Can Theists Be Moral?

That's a pretty silly question, isn't it? I would argue that it is about as silly as the question, "Can Atheists Be Moral?" Even fundamentalist Christian philosophers grant that atheists can know moral principles and behave according to those principles. If someone wishes to deny that theists or atheists can have morals, it seems the burden of proof should fall on them to offer some reason why they could not have morals. … [Read more...]

Checklist: Evaluating Claims about Jesus – Part 6

This post will briefly discuss the two final tests of "eyewitness evidence" (or rather, tests of the historical reliability and trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts) from The Case for Christ (CFC) by Lee Strobel.7. THE CORROBORATION TESTI introduced this next test by asking Blomberg, "When the gospels mention people, places, and events, do they check out to be correct in cases in which they can be independently verified?"  Often such corroboration is invaluable in assessing whether a … [Read more...]

New Chick Tracts

Jack Chick celebrates hell, and shows that his version of the Christian God is a seriously nasty character. The sheer obnoxiousness of the divine moral order as envisioned by Chick may even call into question atheistic attempts to use evil to argue against the existence of an omnibenevolent God. If someone can endorse this sort of hell, and such an arbitrary way of consigning people to hell, as central to the schemes of an omnibenevolent God, they shouldn't have too much difficulty shrugging … [Read more...]

New Chick Tract

Jack Chick does global warming denial.As a bonus, Chick's "Was it ‘Global Warming’ or God’s Warning?" argues that extreme weather events in the US are due to the US not being friendly enough to Israeli interests. Presumably if we slaughter more Muslims, we will have fewer tornadoes. … [Read more...]

New Chick tract

[Read more...]

Does Craig Demonstrate a Fallacy in Hume?

A recent responder to my postings on Hume’s argument against miracles claims that Hume’s argument in Section X of An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding is “demonstrably fallacious.” After a bit of coaxing, he has produced the following alleged demonstration, taken from William Lane Craig’s debate with Bart Ehrman:”When we talk about the probability of some event or hypothesis A, that probability is alwaysrelative to a body of background information B. So we speak of the probability of A on B … [Read more...]

Does Hume Commit a Fallacy?

One respondent to my previous post, “The Gospels and Critical History,” in addition to the usual bluster and bombast, manages to offer a few interesting arguments. He had this to say about Hume’s miracle argument from section 1o of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:"As for Hume's beautiful argument; it is demonstrably fallacious. Hume had an excuse because probability calculus hadn't been fully developed in his day, but we now know that what Hume forgot to factor was the probability that … [Read more...]

Don McIntosh’s Reply to Keith Parsons on Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Internet Infidels just published the following on The Secular Web: "The Presumption of Naturalism and the Probability of Miracles: A Reply to Keith Parsons" by Don McIntosh.Abstract:In Chapter Four of Science, Confirmation, and the Theistic Hypothesis, Keith Parsons defends the dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as part of a general critique of miracle claims which aims to defend naturalism as a rational operating philosophy against potential defeaters. In this … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X