Debate: Is there Evidence for God? An Example of an Atheist’s Dogmatism.

I saw an atheist ask the question, “Is there evidence for God?” on Eric Hovind’s public Facebook page. I had a little time, and I love to discuss the nuances concerning this question so I decided to engage this atheist and investigate whether or not he understood the question. If you pay close attention to the way he defines evidence and the way he approaches accumulating it, you will notice that it is a failed attempt to force his conclusion whilst appearing to be void of dogma. He criticized me for forcing my conclusion by picking my axiom, but it is quite obvious that he was doing the same thing. He attempted to pick axioms that would cause him to view the world in a way that coheres with his preconceived notions about the supernatural (specifically, the existence of God). Of course, this is how philosophy is done. One picks a first principle and attempts to arrive at the conclusion that they desire. Immaneul Kant’s quest to save empiricism from the devastating critiques of David Hume is one notable example.



Atheist: Evidence for God?

Me: Since you have not given a definition for ‘evidence,’ I do not think you understand your own question. How do you define ‘evidence’ in this instance?

Atheist: Factual circumstances which account for, or support one available explanation over any other.

Me: What do you mean by “factual circumstances?” How does one determine what constitutes as “factual circumstances?” I do not see how you can define that phrase without begging the question. According to your apparent line of thinking, you seek evidence to account for belief in a proposition, but “factual circumstances” would also have to be determined, and it would either be determined by what you call “evidence” (which would beg the question) or it would involve asserting without evidence (the mistake that you accuse people like Eric of making). Either way, your question becomes meaningless and your own dogmatism is exposed.

Atheist: Factual circumstance in this case would refer to something which is observable true and is indicative of a supernatural creator.

Me: Why is it that something is true when it’s observable? How can one even observe? You would have to be able to answer how you can get perceptions from sensory data. I have never met an empiricist that is able to answer this question.

Furthermore, it seems that the empirical method of observation and experimentation commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent because it involves arguing from effect to cause. The cause of the effect is only assumed, but it is never demonstrated by the empiricist. Therefore, the empiricist only assumes that which is the case without any evidence (given your definition) because it is impossible to determine the cause behind the phenomenon that is observed. Since your definition of ‘factual circumstances” includes discerning one explanation’s validity over another, this a significant problem that your position must somehow overcome.

Atheist: What other method of knowing something other than sensory perception do you have?

Me: Well, first, you have not demonstrated that you can know anything via sense perception. Because of this, I don’t know why you asked your question in the way you did. In order to ask, “How else can you know something besides sense perception?” you must be able to first demonstrate that you can know something via sense perception. You have not done so.

The first step to building a system of philosophy that can escape epistemological skepticism is to realize that everyone is a dogmatist; therefore, every system of philosophy must start with an indemonstrable proposition which is known as an axiom. Though these axioms cannot be demonstrated, they can be tested for logical consistency.

It is, however, important to note that logical consistency does not guarantee the truth of a proposition, and therefore, is not a sufficient positive test for truth. As a Christian, I recognize that truth is propositional, and I define knowledge as the possession of the truth. My starting point in my philosophical system is “The Bible alone is the Word of God written.” The Bible is defined as the propositional revelation of the 66 books of the protestant canon. Therefore, all of the propositions of scripture and the logical forms used by God to communicate divine truths to us are presuppositions. A Christian may also call propositions that are deduced by necessary consequence knowledge as well. This is how we escape skepticism. One might ask, “How can you know what the Bible teaches without reading it?” This, however, simply assumes what the objector has not proven (the notion that sense perception allows us to account for knowledge). The reason why we can know what the Bible teaches is because it is sufficient to give us knowledge (2 Timothy 3:16). Knowledge is not a matter of disjointed sensory data. Knowledge is propositional, and somehow, when we read the Bible, God, being the cause of all effects (Acts 17:28), impresses his revelation on us.

Atheist: what reason do you have to start from the bible?

Me: First principles are chosen. In essence, you may start with whatever first principle that you wish to start with; however, if you do not want to be viewed as intellectually dull, you must be able to defend it.

As for my reasons, I have several reasons why I chose it. First, it is because I am a child of God, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit is within me (Romans 8:16). Second, it is because I am able to build a complete philosophical system that is able to deal with philosophical questions and criticism of my own system. Third, the Bible attests to its own truth. While that does not demonstration the axiom I have chosen, it does allow me to give an account for my belief that the Bible is true.

