25 Lines of Evidence Against Theism

Refutation of Anna Marie Perez Previous | Index | Next   First Paragraph Here is Perez's first paragraph: Atheism is a religion.  Atheists act like Dracula confronting a cross when faced with the fact that their beliefs rely solely on faith.  They hate the word faith, even though it’s all they’ve got.  They try to make the claim that their religion is based on science, although actual science doesn’t support their claims any more than science can prove the existence of God.  When they a … [Read more...]

A Nasty Christian Apologist Defends the Indefensible

There are many nice Christian apologists out there. To cite just four of several examples, (1) Glenn Miller; (2) Randal Rauser; (3) Trent Horn; and (4) Sean McDowell have both been extremely gracious as dialogue partner (1 & 2) or host (3&4). But there are also some nasty ones who apparently didn't get the memo about 1 Peter 3:15. About a month ago, I had a run-in on Twitter with one of the nasty ones: Anna Maria Perez (@A_M_Perez). She has roughly 100,000 followers and won't hesitate to … [Read more...]

Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner

Sigh. I miss Jerry Falwell. Of all the fundamentalist loudmouths and rabble-rousers, he was the one I most loved to hate. He was absolutely dependable. Whatever the topic or context he was reliably sanctimonious, unctuous, bigoted, and utterly detestable. Other soldiers in the army of the night were just as obnoxious, like Jimmy Swaggart (“I have sinned against you.”), but they tended to be so dumb that they were more comical than offensive. I used to laugh out loud when Swaggart would point to t … [Read more...]

Even Trolls can be Useful for Rational Discussion

Secular Outpost prides itself on hosting serious discussions about serious issues. Many other sites, atheist or religious, are more devoted to dogmatic debunking and ridicule. Over the years, I have enjoyed and benefitted from many discussions with intelligent and informed believers who share my conviction that reasonable people of good faith can differ widely in their views, even on religious questions. Sometimes, a commenter will begin by sounding abrasive, dismissive, or sarcastic, but will … [Read more...]

Debate: The External Evidence for Jesus – Part 1

Joe Hinman's first argument for the existence of Jesus is based on references to Jesus in the Talmud: We know Jesus was in the Talmud and that is a fact admitted by Rabbis.  Some references use his name (Yeshua) some use code words such as "such a one" or "Panthera".  The reason codes are used, is that the commentators censored the works and removed overt reverences [sic] to Jesus (although they missed some) to prevent Christians from inflicting persecution.  We have many of the out takes in va … [Read more...]

The Debate about Jesus has Begun

The debate between me and Joe Hinman about the existence of Jesus has begun.We are focusing on just the external (non-biblical) evidence.Joe has published his positive case for the claim that:...the external (not in Bible) evidence is strong enough to warrant belief in Jesus' historicity.Here is a link to Joe's initial post that summarizes his positive case:http://christiancadre.blogspot.hr/2016/06/debate-bradly-bowen-vs-joseph-hinman.htmlJoe has divided his case into … [Read more...]

What is Christianity? Part 16

In his book Naming the Elephant (hereafter: NTE), the Christian apologist James Sire raises various objections against his previous analysis of the concept of a “worldview” that he had presented in his earlier book The Universe Next Door (hereafter: TUND).I have reviewed three of Sire’s objections to his earlier cognitivist analysis of the concept of a “worldview” and argued that those objections were unsuccessful (see previous posts 10, 11, 12, and 13).In post 15, I argued that Sire's be … [Read more...]

Dunning-Kruger Effect in Action: How NOT to Defend a ‘Best’ Explanation

I'm not going to name names, but I recently read something that could have not said more loudly, "I have no clue about inductive logic, Bayes' Theorem, or inference to the best explanation. I definitely should NOT be defending my position publicly because I have no clue what I am talking about, but I'm going to keep doing that anyway because I am clueless--even about my own cluelessness!"The context was this. Person #1 said that X is the best explanation for the data, and so probably true. … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X