Logic

Christians (and it’s good advice for everyone else) are called to be skeptical—several places in the Bible it states check things out for yourself and don’t believe something just because it came from an “authoritative” source; many of those sources turn out to be false.

Atheists frequently don’t recognize contradictions while attempting to defend the logical inconsistencies created by atheism. Atheists claim there is no God; after the statement is made (usually as an unproven “fact”), and the logical contradictions of that statement are pointed out to them, instead of admitting they made an error they go to great lengths to disavow the problem.

Errors in logic must be avoided if you wish to have an open mind and use critical thinking. This of course means you must be open to all possibilities, forming opinions based on logic and analysis instead of preconceived ideas; confirmation bias can arise during analysis by making assumptions based on what you want to see, instead of evidence and logical deduction.

Carl Sagan provides many quotes loved by both atheists and evolutionists in an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of God and religion in general. Yet Sagan himself also demonstrates how absurd his position was, as he contradicts his own idea.

Don’t accept someones point of view just because they have the title “pastor” after them. In this case, an atheist has a better understanding of the gospel than the pastor they’re speaking to.

According to atheist morality, morals are not absolute but shift with society. Why then do atheists protest over Christmas displays, when society overwhelmingly approves of them? Atheists don’t appear to follow their own moral view.

Without any absolute reference, where does the atheist obtain their morality? Do they have any? Or does it depend on each person individually?

Does lack of proof for God mean no God exists?

In Part I we discussed the logical reason why the problem of evil isn’t a problem. In Part II we’ll analyze the argument itself, and see why it falls flat as well. In short, the problem of evil … isn’t.

Richard Dawkins proves the existence of God in interview. As a staunch God-denier, we’re sure he didn’t mean to, but he did.

The atheist claims a logical problem exists with a loving all-powerful God and the existence of evil. Unfortunately the atheist finds themselves once again using faulty logic.

Many believe Orwell’s Doublethink (from the book “1984”) is just fiction. Yet today it exists - consider this one example showing Doublethink exists and appears regularly.

So-called “scholars” may lack basic logical and Biblical analysis skills, so do not depend on accolades to give credibility to theories. As an example, a book by a “renowned Bible scholar” has come under fire … by an atheist. Yet we’ll agree with the atheist the “renowned Bible scholar” uses bogus “scholarship”, in spite of their title. Be vary careful not to believe whatever the “scholars” tell you, just because they have titles after their name.

To understand current events, you need to understand the two methods of analysis. While older generations used facts and logic, newer methods involve group-think and consensus, avoiding facts and deductive analysis. Problems for the church arise as concepts such as sin and hell shift to more “user-friendly” ideas, abandoning the firm foundation of God’s Word for the shifting sand of man’s ever-changing wisdom.

The idea of the “big tent” where all major religions exist in doctrinal agreement is sweeping across the world — even the Pope embraces other ideologies. But does this make sense? Since most religions differ (and claim to be correct), how does the “big tent” philosophy work?