When it comes to the ontological argument most believers can use it to their own conceptions of god. An eastern pantheist could easily begin Anslem’s ontological argument by conceiving that the greatest conceivable being is the One, that which cannot be conceived. This conception of the One denies that there is a personal god, something westerners conceive differently because of being born and raised in the Occident rather than the Orient. But by following the train of reasoning involved, the proper conclusion would be that therefore the One, that which cannot be conceived, exists. For westerners who think this is irrational the easterner could simply reply with a koan. A koan is a story, dialogue, question, or a statement which is used in Zen-practice to silence the questions of the rational mind. A famous koan says: “Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?” This is because to easterners, reason cannot approach or understand or conceive the One, the ultimate reality. People who say that they cannot understand something are emphatically not saying that they understand it. Polytheists, as far as I know, could also use the ontological argument to argue for the head god of their pantheon of gods, if they are unaware (and hence cannot conceive) that other people in other parts of the world have bigger conceptions of god.
No it is not!
It's not even a worldview. No matter how you define religion it must include supernatural forces or beings, and atheists deny them. If a Christian reader thinks atheism is a religion then please provide for us a definition of religion that applies both to Christianity and to its denial. Define it such that it applies to all groups that believe in the supernatural and also to groups that deny the supernatural. My guess is that any definition of religion that includes atheism will either deny the inherent supernaturalism of religions like Christianity, or will end up reducing religion to the lowest common denominator of a social grouping. Give it a go, okay? One lame attempt would be to say that atheism is a religion because it takes a position on metaphysical issues, I suppose, but then by the same token, as Dr. David Eller wrote: "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby." [First published 5/20/09]
Biblical scholars have looked at the Hebrew word for justice (mishpat) and concluded that it is basically equivalent to mercy. Nonetheless see what you think:
President Dr. Keith Ray is a friend of mine. We were students together under Dr. James Strauss. I know Keith wants to attract the best and the brightest scholars to teach at LCU. And it looks like he has done that. He attracted Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne. But these two scholars have caused quite a stir among the constituents of LCU. Who are they?
This post was provoked by Walter earlier, in the quote of the day, who asked, "Aren’t Christians supposed to be guided to the truth by the Holy Spirit? Are John’s arguments more powerful than the Third Person of the Trinity?"
Workers go on strike when they are overworked and underpaid. So I got to thinking what would happen if Christian believers from around the world went on strike. This strike would be against having to do all of the evangelistic and apologetic work themselves. What if they stopped praying for others to be saved? What if they stopped telling others about Jesus? What if Christians stopped evangelizing and arguing on behalf of Christianity? What if all evangelists, missionaries, and apologists went on strike?
I'm serious! What would happen? Think about this. I know Christians think they have a commission mandate to do evangelistic work, so it'll never happen. Consider it a thought experiment instead. Can God do this work himself? If he can, then why does he need for anyone to do this work at all? If he cares, really cares for people, then he should do something himself. Would God step in and show he cares? Would he do what is right because it is the right thing to do regardless of whether Christians helped him? Would Christianity survive and even thrive into the future? Or, would Christianity die out as God lets the world and its people go to hell? If God sits back and does nothing while the world goes to hell then he cannot be a good God, or perhaps he's just too lazy. ;-) Read to the bottom where I make a reasonable prediction that could very well upset your apologetic cart for good.
I have talked to many believers face to face and online for about six years. Not one of them believes me when I say there isn't anything important they can tell me that I haven't considered before. Almost to a person they speak and write as if they can share something new that would cause me to change my mind. It's pathetic to me, and frustrating. I have to start all over with each new believer to convince them of this. Even now some believer just may comment below with what is perceived as something new, or a new approach to reaching me. Many have tried arguing with me. Others have ridiculed me--remember, it's supposed to have an effect when we do it to believers!? Some have tried being kind to me. A few have asked me to come "experience God" at their worship service.
I liked my guitar. I only played it for Jesus.
There has been an interesting discussion between Dr. East and our own Articulet which I'd like to highlight. East says he rejected Christianity because of the OTF. It begins with a discussion on prayer where East says:
There are several books published in the last few years by skeptics. The most well-known ones are by Bart Ehrman and Robert M. Price. But there are some lesser known books that this post is intended to draw your attention to, some of which I have not read.
Evangelical Christian apologist David Marshall, who has written several books and comments here under fire, provides for us the typical reaction to the atheist claim that there is no man behind the Jesus we find in the four canonical gospels. Writing to me he said:
Link. Damn, aren't there better issues to deal with? Hey, I know, let's take aim at believers. What a novel idea? That's what I do here at DC.
Christians cannot agree with themselves. So why should I take any of them seriously? Believers have no method to settle their own disputes because faith has no method. Can you at least try to understand this? Here is an example. Evangelical Christians will bristle when they read what a liberal wrote about the resurrection, which I'll quote below. But this is the same type of reasoning skeptics see when we read of your own defenses of the resurrection.