Atheist: your first “reason” is just begging the question ,second the bible makes claims that are evidently untrue ,therefore it can claim no truth, lastly just because something is logically consistent , it isn’t necessarily true. jason i was asking for evidence in the natural world that it has been influenced by a supernatural being, specifically the god of the bible, my meaning was quite apparent. you continue to dance around the question.

Me: Your accusation of begging the question is incorrect. Begging the question is attempting to demonstrate what you are arguing by assuming it. I am not attempting to demonstrate my axiom. It seems to me that you have not yet learned how to distinguish circular reasoning from linear reasoning. If you think that what I did was begging the question, and you reject it because of that, you must also reject logic as well because it is constructed in the same way as my philosophical system. Of course, if you reject logic, accusations of fallacies become inconsequential.

You say that the Bible makes claims that are untrue, but you have not given any examples nor have you given any systematic approach to falsifying its claims. Just because you think the Bible makes untrue claims does not make it so.

If you had read my comment more carefully, you might be aware that I stated that logical consistency does not guarantee the truth of the axiom, and that is why I provided a positive test for truth that did not involve logical consistency. Your criticism of my position involves misrepresenting it, and if you misrepresent my position, you are not interacting with it.

You asked for ‘evidence,’ but as I already pointed out in a comment (That you never bothered to answer), your definition of evidence is meaningless because your definition necessitates that you determine the cause for what is observed. If you have not yet demonstrated that you can do so, your request is meaningless. I suppose I was correct when I first responded to your question because you do not appear to understand the very question that you directed at Eric.

Atheist: to say that you choose a religion gives the appearance that you can assert whatever you want as true.

Me: This is ironic to say the least. I have demonstrated that this is exactly what you have been doing this entire time. If you reject my axiom because you don’t like it, I am free to reject yours. To suggest otherwise is special pleading.

This can, again, be demonstrated with how you will answer this simple question: As someone who rejects the supernatural, how can you demonstrate that a cause for an effect is a natural cause? Also, let me ask you, how can you draw a conclusion without starting at a proposition? In order to go somewhere, you must start somewhere, and in order to start somewhere, you must assume a proposition is true before drawing inferences. In other words, it is not possible to have a philosophy that is not predicated on an indemonstrable axiom. You are every bit as much of a dogmatist as I am. An apparent difference between you and I is that I accept my dogmatism, but you will not admit to your own dogmatic tendencies.

Atheist: i don’t “reject the supernatural’ there is no reason to think anything outside the natural world is true

Me: And what reason do you have to think that the natural world is true? How do you know that causes for effects are natural causes? If you have no reason to think anything outside of the natural world is true, you have no reason to think that there is a natural world to begin with. I’d also like to note that you did not address how you can build an approach to accounting for knowledge without starting with an axiom. I am enjoying this discussion, but if you are going to avoid my questions, I am going to have to bow out of this conversation.

Atheist: axioms- i exist, the information i obtain via my sensory receptors is accurate, i assume the natural world exists because it is observable . i assume that causes are natural because they are the only causes demonstrated, also ia there anyway we can move this discussion to a private and longer term format

Me: What does it mean to ‘exist?’ The term is not conducive to a philosophical system because it is a predicate that can follow from any subject.

What does it mean for sensory receptors to be ‘accurate?’ What about mirages in deserts and the numerous empirical tests that conclude that our senses are not always accurate? It seems that if we grant your axiom, it refutes itself.

How can you say the natural world exists because it’s observable? What if what you are observing is really the product of an omnipotent demon that intends to deceive you so that you might think the causes are natural? And besides, your third ‘axiom’ is not even an axiom because it includes an attempt to demonstrate it.

How does one demonstrate a natural cause? Once again, you are attempting to demonstrate your axiom by assuming that the causes are natural. This is a classic case of question begging. A significant problem with all of the axioms you presented is that it leaves no way for you to distinguish between truth and error.

If you want a different format, I am open to doing a formal debate that includes opening statements, rebuttals, and closing statements. The debate would have to be public though because one of the reasons why I am engaging you is to educate other people on how to handle neo empiricists like yourself. We could also have a public discussion and talk on my YouTube channel via Google plus. You, of course, are not obliged to discuss anything with me here (although you are the one who came on this page to start something with Eric Hovind), nor are you obliged to discuss anything with me via the alternative venues I mentioned.


