Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 99 results found
Most of the basic arguments for the existence of God, though they can be detailed in sophisticated ways, are easy to understand on a fundamental level. Three arguments are:
How do you respond to the claim that Christians are narrow-minded bigots? The person hasn’t said anything about your claim or your argument. They are simply calling you a name. Explain to them that name-calling is not a good way to argue for their position or to argue against mine.
How do we combat apathy within our youth? Number one, question them. Start forcing them to answer questions about what they believe and why they believe it. Introduce questions and challenges, and help them to see that they don’t know as much as they think they know.
When scientists claim that any intelligent design inference is an example of God of the Gaps, they are presuming that there actually is an explanation gap, that is, there simply is no explanation for the phenomena in question. The “God of the Gaps” complaint comes up when theists suggest that design is a better explanation than a naturalistic one in certain areas of science, particularly the beginning of the universe, the origin of life, and the development of life from simple to complex over time.
Arguing a point based on what Jesus, allegedly, did not say betrays a misunderstanding about the Bible that so-called “red letter” Christians seem to fall into. The mistake is thinking that red-letter verses (the words of Jesus) have more authority than the rest of the Bible.
Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30). Loving God with the mind is not a passive process. It's not just having thoughts about God. Rather, it's coming to conclusions about God and His world based on revelation, observation, and careful thinking.
Has anyone else but me noticed an inherent contradiction in the underlying convictions that drive annual “Earth Day” celebrations? The vast majority of those who attend such fetes are Darwinists who believe humans have a moral obligation to protect the environment? My question is: Why?
It’s common of late to justify one’s “sexual orientation” by an appeal to nature. The claim “I was born this way” is all that’s needed to stem moral criticism of homosexuality. But why settle for this approach? Why think that the state of nature is an appropriate guide to morality?
The result of criminalizing hate under certain circumstances is that only certain types of people get protected. In a state with hate crime legislation, penalties levied for an assault on me would be milder by statutory requirement than for the very same assault on a homosexual. Why? Because as a straight, white male I do not belong to a class protected by this law.
The controversy about same-sex marriage churns principally around the definition of marriage. Activists deny the traditional view that marriage is about children. Instead, marriage is an ever-changing, socially-constructed institution constantly being redefined by society. There is no essential connection with children. Rather, at the core of the enterprise are two people in love.