God (1997) Jan Narveson [This paper was originally published in Reason Papers, #22 – Fall 97, pp. 109-118. Electronically republished here with permission of Reason Papers.] The question before us tonight is whether God exists. But I think we may re-phrase this in a way that enables discussion to proceed more effectively. Our question is […]

The "evidentialist challenge" is the gauntlet thrown down by atheist writers such as Antony Flew, Norwood Russell Hanson, and Michael Scriven. They argue that in debates over the existence of God, the burden of proof should fall on the theist. They contend that if theists are unable to provide cogent arguments for theism, i.e. arguments showing that it is at least more probable than not that God exists, then atheism wins by default. It follows that atheists are under no obligation to argue for the nonexistence of God; their only task is to show that theistic arguments fail. Prof. Ralph McInerny argues that the burden of proof should fall on the unbeliever. Here I shall rebut Prof. McInerny's claim and argue that, in the context of public debate over the truth of theism, theists cannot shirk a heavy burden of proof.

In this article, Keith Augustine provides an argument that objective moral values probably do not exist if naturalism is true and defends the coherence of moral subjectivism.

(1997) In Is Man the Measure? (Geisler, 1983), Norman Geisler assesses a number of forms of humanism, pointing out what he believes to be positive and negative aspects of each variety, and ultimately concluding that all have damning flaws. In Chapter 7, Geisler deals with what he calls “cultural humanism,” by which he designates the […]

An argument against the existence of God based on the lack of evidence for God's existence where, given God's nature, we would expect to find such evidence. (Reprinted from the May 1997 edition of the Campus Freethought Bulletin, a publication of the Campus Freethought Alliance.)

It's honest to admit you lack ultimate answers.

The whole Bible, and Genesis in particular, was written at a time when people knew less about the cosmos than we presently do. For this reason, it is understandable that certain passages reflect a view of the world which has long since been discredited by modern science. And since these passages are now known to be untrue, the rational attitude is to reject them downright, because the very rejection of something false is always a step forward which leads us closer to the truth. Seen in this light, to obstinately cling to the Creation Myth, or to give it a clumsy reinterpretation, is irrational, dishonest, and totally unworthy of a lover of wisdom and knowledge.

(1997) Traducción al Español / Spanish translation Hebrew translation Introduction This document contains responses to points which were brought up repeatedly in Usenet newsgroups and on discussion boards devoted to discussion of atheism. Points covered here are ones which are not covered in the document “An Introduction to Atheism.” Note: It is highly recommended that […]

Back in I went and was TOSed out once again for complaining about being kicked out the first time. They will never know the joys of freethought flight, those poor caged birds of Christendom.

Think of a fine illustrated bible, with pictures of what I am about to read, or a TV documentary graphically portraying these scenes that I am about to describe. What would Dobson say if Disney came out with a movie strictly adhering to the Good Book's description of this loving god?

A discussion of the position of atheism within today's society--including how it affects people's day-to-day relationships. Particularly recommended if you're an atheist or agnostic.

Carl Sagan's struggle against superstition.

Judaism and Jewish Apologetics (1997) Guido G.B. Deimel “Those who wish to seek out the causes of miracles, and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adore as the interpreters […]

The Uniqueness of the Bible (1997) What Does Uniqueness Prove? | Continuity | Circulation, Translation, and Survival | Teachings | Influence | Related Resources In ETDAV, McDowell begins his defense of the Bible with the claim that it is unique. He parades before us an array of “scholars” to testify to various features of the […]

That Colossal Wreck A Review of Zacharias’s A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism (1997) by Doug Krueger Related documents: “Addressing Those Colossal Misunderstandings: A Response to Doug Krueger” (1999) Paul Copan’s response to this essay. “Copin’ with Copan” (1999) Krueger’s reply to Copan’s response. “An Emotional Tirade Against Atheism” (1999) by Jeffery Jay […]

Several contemporary philosophers of religion have offered 'solutions' the problem of evil which insist that the world would actually be worse off than it currently is if there were no evil in it. Although John Hick's soul-making theodicy is the most prominent example of such a solution, Clement Dore has recently offered a theodicy that Weisberger dubs "the pollution solution." According to this response, evil is a necessary consequence of the 'polluting' natural machinery of the world. But as Weisberger points out, Dore fails to answer the critical question: Why couldn't God have created "nonpolluting" natural machinery? On the face of it, there is no reason to believe that such a world is logically impossible, and Dore offers no evidence to the contrary.