My Endorsement for Gary Johnson as President of the United States

Some who follow me might be aware that I am voting for Gary Johnson this year. I would, however, like to give  few thoughts about my decision to vote for Gary Johnson, and I would also like to take the opportunity to answer some objections to my decision. You may also consider this my official endorsement of Gary Johnson for president of the United States. What I write here will not be comprehensive, but it should give you a good idea of where I stand.

Fiscal Success

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld (vice presidential candidate) were very successful governors. Gary Johnson was the governor of New Mexico for two terms. Bill Weld was also the governor of Massachusetts for two terms.  Both of them cut taxes numerous times and helped improve infrastructure in their states. Both of them left their states with a sizeable surplus budget.

Adherence to the Constitution

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have been vocal defenders of governance according to the constitution (both according to the states and the federal government). They are campaigning on the idea that the federal government is too involved in the lives of US Citizens, and many of the things that the federal government is trying to handle should be passed on to the states. Under the original vision of the founding fathers, the federal government was supposed to be significantly less involved in people’s lives than it is today.

Individual Liberty

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld advocate letting people make their own decisions, and argue that the federal government doesn’t have to make the people’s decisions for them. They both support (contrary to what others have argued) religious liberty and social liberty. Their views of these issues are consistent with the principles that are laid out in the constitution.

The Destruction of the Two-Party System

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are the most credible threat we have seen to the two-party system since Ross Perot. Though it is an uphill battle, they do have a chance of overcoming it.

Objections to Voting for Gary Johnson

1. A vote for Gary Johnson is a wasted vote.

Response: The idea of voting is to express our opinions about what direction is best for our country. This expression is never a waste unless you vote for a candidate that does not reflect the direction you think the country should go.

2. Gary Johnson is pro choice and supports gay marriage.

Response: Both of the accusations are indeed true. I abhor abortion, and I believe that abortion is murder, but the constitution does not ban it. The only constitutional way to make abortion illegal is to amend the constitution with a definition of ‘person’ that includes unborn children.

Relationships, including homosexual ones, are personal choices. I believe that homosexual relationships are unethical; however, the constitution does not give the government the power to determine what constitutes as a marriage and what doesn’t. If we go around the constitution in an effort to ban these things, it opens a Pandora’s box where nearly anything can be banned by going around the constitution. Any process to ban these behaviors must go through a constitutional process.

3. You say you are a ‘Clarkian,’ but Gordon Clark would not vote for Gary Johnson.

Response: I agree that Gordon Clark probably wouldn’t vote for Gary Johnson, but I am not Gordon Clark. In Clark’s system, ‘politics’ is a matter of opinion; therefore, Clarkians may hold differing view on politics.

4. A vote for Johnson is a vote for abortion.

Response: That is like saying that a vote for Trump is a vote for strip joints. 1 Voting for a candidate does not mean that you agree with every position that candidate has. At best, one could argue that the reasoning behind a vote for a candidate is inconsistent.

5. Gary Johnson will appoint liberal judges to the supreme court.

Response: Regardless of ideology, a supreme justice’s job is to make legal decisions that are in accordance with the constitution. The judicial branch cannot legislate. If the judicial branch legislates, we have bigger problems than having an unfit person as our president. The only solutions would be either to get the judicial branch under control or to throw out our current government and create a new one.


1. Donald Trump has owned buildings that were used in part by strip clubs.


    When will the Church finally realize that we need to combat Islam?

    There have been numerous tragedies that have been connected to Islamic terrorism, yet many churches remain reluctant to send missionaries overseas to countries such as Pakistan. I know a few Pakistani people who are preaching the Gospel in the midst of Pakistan. These are great Christians that have a heart for spreading the Gospel to men, women, and children, yet getting a church to help them is like pulling teeth.

    There is only one way to defeat evil, and that is the Gospel. Jesus came to conquer to die for the sins of those who believe so that death itself might be conquered (1 Cor 15:20). What is it that the church fears? We can send our missionaries, and we can financially support those Pakistanis that are already there spreading the Gospel. Back when Answers for Hope took donations, the ministry donated a majority of excess funds to ministries in Pakistan. Even today, I have given to those ministries whenever there was a need that I could help with.

    Of course, the Gospel must reach beyond Pakistan, but it is a great start. If we bring the Gospel to the middle east instead of bombs and US soldiers, the Gospel will not return void (Isaiah 55:11). Let’s stop being idle and destroy Islamic terrorism. Let us not destroy it by the weapons of the world, but by the weapons of the spirit (2 Cor. 10:4).  Let us not use bombs and bullets, which only destroy. Instead, we ought to use a weapon that destroys evil and restores the world. That weapon is the Gospel.

