Some of these arguments rise to the level of apologetics classics. Others are painfully cringeworthy modern inventions that could only exist in a Christian population that is vastly deteriorated from loftier standards. I’ll show you three of those arguments today–and how you’re likely to encounter them in the wild, so to speak!
We’re about to plunge into actual apologetics works and examine their authors’ major ideas and claims. Before we do that, let’s just real quick-like run through the field as a whole so we’re all on the same page. I’m sure it didn’t take long at all for the earliest Christians Read more
Sounds like a children’s serial novel, doesn’t it? Scott Lively and the Bonus Plan. Scott Lively and the Search for Relevance. Scott Lively and the Hunt for Gullible Rubes. Scott Lively and His Sudden Boost in Status. Scott Lively and the Unexpected Endgame. Ever since I first heard of this Read more
In the wake of the murder of an atheist blogger at the hands of religious extremists, we examine the kinship of extremism in Christianity and Islam.
Last time we talked about apologists, we talked about their first big mistake: that they start with a conclusion and find some kind of logic that will get them to that conclusion. That’s called arguing top-down. In bottom-up arguing, one starts with observations and measurements and builds the argument around Read more
One of the genuinely weirdest turns that fundagelical Christianity has taken in recent decades has been its bizarre emphasis on hypermasculinity and rejection of all that is even vaguely perceived as feminine. I first encountered this strange focus when looking at the car of a co-worker some six or so years Read more
One of the genuinely weirdest turns that fundagelical Christianity has taken in recent decades has been its bizarre emphasis on hypermasculinity and rejection of all that is even vaguely perceived as feminine. I first encountered this strange focus when looking at the car of a co-worker some six or so years Read more
The first fundamental mistake apologists make is that they don’t actually refer to any facts to make their various arguments, making their conclusions highly suspect. Indeed, apologists really can’t do that. It’s almost unfair even to make the request that they do so. After all: There is not one single demonstrable bit of objective evidence about the supernatural to which they actually could refer.
I wasn’t stupid, willfully-ignorant, or mentally will when I made the decision to become a fundamentalist, and I really don’t like it when someone implies that about anyone. I thought the religion had evidence supporting its claims. On that count I was wrong, and here’s the list of what I was wrong about.
We recently added another line to that cosmic address–did you notice? After “Virgo supercluster,” we now have Laniakea, a galactic supercluster that comprises Virgo and some other local superclusters. Scientists have figured out how to tell what galaxies and groups are part of our galactic supercluster, and in addition and almost as importantly, they finally have a model of it that fits predictions and equations both. And that discovery has spoken to me on a very fundamental level.