of their worldview. They seem to recognize it. Why don't the majority of the new atheists?

Advert for Atheism

This argument is quite common but gets on my nerves. As if the only difference between the two worldviews is that one thing. It is intellectually insulting. But many atheists use it. Dan Barker from the Freedom From Religion Foundation is one example. Anyway, here is the video

Common Sense Atheism? One Less God

This little 90 second video explains it in simple yet powerful fashion.

What is Christianity?

If you have any questions let me know.

You can read the entire article at Thinking Christian.

What would I do with my morality if it were proved that God didn't exist? Wouldn't I still want to pursue justice?

No, doctor(logic), I don't think I would. There would be no reason for me not to pursue my own pleasures above all else, and I believe I would recognize that and act accordingly.

You have to understand, this is not a new question for me. I faced it many years ago when I doubted there was a God. I recognized then that there was no restraint or constraint on me; that if I raped my girlfriend the only issue would be whether I got caught. I think a lot of young men today are raping girls (date rape) and only worrying about whether they get caught. Whatever I did, the only questions would be, "does it bother me I did it?" and "will I get caught?" If it didn't bother me and I didn't get caught, then I could do it freely for my own satisfaction.

Here's a video on the subject as well:

Musings on Atheism - Why be an atheist?

You know the old stereotype about adolescent boys who learn the facts of life from other adolescent boys when they have no one else they feel comfortable consulting. I suppose, in the Internet age, that that's gone the way of the dinosaur. For better or worse, information is only a mouse click away.
However, I that old stereotype occurred to me as I was skimming some comments at Called to Confusion:http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/contraception/Start with comment #149, and take it from there.
Here we see a commenter (David Meyer) who's asking if it's morally permissible for a husband to have conjugal relations with his pregnant wife.
Of course, that takes the Catholic position to its logically absurd conclusion. But for now I wish to focus on a different point:
Why doesn't it occur to David that maybe, just maybe, that's a question he should ask his priest? And why does it not occur to the other respondents like Sean Patrick to tell him that he ought to consult his priest? Isn't the priesthood the retail end of the Magisterium?
They attack sola scriptura. They attack the right of private judgment. They insist on the absolute necessity of the Magisterium.

Yet here they are, groping for answers to questions as practical and fundamental as conjugal relations. And where do they go for answers? They turn to each other, like adolescent boys who, instead of consulting their parents or family doctor, use the locker room as their information clearinghouse for SexEd 101.

This is from the guys over at Triablogue. :D

This video was put together by an old GS member The Crushmaster. I loved it and figured I'd post it,

Does God Love Everyone?

And here's another video on this subject if you are interested,

Does God Love Everyone - Dr. Morey

Atheism Fails to Supply Universal and Transcendental Necessities --
by Mike A Robinson

The examination of assumptions and worldviews is an important task in one's maturity of thought. Sam Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens, in their books, have avoided this process. Anti-theism, an autonomous starting point, fails to justify any tangibles or non-tangibles. The philosophical exploration of one's belief system, to find out if it can supply the transcendental necessities for rational laws, is a significant means for one's intellectual growth. Dr. Greg Bahnsen brings out the importance of this undertaking with the following: "a transcendental argument begins with any item of experience or belief whatsoever and proceeds, by critical analysis, to ask what conditions (or what other beliefs) would need to be true in order for that original experience or belief to make sense, be meaningful, or intelligible to us." Anti-theists are usually intellectually fearful so they avoid logical critical examination. "The philosophy of the non-Christian cannot account for the intelligibility of human experience in any sense." Van Til famously stated that "Anti-theism presupposes theism." Bahnsen also refutes anti-theism as he argues that "a transcendental analysis... would show that the possibility of its coherence or meaningfulness assumes the existence of the very God it denies." Atheism fails to provide the rational and moral pre-essentials for the meaningfulness of human apprehension of our world.

The starting point for knowledge and the intelligibility of the world must be transcendent and immutable as it furnishes universals. In order to make sense of man's knowledge and experience, there must be "transcendental categories" of understanding that are "inherent in the mind and constitute its structure prior to any sense-experience." An invariant heavenly universal in reach foundation is needed for human rationality. A being who cannot provide the required pre-environment for the laws of logic cannot account for knowledge and human experience. This rules out the anti-theism of the Brights and the New Atheists.


Anti-theism is Rationally Self-Destructive


Transcendental scrutiny of anti-theism demonstrates that it is self-destructive inasmuch as it fails to give what it does not possess. Man is devoid of eternal omniscience, aseity, sovereignty, and omnipotence. Bahnsen set forth transcendental analysis as that "which asks what the preconditions are for the intelligibility of human experience. Under what conditions is it possible, or what would also need to be true in order for it to be possible, to make sense of one's experience of the world? To seek the transcendental conditions for knowing is to ask what is presupposed by any intelligent experience whatsoever." Humankind does not need to exist for the intelligibility of the universe. People cannot supply the transcendental conditions that are needed for the laws of logic, love, and morality. Van Til contended that "the general precedes the particular" in our reality. This implies that the anthropology of atheism cannot supply the general and universal realities that must be present, for the necessary and unavoidable transcendental conditions listed above.

Most people, especially anti-theists, take the unseen and lofty incorporeal principals of thought and ethics for granted. But the true God is transcendent, so refuting a non-theistic worldview starts at the non-theist's rational pre-commitment, the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underlie and control one's method knowledge.