    Preliminary Comments on The Reason Rally 2017

    Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the reason rally because my time was already committed. I do wonder, however, how these atheists define “reason.” In the roster of speakers, there are numerous atheists that have a skeptical view of epistemology yet they will advocate an empirical methodology as the “best” way to discover the truth and that revelation through the Bible should be rejected a priori. But if skepticism is the correct view of epistemology, there is no best way to discover the truth because there is no truth that can be known in the first place, nor is there a way to give a critique of any method that is used to discover or account for a possessed truth. Maybe we should just call it “The Unreasonable Rally.”

    Liberal Hypocrisy Concerning Refusal of Business

    It seems like it is becoming popular for people to refuse to do business with states that advocate either religious liberty or an intelligible way to differentiate between two genders. Recently, Michael Moore has stated he would boycott North Carolina. One Twitter user promptly (and rightfully so) pointed out that Michael Moore is invoking a right to refuse to do business with others who do not agree with him.

    Certainly, there is both an intellectual and emotional hypocrisy involved on the part of liberals. Some readers may recall two Christian Bakers that had to pay a $135,000 fine to a lesbian couple for refusing to bake a cake for their wedding. Perhaps there is more incentive to have hurt feelings now than there has ever been before. Nevertheless, the Christian Bakers, as business owners, refused to bake a cake and they have to pay a fine, yet Michael Moore refuses to do business with North Carolina due to the “bathroom bill” that requires that people have to go into the bathroom that corresponds with their birth certificate (Oh, cruel fate. Oh! The inhumanity of it all!).

    It is pretty obvious that the instances where liberals believe that someone has a right to refuse business is stacked against Christians and other ideologies that disagree with their own. This, of course, is not universal. Some liberals do have respect for opposing beliefs, but it seems that the most vocal activists for liberalism seem to hold to this hypocritical standard of dealing with opposing viewpoints in the context of business. Of course, liberal activism and logical consistency do not typically go hand in hand.

    Gender Identity, Restrooms, Logic and Some Sarcasm

    It is hard to believe that I now live in a world that thinks that there is a debate to be had about which bathrooms someone can use. I’m going to make this simple for the people who think they can argue that people shouldn’t have to go to the bathroom that corresponds with their birth certificate by briefly highlighting six points:

    1. Historically, gender identification has been associated with anatomy.

    2. When arguing with someone who believes that someone should go into the bathroom that corresponds with their gender, inserting a differing definition of gender into an articulation of the opposing position commits the fallacy of equivocation. If you are going to critique a person’s position, you must use the person’s definitions if you wish to have a meaningful dialogue.

    3. I have gotten several good laughs by watching people attempt to differentiate gender identity by anything other than anatomy.

    4. The most common objection I have faced involves arguing that some people are born with both male and female anatomy, and therefore, the issue of gender identity is not so cut and dry. The reply is elementary. If gender identity is a choice rather than a consequence of anatomy, the doctor should have waited for the baby to choose their gender before removing body parts. And besides, what’s wrong with having anatomy from both? These people clearly don’t like hermaphrodites. Bigots.

    5. If gender identity is a choice, why can’t any form of identity be a choice? Clearly, I can’t declare myself a millionaire and go to my bank to withdraw $1,000,000.00. That is patently absurd and it should be changed. I could do A LOT with a million dollars. I am clearly being victimized because society is holding me down by not allowing me to choose my tax bracket.

    6. I suppose that it is now impossible to tell whether my dogs are male or female. Should I start referring to them as “it” if I choose to invoke a pronoun? Any suggestions would be appreciated because I certainly don’t want to say anything that might offend someone.

    Philosophers that Rejected Scientific Knowledge

    Clarkian Apologetics is on the rise in the Church body. As more people read Gordon Clark’s works, they become more familiar with an aspect of the history of philosophy that is not talked about as often as it should. This aspect concerns the philosophers that rejected the notion that empirical inquiry can give an account for what is called scientific knowledge. Outside of academic circles, it is rare that anyone who doesn’t already have at least a passing interest in philosophy hears about these philosophers and their rejection of empiricism.

    With the familiarity of this aspect of the history of philosophy that is obtained from Dr. Clark’s works, and with the devastating arguments that Dr. Clark  gives against empiricism, some of the readers of Dr. Clark’s works become opposed to empiricist epistemology. This, of course, annoys many atheists on social media because these atheists believe that the scientific method has shown the Bible to be nothing more than a collection of fairy tales. For examples, social media pages such as ‘God on the Slide,’ have a group of admins that attempt to frame the my objections to empiricism in a way that makes it seem like only people whose beliefs are threatened by the scientific method will be inclined to reject the notion that empirical investigation is able to give us an account for knowledge.

