Is it valid to say, “Homo sapiens are marvels of unintelligent design”?
Atheism
Otangelo Grasso on the difficulties of reasoning with atheists
Evidence doesn’t seem to matter much.
L&FP, 60: Illustrating an all too common atheistical attitude
The below is taken from a typical Internet Atheist trollish rhetorical stunt, illustrating all too familiar patterns of fallacious reasoning that are here seen in an attempt to bully and stereotype Christians as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. For first level responses see here [Jesus], here [worldviews], here [evil Christians]. This sort of polarising snide Read More…
At Evolution News: An Optimistic Solution to the Mystery of Life’s Origin
It’s fairly evident that non-theistic origin-of-life researchers, while seeing the daunting obstacles to any conceivable naturalistic pathway for abiogenesis, nevertheless believe that life arose naturally, not based on scientific evidence, but due to their nearly absolute determination that God’s creative agency not be considered.
Debate: Theism vs. Naturalism: Which is a Better Account of Reality?
The May 16 debate featured apologist Jonathan McLatchie vs “Cosmic Skeptic” Alex O’Connor, an influential New Atheist.
At BigThink: Atheism not as rational as you think?
Something must be changing if points like this are being made at outfits like BigThink.
Noted at Hillfaith: Atheists’ books show that God must exist
They couldn’t have written them without intelligent design of the universe. The blog also notes the impact of Steve Meyer’s book, Return of the God Hypothesis, which seems to be giving the Darwinian materialist atheists some serious competition.
L&FP, 54: J C Wright on the haunting “Morlockery” of many today, in the neo-gnostic, nihilistic “Technoplutocracy”
Mr Wright, a noted Science Fiction/Fantasy writer [and married to another, L Jagi Lampwriter Wright] observes a pattern of our times: Technoplutocracy is my term for our current intellectual elite, a combination of traditionally leftwing and rightwing elements [–> outdated reference], dominating our public institutions, political and legal and scholarly, corporate culture, international finance, but Read More…
L&FP, 53: Mackie’s concession regarding the deductive form argument from evil against the existence of God (answering CD et al.)
It seems there is still a feeling in some atheistical quarters that Mackie’s formulation of the deductive argument from evil has withstood Plantinga’s challenge. This recently came up here at UD. and led to an exchange: PART A: THE EXCHANGE IN THE MAGAZINE BIAS THREAD CD, 183: >>KF @ 174I found this an interesting aside: Read More…
China’s surveillance and control move, targeting esp. Christians
We see in current news: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has activated measures to drastically restrict the availability of Christian content on the internet, Open Doors reported this week. Last December, China’s State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA) announced its upcoming “Measures for the Administration of Internet Religious Information Services,” a series of regulations designed Read More…
At Mind Matters News: Michael Egnor’s challenge to two atheists who deny free will
Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is challenging evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci to a debate. He thinks there is too much of this no-free-will nonsense in the science blogosphere. Egnor: “Free will has no physical cause? At least four categories of events in nature have no physical cause. Free will denial isn’t science, just atheism in a lab coat.”
Guest post: Harry, on the misanthropy (so, disregard for life) of the lawless elite
UD sometimes hosts guest posts, some by request, some by promotion of comments. This is one of the latter. A key point is his note that the toll of our living posterity in the womb is now two billions (I can readily show 800+ millions and can plausibly support the 1.4 billion statistics I have Read More…
Is “Many Worlds” an atheist war on quantum mechanics?
Huyett: “As a graduate student in the 1950s, [Hugh] Everett was alarmed to discover that traditional quantum mechanics did not line up with his materialist commitments. He was repulsed by the fact that the human mind seemed to be given a special role—a conclusion that Everett thought smacked of the supernatural. ” So he set out to change the approach via his Many Worlds hypothesis.
Michael Ruse lecture makes interesting admission re Darwinism and atheists, agnostics
Darwin’s theory, Ruse writes meant that ” the way was opened for sound non-belief, although almost always non-believers – agnostics and atheists – take their stance less on science and more on grounds of theology and philosophy.”
Good question: Why do atheists reason so poorly?
They’re not just The Party of Reason, really. They’re the Party of Science-and-Reason. The hyphens signify the way atheists treat them as joined at the hip.