In my previous blog post, I shared Part 1 of the Religion and Cults Debate, where I responded to a JS’s claim that there is “…no difference between a religion and a cult.” Other than JS’s unreasoned “No” response to one of my two replies, I did not see any more responses from him. One other humanist, AH, jumped into the debate thread. Below is the transcript for Part 2 of what I call the Religion and Cults Debate. As always, I abbreviate other people’s names for privacy. AH

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

The direction of the Bird Evolution Debate changed course to a deeper topic. Humanist JC asked me how I “…see the unquestionable and undeniable existence of God.” I answered him in regards to not just any generic “God,” but in regards to the God of the Bible. See below for Part 5 of the Bird Evolution Debate. Names are abbreviated for privacy and brevity. JC: I understand your argument but I don't understand how you see the unquestionable and undeniable existence of God? Es

Humanist RC challenged me with three basic claims: (1) The Bible is just like any other professed “sacred text”; (2) The biblical account of the Flood cannot be trusted; and (3) God has not proven His own existence. I shared the dialogue regarding RC’s first claim in my previous blog post entitled “Why Trust the Bible Over Other Sacred Texts?” My discussion with RC concluded the very lengthy Evolution as “Science” Debate that involved more than two dozen humanists, and 65 Fa

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

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

In my previous post, I shared Part 1 of 5 of a debate that I call the “Blame and Praise Debate.” Humanist blogger Hemant Mehta and his supporters claim that there is a contradiction in the Christian worldview when Christians praise God for good things, such as the saving of a life, but do not blame God for bad things, such as physical harm or loss of life. I pointed out their egregious misrepresentation of the Christian worldview, and challenged their own worldview with a qu

For the first, time, I ventured right into Humanist territory to spark a debate: the Facebook page of the American Humanist Association (AHA). Up until now, I had only engaged in debates with humanists on Christian pages such as evangelist Ray Comfort's Facebook page. Humanists have this deceptive belief that their views are based on “facts,” when in reality, their views are based on faith. Watch how one particular humanist, CT (abbreviated to protect her ID), struggles to

But from a skeptic’s viewpoint there is no proof of an afterlife. So, other than the Bible, what proof can you provide that an afterlife is real? –DK [Abbreviated name for ID protection] This was a comment that I saw on one of evangelist Ray Comfort’s Facebook posts. Although I have long avoided Facebook debates because they can require many hours of time, I believe God is putting a strong desire in my heart to engage directly with Humanists. Therefore, I decided to set as