Christians are often accused of “imposing” their beliefs on others during debates on various topics such as origins, sanctity of life, and sexual morality. Christian beliefs are widely recognized as being Christian, and therefore, humanists use the common line of "You're just imposing your religious beliefs." Yet, the religion of humanism is not as commonly recognized. Individuals, companies, college campuses, and governments can easily force their humanist beliefs on others

"First breath begins at birth not before or fetus would die."-KM "Do you admit that the child is 'alive' then if it is able to 'die'"-Kevin

Pro-abortion views are not necessarily the root problem in a person’s heart, but are a symptom of a person’s non-biblical worldview.

"YOU ALREADY get to live your life by YOUR beliefs. No one can force you to have an abortion."--CJ

One of the most common questions at the center of the pro-life versus pro-abortion debate is simply this: when does life begin? Our worldview defines our answer to that question. In Part 1 of the Life and Religious Liberty Debate, Humanist CA claimed that the Bible declares that life starts at “first breath” in an attempt to attack my worldview. I refuted this claim with various excerpts from scripture. In the next segment of this discussion, the debate with CA continues

When most people consider the religious aspect of the pro-life versus pro-abortion debate, they probably think of the pro-life-and-Christianity connection. Yet, what about the religious worldview behind the pro-abortion viewpoint? That would be the religion of humanism. In January 2020, the American Humanist Association (AHA) Facebook page posted a Vox.com article about the upcoming Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Supreme Court case. The outcome

When I engage humanists in online debates regarding topics such as creation vs. evolution, justice, morality, and so forth, most of them do not offer follow-up responses to my comments/rebuttals. Moreover, a large portion of them are not interested in respectful debate, but prefer to hurl an insult and move on. In the Evolution as “Science” Debate, humanists MR and RC are exceptions to the norm. For reference, I shared the entire conversation between me and MR in my previo

Some people try to attack the character of God by judging His judgments, and one of those judgments is the Global Flood of Genesis. What I call the "Flood Morality Debate" is a discussion about this particular topic that took place on a comment thread attached to one of Ray Comfort’s Facebook posts. KD, presumably a non-secular humanist, attacked God’s judgment as immoral and “insanity.” I jumped in the discussion thread and asked KD to reveal the standard of judgment that

In Part 2 of the Flood Morality Debate, KD admitted that he did not have an ultimate authority or ultimate standard of judgment. This is despite the fact that he was trying to judge God as being immoral for His Judgment against humanity during the Global Flood of Genesis. KD was using his own standard of judgment, which is merely an opinion. God’s Word has much to say about standards of judgment, including these relatively well-known versus of scripture: Judge not, that yo

In Part 1 of the Flood Morality Debate, KD attempted to charge God with immorality and “insanity” regarding the judgment of the Global Flood. I challenged KD’s basic presuppositions with the following question: by what ultimate standard of judgment is he charging God with supposed immorality and insanity? That question kicked off my discussion with KD. The debate continues in Part 2 of 4 below. KD: KH, The bible is your absolute moral standard? If so, why? I have nothing c

As I discussed in my previous blog post, “Dismantling a Claim: Evolution is Like Gravity,” evangelist Ray Comfort posted an Answers in Genesis article on his Facebook page regarding the continued expansions at Ark Encounter. As expected, most of Ray's followers are Christians, but there is no shortage of secular and non-secular humanists that comment on various posts and engage in debates. I had engaged in two separate, but simultaneous debates. I shared one debate in my p

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.—John 3:19-20 (NIV) Many humanists that follow the Friendly Atheist (a blogger) revel in their hatred of God. If they truly believe their own worldview, that they themselves are accidental byproducts of random chemical processes, then why

In my previous post, I shared Part 3 of 5 of the Blame and Praise Debate which demonstrated a sad example of a person attacking the character of God in order to justify themselves. As I ponder this behavior once again, especially in regards to Part 4 of 5 of this debate, I am reminded of the chain of blame in Genesis 3. After Adam and Eve commit high treason against God, the following events occur: Adam and Eve try to cover their shame with fig leaves (Gen 3:7) and hide the

As I began to share in Part 2 of 5 of the Blame and Praise Debate, four humanists replied to my original comment and attempted to challenge the Christian worldview. Humanist DG was the first to reply, as I shared in my previous post. The second humanist to reply was OJ, who presented a bizarre summary of “God’s plan” by listing supposed “Steps” one through nine (except he forgot to list a Step 5). OJ’s comment is nothing more than a question-begging epithet, which is “usin

The "Friendly Atheist" blogger, Hemant Mehta, wrote a blog post that, in essence, criticized Christians for praising God for good things, but not blaming God for bad things. Specifically, the blogger criticized two Christian women for crediting God for the fact that they were able to save a child from a hit-and-run. Hemant had this to say: “Let’s all state the obvious together: If God really was there for Peyton, maybe He shouldn’t have let the child get hit by a car.”[i] T

The debate that I discussed in my previous blog post did continue, but not for long. However, I believe the conclusion of the debate is worth its own blog post. Below are the final two posts: CT: All of those concepts were contemplated by Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates nearly 400 years before Jesus was supposedly born. The Bible doesn't have a corner market on it, sorry. As far as I am concerned you might as well be using the word of Odin or Zeus. It's all the same. Human c

…The fact that Jeffrey Dahmer's victims are in hell and he is in heaven demonstrates a problem with your dogma; any theology that punishes victims and rewards the criminal is flawed.—Facebook user FK [abbreviated] One of the major themes of this blog is to point out the religious beliefs of those who claim to be “nonreligious.” Atheists and agnostics will often try to condemn Christianity, or ultimately, condemn the Most High God of the Bible by using their warped standard o

Have you ever heard the claim that the LGBT movement is a modern day “civil rights” movement? After all, are not homosexuality and transgenderism comparable to other physical characteristics such as ethnicity and skin color? The testimonies of individuals such as columnist Matt Moore prove that wrong. In a Christian Post article, he writes, “…for the past four-going-on-five years, I've been writing and speaking about the tension between my faith in Jesus and my ongoing str

Have you ever heard somebody say “I’m not religious, I’m an atheist/agnostic”? On the contrary, atheism and agnosticism are subsets of Humanism, which can certainly be classified as a religion. As noted in the American Humanist Association’s (AHA) list of possible definitions for Humanism, “Humanism is a philosophy, worldview, or lifestance based on naturalism—the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real. Humanism serves, for many humanists, some