TreesNightly

I've see no secular reason why very early term abortions should be prohibited. To explore this further, I went to Google+ and spoke with Catholic Apologist, Paul Schlenker. Me: What's the harm in painlessly killing something that is not only unaware and unconscious; but incapable of pain, awareness and consciousness if not for some assumption of a soul?? Paul: The harm is that by killing an embryo that is unaware, unconscious, and incapable of experiencing pain is that you prevent that innocent human being from developing further, being born, and living the life it has a right as a human being to live. Me: So, outside of preserving the embryo's potential, the only negative affect is the emotional reaction you and others who are uncomfortable with abortion experience, right? The potential argument is problematic now that any instance of DNA can be said to have the same potential when you consider cloning, not to mention the potential of a sperm and egg. To say everything wi...

=

I�ve interviewed a many notable atheists with great conversion stories. Ex-Baptist minister, Bruce Gerencser , one-time Catholic priest,  Thom Burkett , and past Presbyterian pastor, David Hayward , to name a few. I�m aware of atheists who are now proud Christians, mostly because evangelists reshare such stories until my timeline is a flood of textual reruns. They must know that the narrative of someone discarding one life for another can be very compelling, but should it ever be compelling enough to convince you to change? Is there anyone whose conversion would be a catalyst for your own? Not long ago I had a close college friend pass along his testimony of religious revelation. Unlike a door-to-door religious testimony, my friend�s meant something because I knew that he wasn�t mentally unstable. He wasn�t justifying the means of a lie to the end of saving my soul. Coming from a person who with I�ve spent the best and worst of over four years it meant what he was saying was very l...

I've become a regular reader of a few blogs that I don't think I've mentioned before. I thought I'd share. Young Blogs Big Bang God I found this guy on Google+. His blog is only a month old at the time of this post, but I think he'll keep it up for a while. He obviously likes writing and notes that his posts shouldn't be taken too seriously, which I generally like about anyone--atheist or not. Married An Atheist Weighing in at only seven posts so far, this is another newbie. It's also the only non-atheist blog on the list. The author is a Christian who is chronicling her relationship and outlining her philosophy as the wife of an atheist. She might not think like us, but she is obviously friendly towards us (as long as you are friendly towards her.) Godless In Dixie This blog wins the most professional newb award. The posts are longer-form, well spoken and in some cases even researched. I'm hardly the first to mention this rising atheist voice, I found i...

Before. God, if you exist, you could make a decent case for yourself if you strike me down in the next minute. Otherwise, I'm so going to mock you. � Grundy (@deityshmeity) June 29, 2013 After. Still alive. (See last tweet.) God, if you exist, you suck. � Grundy (@deityshmeity) June 30, 2013

The following is a post to the Christian Apologetics Alliance's Google+ Community by Caleb Dickson, who is well worth a follow. Apologetics is defined as: Systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine) A branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity (Merriam-Webster dictionary) Of course there are reasons why opposition to Christianity has intensified, especially in recent decades. A flurry of new scientific observations, hypotheses, theories and the resulting philosophical implications that fly in the face of elementary Christian belief have raised more questions than ever in Christian history. These questions have forced Christians to rally support for their beliefs and provide answers for the growing number of inadequately answered questions and, as a result, growing number of atheists. But to what end? How far are Christians willing to assert and defend themselves in the face of denial? It seems that too many of u...

10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

10. The apologist projects qualities that apply to them onto you in hopes that it will equate all parties involved. They figure that they can�t lose the argument they are in fact losing because every one is relying on, say, faith. This ultimately ends the argument in a tie...if it were true, which it�s not. 9. Questions are worded as double or triple negatives in hopes that you agree to something that could easily be misread to mean the opposite. If you discover that you�ve made an error and correct it, the apologist labels you an inconsistent flip-flopper for the rest of your debate and/or life. 8. The apologist ignores common meanings of words and applies definitions that only other apologists accept as valid. They do this without telling you what their unorthodox definitions are until pressured. This method allows them to think atheists don�t know what we are talking about because, well, we don�t know what we are talking about. It's a breach of common vernacular in favor of co...

*America doesn't make witnesses do this in court anymore, but we used to. This meme is now horribly out of date. That said, I believe "so help me God" is still used and Presidents almost always swear in using the bible.

I�ve been thinking ( again ) about what truth the phrase �there are no atheists in foxholes� might hold. I know what it�s like to believe in God and I know what it was like to gradually dismiss this belief. There were points in my life where a version of this phrase could have been applied to my experience, but those versions didn�t include the word �atheist�--they applied to a pre-atheist label. Maybe it's There are no lapsed Christians in foxholes. For a long while I identified as Christian without any intention of attending church. I believed Jesus was a good example to live by and still entertained the idea of the resurrection. In retrospect, it�s an odd state to be in to only kind of believe Biblical miracles. They are so outside the realm of our experience that I�d think belief in them should be all or nothing; either have complete faith in your indoctrination or soberly dismiss magic in a nonmagical world. During this time I met the periodic hardships of life and, occasion...

Atheists usually argue that morality is subjective because, well, theists argue that morality is objective. Some atheists also argue this because they accept the reality that people define their morality in different ways. This is undebatably the way it is, but doesn�t have to be. If everyone defined morality identically, it could be objective sans deity. Apologists claim that God is needed for a moral standard. The way I see it, a moral standard is needed and this standard not only needn't be God, but it can�t be God. I define right conduct as simply that which benefits others more than it harms. Wrong conduct is obviously that which harms others more than it benefits. This is a moral standard. From here we can take any action and determine it�s morality objectively. Going on a shooting spree causes direct harm to everyone hit and therefore is morally wrong. Stopping the shooter benefits all those who would have been hit and is therefore morally right. Even if one must kill the s...