[This essay is from a lecture given to the Atheist Students Association at the University of Maryland, College Park, on November 14, 1996.] Materialism is the oldest philosophical tradition in Western civilization. Originated by a series of pre-Socratic Greek philosophers in the 6th and 5th centuries before the Christian era, it reached its full classical […]

Bigotry ruled the "moral" 1950s.

A backlash against fundamentalists in the GOP.

Religious atrocities in the daily news.

Almost all evangelical Christians believe that the writing of the Bible was divinely inspired and represents God's main revelation to humanity. They also believe that the Bible contains special features which constitute evidence of its divine inspiration. This would be a use of the Bible to prove God's existence within natural theology rather than within revealed theology, since the book's features are supposed to be evident even to (open-minded) skeptics. Furthermore, since a divinely inspired work must be true, those features are thereby also evidence of the Bible's truth, and thus can be used in support of Christianity as the one true religion. When expressed that way, the reasoning can be construed as an argument both for God's existence and for the truth of the gospel message from the alleged special features of the Bible. We may refer to it as 'the Argument from the Bible.

When God is conceived of as an all-powerful and all-loving deity, many arguments for his nonexistence can be raised. Two of the main ones are the Argument from Evil (hereafter abbreviated AE) and the Argument from Nonbelief (hereafter abbreviated ANB). In what follows, I shall provide precise formulations of those two arguments, make some comments about them, and then try to refute the main defenses (of God's existence) that might be put forward against ANB, which I consider the stronger of the two. I take ANB to be a sound argument establishing the proposition that God (conceived of in a certain way) does not exist.

Concerning Theodore Drange's Argument from Evil for the Nonexistence of God (2002) by Shandon Guthrie

"In the recent past, Professor Theodore Drange of West Virginia University has launched a twofold attack on traditional views of the existence of God. In a seminal article reproduced on the Secular Web's site entitled "Arguments from Evil and Nonbelief," Dr. Drange mounts a case against classic theism predicating its notion of an omnibenevolent God. His shorter articles have been subsequently maturated in his book, Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God. Although I find Drange's approach to be erudite, I believe that his argument is dubious. This article explores the Argument from Evil as presented by Dr. Drange and suggests that the conclusion that God does not exist is not warranted.

Reply to Guthrie (2003) by Theodore Drange

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 Argument from Nonbelief : A Rejoinder (2003) by Paul Pardi

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.

A Rebuttal to Pardi's Criticism of ANB (2004) by Philip Kuchar

"I argue that Pardi's criticisms of Drange's version of the argument from nonbelief (ANB) do not refute ANB, although they may or may not require peripheral corrections or clarifications on Drange's part. I focus not so much on Drange's formulation, but on what I take to be the central intuitions of ANB and on the inadequacy of Pardi's objections. I assume some familiarity with Pardi's paper and with ANB, although I present what I consider to be ANB's central claims."

Is Atheism Logical? (1996) Mark I. Vuletic [This article originally appeared in The Free Mind: The Newsletter and Forum of the University of Minnesota Atheists and Humanists 2(7), May/June 1996.] In his brief article “Is Atheism Logical?”, Hank Hanegraaff [1] tries to show that atheism is not rationally justifiable. For the most part, Hanegraaff’s article […]

Another fanatic thinks God said "Thou shalt kill."

Forces of the universe don't include magical spirits.

Famous people who doubted religion.