The simple-minded Brights/New Atheists are all bluster and they lack consistency. A restricted and fixed human cannot be the indispensable foundation for the unity of experience and knowledge. Van Til warns that "the only alternative to thinking of God as the ultimate source of unity in human experience as it is furnished by laws or universals is to think that the unity rests in a void. Every object of knowledge must, therefore, be thought of as being surrounded by ultimate irrationality." If one denies the triune God, the world must be encircled by irrationality. If atheism is true, mankind is "swimming in a void." A void of irrationality because the finite minds of human beings are claimed by atheism to be the foundation for rational thought. Therefore, atheism is self-contradictory on its own ground. Even its fallacious assertions and false notions presuppose the truth of the triune God.


• Atheism fails to supply universal and transcendental necessities.
• Without universal and transcendental necessities Atheism cannot account for knowledge.
• There must be knowledge.
• Atheism is false.

You can read the rest of the article at Stand to Reason.

James Sire describes naturalists as monistic materialists who deny the existence of immaterial entities and their ability to act in this world.[1] Though naturalism can be characterized in broader term, which I will address briefly later in this paper, Sire's characterization is really of materialism. Ontological or metaphysical naturalism is defined in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy as the view that everything is composed of natural entities constructed of properties as the sciences allow. [2] The worldview I wish to address is the version of naturalism that holds that all abstract entities are determined by the factual or descriptive judgments of science. I will label this view materialism.

Materialism requires that all entities in the world are physical or physically determined. However, most materialists want to preserve free will of human action. Materialists deny the existence of universals, yet most still attempt to find a place for objective morality in their worldview. My thesis is this: Materialism is a monist ontology that attempts to account for moral and mental properties, but cannot; these properties require a pluralist ontology to maintain their irreducible qualities. Two common strategies of materialism to accommodate these properties are functionalism and reduction, but these strategies do not adequately capture these facts about the world. Given that failure (and that of other strategies that are beyond the scope of this paper), we should seek a worldview that accomplishes the task.

Many materialists offer a defense for morality and mind in terms of functionalist and supervenience theses, which are part of a monist account of ontology. (Though these are not the only strategies to defend morality and mind in materialism, they are very common and I will restrict my critique to these.) The strength of this sort of justification for moral realism will depend upon the virtues of functionalism and supervenience. However, these two theories fail to account for moral facts and can provide no adequate grounds for moral realism; a monistic worldview is insufficient for this sort of property. Only ontological pluralism is explanatorily sufficient to justify real moral facts.

You can find the entire article at Stand to Reason.

I want to address something else, though. Part of my concern in this discussion of science vs. faith, religion or philosophy - those are all in that category - is that there is a bias. The bias is that science gives you objective truth that is based on facts, and all religion or philosophy can give you is absolute truth. This phrase "absolute truth" is put in quotations in the letter, meaning that all philosophy and religion give you is dogma -- wishful thinking that people hold to be absolute while they ignore the facts. That seems to be the sense of things in this letter.

One statement that gets to the point of my objection goes like this: "Mr. Koukl does not step up to the challenge that science is able to meet in giving objective information, as he is using subjective opinions rather than objective facts to argue his case." There you go. My opinions are subjective because they don't have to do with science and you can't put them in a test tube. On the other hand, anything that can be put in a test tube is objective fact. He does talk about the liabilities of science, but it doesn't seem like he really takes his own words seriously. Because objective facts are assessed through subjective analysis. I'm not saying that you can't reach objectivity, but everything must be subjectively assessed in some fashion. So, just the fact that I have my personal opinions doesn't mean they're wrong. You can't just dismiss them as being mere subjective assessment.

You can read the entire article at CWMB.

This is one of those issues that ticks me off. After spending time studying this controversial topic it has become apparent how ignorant most are. Their opinions are emotionally based rather than logical, scieintific, or morally based. I have yet to hear one reasonable argument for the pro-homosexual position other thanthe usualtrying to intimitate others or stopping free-speech discussion in the name of intolerant tolerance. Even the atheist, if he or she in consistent, will be against the pro-homosexual position for numerous reasons. Anyway, I hope you read the article even though it is a bit long anda little technical. Here is an excerpt,

On July 15, 1993, National Public Radio (NPR) made a dramatic announcement on stations across the country: Was a team of scientists at the National Institutes of Health on the trail of a gene that causes homosexuality? Their report would be published the next day in Science, one of the two most prestigious scientific research journals in the world.

The discussion that followed explained for the listening public the implications of these findings for social attitudes toward homosexuality and for public policy concerning it. Science was on the verge of proving what many had long argued: that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeable-a normal and commonplace variant of human nature. In the light of these findings, surely only the bigoted or ignorant could condemn it in any way.

Shortly after the announcement, amidst a well-orchestrated blizzard of press discussions, there ensued the watershed legal battle over "Proposition 2" in Colorado. (This popularly enacted legislation precluded making sexual orientation the basis of "privileged cla$$" minority status, a status conferred previously only on the basis of immutable factors such as race.)

Among the many crucial issues raised by the legislation was the question as to whether homosexuality was indeed normal, innate and unchangeable. One prominent researcher testified to the court, "I am 99.5% certain that homosexuality is genetic." But this personal opinion was widely misunderstood as "homosexuality is 99.5% genetic," implying that research had demonstrated this. Certainly, that was the message promulgated by NPR's report on the recent research, and by all the discussions that followed. In a few weeks, Newsweek would emblazon across its cover the phrase that would stick in the public mind as the final truth about homosexuality: Gay Gene?"