/internet-infidels-articles/page/33/

Thoughts on the Peace Movement

We find ourselves in a dangerous new reality, in a world which we share with evil people who want to kill us, and destroy our nation and way of life. Such a reality is frightening and uncomfortable, and it requires us to take risks and make sacrifices. Many people can't accept such a reality so they start buying into other false views of reality such as those offered by the peace movement.

Bush Oblivious to Infidels

Had Bush not packaged his personal beliefs as inviolable truths in his address at the 51st annual National Prayer Breakfast, his sermonizing might be excusable. As it stands, however, his words make it apparent that he is oblivious to those who do not share his faith.

The Krueger-McHugh Debate: Theism or Atheism

The Krueger-McHugh Debate: Theism or Atheism (2003) Christopher McHugh First Rebuttal by Christopher McHugh In my opening statement, I defended a mystical concept of God that is very different from the one that Krueger has chosen to attack in his opening arguments. Consequently, I can concede Krueger’s opening statement in its entirety, and still maintain […]

The Krueger-McHugh Debate: Theism or Atheism

(2003) Christopher McHugh Opening Statement by Christopher McHugh In this debate, I will present a case for theism, and offer refutations of any atheological arguments that Krueger adduces. In many past debates between theists and atheists, the theist philosopher has used a series of intuitively plausible arguments concerning cosmology, morality and history to construct a […]

Never Acquiesce

The strength and pervasiveness of the conviction among the general public in the United States and elsewhere that atheists are incompetent or too untrustworthy to hold positions of trust is all too pervasive. In fact, there is even government support for some forms of anti-atheist discrimination. Atheists should never acquiesce.

The Skeptic’s Rule

Why is it that believers can be skeptical of every religion but their own? Could formulating this aversion help them see the error of their ways?

Why Creationism?

Is Creationism an absurd but harmless set of beliefs which may be ridiculed but should be tolerated, or is it a pernicious "mind virus" which must be opposed? Why do Creationists go to such extraordinary lengths to justify and promote their beliefs? How do creationism and evolution fare in British schools?

Reply to Guthrie

Theodore Drange responds to Guthrie's critique. Drange finds Guthrie's essay "unclear," and contends that Guthrie "erred in many ways," including "misstating my views in many ways (and continuing such misstatements even in his concluding paragraph), ... in trying to argue that God (were he to exist) is unable to reduce human suffering, and ... in his attempt to formulate a divine desire that conflicts with God's desire to reduce human suffering."

The Cooke-Aijaz Debate: Closing Remarks from the Moderator

The Cooke-Aijaz Debate: Closing Remarks from the Moderator (2003) Richard Carrier As moderator for the Cooke-Aijaz Debate I feel compelled to register my disappointment with both sides. Cooke’s approach was generally flippant and often insulting to his opponent, and to the religious generally. I would never recommend him for a debate again. Indeed, he largely […]

The Argument from Nonbelief : A Rejoinder

In Nonbelief and Evil, Theodore Drange presents what he calls the Argument from Nonbelief against the existence of God: the fact that not all people believe the gospel message before they die provides grounds for denying that the Christian God exists. Pardi contends, however, that there are good reasons to deny that this inference goes through; he argues that given the nature of free persons, it is not within the set of logically possible states of affairs that God is able to actualize. Further, Pardi contends that Drange has an inadequate understanding of religious belief that should be rejected and replaced with a more robust formulation.

Pitfalls of Metaphysics and Chimera of Divine Revelation

"History shows that metaphysics is subjective, prevaricated to the extent of unintelligibility, and irrational; it is essentially ostentatious and philosophically so dense that it is inane. Likewise, many revelations are demonstrably and factually wrong. Both are anachronistic and have ceased to be inspiring sources of human knowledge. Any reliable human knowledge is empirical and scientific."

Doug Krueger Krueger Mchugh Krueger2

The Krueger-McHugh Debate: Theism or Atheism (2003) Doug Krueger First Rebuttal by Doug Krueger In this first rebuttal I will address some of the problems with McHugh’s argument for the existence of god. Subsequent posts will address his rebuttals to the arguments in my opening statement. McHugh has chosen as his sole weapon for his […]

In Defense of the Original, Secular Pledge of Allegiance

(2002) Jeffery Jay Lowder In the matter of Newdow v. Congress, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The court noted that these revisionist words (added in 1954) violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. However, this ruling has been unpopular, to put it […]

The Cooke-Aijaz Debate: Bill Cooke’s Closing Statement

Does God Exist? (2002) Bill Cooke’s Closing Statement: Behold the new god! Anthropocentric conceit! Having lunged and parried in cyberspace on the question of the possible existence of a god, how far have we got? I doubt anyone’s mind has been changed significantly. All that has probably happened as a result of these exchanges is […]

Cooke-Aijaz Debate: Bill Cooke’s Second Rebuttal

Does God Exist? (2002) Bill Cooke’s Second Rebuttal: Super Duper’s (or Was It Hyper Mega’s) Last Gasp One really wonders what value there is in thrashing out questions of the existence of God. The evidence against the existence of any sort of god is so overwhelming as to be hardly worth arguing. And, as I […]

Cooke-Aijaz Debate: Bill Cooke’s First Rebuttal

Does God Exist? (2002) Bill Cooke’s First Rebuttal: Super Duper Defended…or Was It Hyper Mega? The opening statement of Mr Aijaz was a worthwhile, although unsuccessful, effort to retrieve some credibility for a cause long recognised as irrevocably lost by the vast majority of academics. But more than this, his arguments underscored the main point […]

Cooke-Aijaz Debate: Opening Statement by Bill Cooke

Does God Exist? (2002) Opening Statement by Bill Cooke The Folly of the Super-dupers There is a beach at the northern extremity of New Zealand called the Ninety-Mile Beach. Oddly enough, the beach is ninety miles long. Imagine how many grains of sand there must be on this beach. Tens of millions? Now imagine one […]

The Cooke-Aijaz Debate: Imran Aijaz’s Closing Statement

Does God Exist? (2002) Imran Aijaz’s Closing Statement I find it rather surprising to see Dr. Cooke “wonder[ing] what value there is in thrashing out questions of the existence of God”. If a being like the God of classical theism does, in fact, exist, then man is part of a teleological worldview that is unfolding […]