Modern Library

The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Possibility of an Actually Infinite Future (1999) Eric Sotnak This article was originally published in Philo, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1999), pp. 41-52. A skeptic died and to his surprise he found himself before the Pearly Gates facing none other than St. Peter. “Is this heaven?” he asked.“As a […]

Denis Diderot (1713-1784) was the brightest light of the French Enlightenment--a man of intelligence, passion and genius. He yearned for knowledge as he sought the answer to the ultimate enigma of all ... our Universe. He wanted to know why we are here? ... why is there a universe? ... why is there anything at all?

We are asked to believe that out of the trillions of stars, in billions of galaxies--we were selected by the Lord God of the Whole Shebang, for experimentation.

Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931) recognized no power greater than Nature, and spent his life investigating the nature of Nature. His truculent agnosticism is not generally known, but it resulted from his investigation into the alleged supernatural.

Ethan Allen was a freethinker who thought Judeo-Christian-Islam-anity was a calamity. He is another of the founders the religious right doesn't speak about when they tell us of our "Christian nation."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1850-1902) was the most famoust freethinking woman of her day. She spent her life fighting for equal rights for all humanity.

The Canon of the Bible (1999) Larry A. Taylor Criteria for Canonicity | Old Testament | OT Aprocrypha | Consistence for the NT | NT Canon | NT Apocrypha | Conclusion | Anachronisms in Daniel | Bibliography | Related Resources But in regard to the Canon itself, which they so superciliously intrude upon us, ancient […]

Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) was a towering genius of the 19th Century. In 1859 Charles Darwin gave Huxley an advance copy of the Origin of the Species for critical comment. Huxley, upon completing the small book, declared: "How exceedingly stupid not to have thought of that."

The theory of government presented in the Declaration of Independence represents a radical break with Judeo-Christian traditions that went back thousands of years. Government, it asserts, derives its powers not from the will of God but from the consent of the governed.

(1998) Victor Reppert I. Hume’s Argument Bertrand Russell was reportedly once asked what he would say to God if he were to find himself confronted by the Almighty about why he had not believed in God’s existence. He said that he would tell God “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence!”[1] But perhaps, if God […]

(1998) Victor Reppert When we hear of some new attempt to explain reasoning or language or choice naturalistically, we ought to react as if we were told that someone had squared the circle or proved the square root of 2 to be rational: only the mildest curiosity is in order-how well has the fallacy been […]

(1998*) Theodore Schick Jr. Abstract: Some believe that evidence for the big bang is evidence for the existence of god. Who else, they ask, could have caused such a thing? In this paper, I evaluate the big bang argument, compare it with the traditional first-cause argument, and consider the relative plausibility of various natural explanations […]

This is the second of a three-part series of essays composed during a three-year spirited discussion between Glenn Miller of Christian Thinktank and James Still. Together, the three essays reveal more than anything that there still exists an enormous gulf between the conservative and liberal views of the New Testament.

This is the third of a three-part series of essays composed during a three-year spirited discussion between Glenn Miller of Christian Thinktank and James Still. Together, the three essays reveal more than anything that there still exists an enormous gulf between the conservative and liberal views of the New Testament.

This is the first of a three-part series of essays composed during a three-year spirited discussion between Glenn Miller of Christian Thinktank and James Still. Together, the three essays reveal more than anything that there still exists an enormous gulf between the conservative and liberal views of the New Testament.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."