Keith Parsons refutes seven popular misconceptions about atheism.

In this article, Keith Augustine responds to Theodore Schick, Jr.'s arguments against the subjectivity of moral values in his Free Inquiry article "Is Morality a Matter of Taste?"

In this paper (originally presented as a talk) Theodore M. Drange seeks to improve upon J. L. Schellenberg's watershed argument that a perfectly loving God would reveal his existence clearly to people in order to get them to believe in him. Schellenberg's argument maintains that the existence of a large number of nontheists provides good reason to deny the existence of such a perfectly loving God. But Drange argues that a stronger version of the argument would add to God's attributes a strong desire for humanity's love. Since one cannot love God if one does not believe in him, God would more clearly desire widespread belief in his existence under Drange's revised formulation. Drange then responds to objections to this line of reasoning, particularly those couched in terms of a free-will or unknown-purpose defense, including Daniel Howard-Snyder's inappropriate-response defense. To this day Drange is unaware of any response by either Schellenberg or Howard-Snyder to his objections to their arguments.

(1998) In Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig makes a sharp distinction between knowing that God exists and being able to show this. He maintains that one knows that Christianity is true “by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit.”[1] One can show that God exists, that Jesus is his Son, and that other alleged Christian […]

A common objection to atheism—one stated by many scholars and laymen, theists and nontheists—is that it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of God. Yet there are actually two ways to prove the nonexistence of something. One way is to prove that it cannot exist because its very concept is self-contradictory (e.g., square circles, married bachelors, etc.). The other way is by carefully looking and seeing. Both of these methods can and have been used to disprove various conceptions of God.

Montgomery asserts that Christianity's claims survive examination using the legal tests for evidence. He does this only by misstating and twisting the rules of evidence and the facts.

The reasons for being moral depend on what it means "to be moral." On some possible definitions, the question, "Why be moral?" is meaningless. But in the case of the other definitions, it is possible to understand the question and even to answer it. Moreover, on the definitions which make the question meaningful, the atheist can answer the question just as well as the theist. Indeed, with respect to specific moral questions (e.g., "Why should people not rape?"), the atheist can provide a better answer than theists who accept the Bible as God's Word.

Currently, a very popular theistic argument is the so-called "fine-tuning argument," the argument that God is the best explanation for the combination of physical constants which allow life. Drange argues that (1) God is a poor explanation, and that (2) there are better explanations than God for the combination of physical constants.

Using the simplified definition of a "miracle" as an event which violates a law of nature, Drange investigates the relation between science and miracles. He argues that scientists, as scientists, can't believe that such events ever occur, but leaves open whether they could consistently believe in miracles apart from their scientific work. If they do, it would only be in virtue of having compartmentalized minds.

Ten atheological arguments are presented (and briefly discussed) in each of which there is an apparently incompatible pair of divine attributes.

The Case for a Coherent God (2002) by Joseph A. Sabella

One response to the incompatible-properties arguments surveyed by Drange.

The Coherence of God: A Response to Theodore M. Drange (2003) by Ralph C. Wagenet

A second response to Drange's incompatible-properties arguments.

Drange argues that people who believe the sentence, "God exists," does not express a proposition are noncognitivists. Those who believe it expresses a true proposition are theists; those who believe it expresses a false proposition are atheists; and those who believe the evidence is insufficient to determine the truth of the proposition are agnostics.

Theistic creationism cannot be scientific; on the other hand, naturalistic creationism could be a scientific theory. However, "that is a moot point and has no application to public policy. There are excellent reasons (of both a scientific and pedagogical sort) for teachers not to present or discuss the theory in any science class."

Here are two atheological arguments, called the "Lack-of-evidence Argument" (LEA) and "the Argument from Nonbelief" (ANB). LEA: Probably, if God were to exist then there would be good objective evidence for that. But there is no good objective evidence for God's existence. Therefore, probably God does not exist. ANB: Probably, if God were to exist then there would not be many nonbelievers in the world. But there are many nonbelievers in the world. Therefore, probably God does not exist. Reasons are given for saying that although LEA is not totally implausible, ANB is a stronger atheological argument than it is.

A Review of Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Robin Le Poidevin

Murphy reminds us that Hitler was a Christian, not an atheist as the Christians would have everyone believe.

Freethinkers employ reason when they are beseeched to join a religion. Religionists seem to employ reason in all areas of their lives except religion, and even here they use it to disregard all religions but their own.

This is an open letter to tell Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and his claque at the Family Research Council, that their right to spread hatred, veiled or blatant, will not be impaired if Colorado makes gays and lesbians eligible to be victims of hate crimes.

Robert G. Ingersoll was known as the greatest orator our country ever produced. A hundred years ago, everyone knew of him.

Most folks have never heard of Giordano Bruno, who was burned to death in the Square of the Flowers, in down-town Rome, on February 16, 1600, for the crime of thinking.

If we learned real history in schools--the warts along with the dimples--then folks might lighten up on one another.

A summary and assessment of the 1997 debate on the existence of God between William Lane Craig and Doug Jesseph. Lowder concludes that the overall debate was a draw (in terms of quality of argument), but that Craig won as far as the effectiveness of presentation was concerned.

Logic & Fallacies Constructing a Logical Argument (1997) mathew [ Español / Spanish ] Introduction There is a lot of debate on the net. Unfortunately, much of it is of very low quality. The aim of this document is to explain the basics of logical reasoning, and hopefully improve the overall quality of debate. The […]

Introduction (1997) Jeffery Jay Lowder Related documents: Introduction to “A Jury in Need of Dismissal” (AJINOD) (Off Site) by James Patrick Holding Holding’s rebuttal to this essay. (Strangely, Holding does not link to my essay from his site.) Is ETDAV an Apologetic?” by Jeffery Jay Lowder My reply. Straight from the Horse’s Mouthby James Patrick […]

(1997) Jeffery Jay Lowder In his latest (and allegedly, his last) salvo in the lively debate over the stated purpose of Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict, James Patrick Holding declares that ETDAV is not an apologetic because Mr. Ron Lutjens, a member of the ETDAV research team, says so.[1] Moreover, Holding states that […]

(1997) Jeffery Jay Lowder When skeptics question the existence of Jesus, they often assume that anyone who accepts the historicity of Jesus must be able to provide extra-Biblical confirmation of his existence. According to this view, the New Testament does not provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus; independent confirmation is needed. In […]