Modern Library

(1999) Eyewitness Evidence | Documentary Evidence | Corroborating Evidence | Scientific Evidence | Rebuttal Evidence | Identity Evidence | Psychological Evidence | Profile Evidence | Fingerprint Evidence | Medical Evidence | Evidence of the Missing Body | Evidence of the Appearances | Circumstantial Evidence | Concluding Thoughts | Addendum | Related Resources This review was […]

So where did we come from if not from Eden? Darwin said, "Man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits ... For my part I would as soon be descended from a baboon ... as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies ... treats his wives like slaves ... and is haunted by the grossest superstitions."

The Bible in the Book of Mormon (1999) Curt van den Heuvel Introduction To the ardent follower of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is the surest proof of his prophetic office. It is the one undeniable sign of his divinely given gifts of translation. To the skeptic, the Book of Mormon is an interesting […]

Mark Twain (1835-1910) was a freethinker who brooked many hard blows in his roisterous life.

Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) was a compound of brilliance, wit, grit, gumption, and humor who became one of the great writers and social critics of this fading century.

In his chapter on "The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience" (a chapter that McDowell or his editorial staff chose to delete from the latest edition of Evidence That Demands a Verdict), he made a variety of sweeping claims about the "Christian Experience," and also argued for the uniqueness of the Christian experience in history, but McDowell did not investigate history very deeply, nor the lives and writings of the Christians whom he cited, some of whom came to hold different views on a wide variety of theological subjects. Lastly, McDowell seems to have only examined superficially his own youthful conversion experience (any reasonable analysis of which would seem to confirm how young and emotionally unstable he was when he converted).

Should we laugh or cry when we are confronted with the invincible ignorance of bigotry? We can't honor freedom of religion by dishonoring freedom from it. How little we have changed--while the ancient Cypress along the Guadalupe grew from plants to towers--freethought still seeks a home in Comfort.

Percy Bysshe Shelley was a sad genius who tried to live a happy life. He mastered Latin and Greek, pondered the great philosophers, and, suddenly he was reborn--he became an amalgam of Lucretius, Pliny, Hume, Locke, d'Holbach, Bacon, Voltaire, Spinoza, Franklin, Paine, and a host of other giants whose thoughts were melded into his flashing mind.

The Moral Argument from Evil (1999) Dean Stretton I. Introduction Theistic responses to the evidential argument from evil usually contend that God has morally justifying reason for allowing evil to occur.[1] There are, of course, many cases where we cannot think what that morally justifying reason might be. But, it is argued, this at most […]

He rebelled against society, the bar, the bench, the tradition of big business grinding down working men and women, segregation, and a host of other establishments. With his crew of clients he ran a hard charge through the judicial system of his day. As a result we all have more freedom than we would have had without him.

Pope John Paul II has recently informed the world that Purgatory is still there and he's made arrangements with the powers that may be to let us out early when we die.

(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 […]

(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 […]

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.