    This being said, I have compiled a short list (it could be significantly longer) of notable philosophers that reject/rejected empiricism and its ability to allow us to account for knowledge. To show the diversity of this group, I will include people from a wide spectrum of stances on religion.

    1. Plato

    Plato was a rationalist. Rationalists were directly opposed to empiricism because they held that the primary source of knowledge was reason rather than sense perception. Plato is on this list because it is often said that the history of philosophy is Plato, and other philosophers are footnotes.

    2. Baruch Spinoza

    Spinoza was no friend to Christianity. Some say that Spinoza was an atheist, but he was clearly a pantheist. Spinoza is classified under the school of rationalism.

    3. David Chalmers

    David Chalmers is an atheist Australian philosopher whose primary interest is the philosophy of the mind. Despite being a cognitive scientist, he is considered to be a rationalist in regards to his epistemology.

    4. Sextus Empiricus

    Sextus Empiricus is a philosopher that is popular with some atheists. As an epistemological skeptic, he rejected the notion that knowledge was possible. He rejected this notion for two reasons: First, he did not believe that true belief was enough. Second, he did not believe that it was possible to obtain sufficient justification to call a belief ‘knowledge.’ As a result of these beliefs, he rejected both rationalism and empiricism.

    5. Socrates

    Last, but not least, the philosopher who taught Plato (who then taught Aristotle). Socrates was an epistemological skeptic. He famously claimed that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing. Because of this, Socrates rejected the notion that empirical investigation could give an account for knowledge of any proposition.


    If one were to peruse the entirety of the history of philosophy, the list would be significantly longer. These philosophers have garnered respect with the atheist community despite their rejection of empiricism, yet when a Christian objects to empiricism, the Christian is accused of being an ‘ignorant science denier.’ The hypocrisy that is expressed in this typical scenario is a bit obvious. If these philosophers are respected by an empiricist despite their rejection of empiricism, the empiricist has no logical grounds to dismiss Christians who agree that empiricism can’t give an account for knowledge.

    American Atheists, ‘Christian’ Crusades, and Irony: Defining Atheism and Christianity

    Logical consistency is a foreign concept for some atheists. They complain about Christians not allowing them to define atheism:

    “Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves. 1

    It is a fair question. Why should atheists allow theists to define what an atheist is? We ought to let those who espouse a philosophy articulate their own positions.

    Yet, many atheists will jump at the chance  to take liberty with terminology such as ‘Christianity’ and ‘Christian.’ For instance, they will blame Christians for the crusades or other moral atrocities that were committed by ‘Christians.’ But when these objections are made, the atheist is taking liberty with the term ‘Christian’ and is not allowing us to define it. After all, James 2:18 teaches that through our works will show our faith. Murder is not a product of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:21-26). Some atheists, while wanting to define their own terms, do not wish to give Christians the privilege of defining their own.

    As they say, if you can’t take it, don’t dish it.

    UPDATE 3/28/16:

    There have been some atheists that have responded to this article. All of them brought up four objections. I will list them and respond to them here:

    1. You are committing the no-true scotsman fallacy because Catholics are Christians.

    Response: First, I never said there are not any Catholics that are Christians. Second, the distinction made here is incorrect. “Christian” and “Christianity” are not synonymous definitions. I define Christianity as the propositions of the Westminster Confession of Faith. A “Christian” is a person who has accepted Christ as their personal savior. This acceptance involves believing that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again, a repentance of sins, and resting in Christ. One can be a Christian even if they disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith. I would simply argue that they are mistaken.

    In regards to Catholicism not being Christianity (which is what the person should have said, but they were not careful enough with their wording), the no true scotsman fallacy was not committed because Catholicism contradicts the Westminster Confession of Faith. One might ask, “How do we determine if the Westminster Confession of Faith is Christianity?” The reply is that we would test the claims made in the confession against scripture. The reason why Christianity is defined by me as the Westminster Confession of Faith is because there are a lot of differing ideas concerning what the Bible teaches. Therefore, if I simply defined it as “The propositions of scripture,” it would not tell others much about what I believe unless they have the same understanding of scripture as I have.

    2. You should stop trying to redefine atheism.

    Response: Anyone who said this didn’t read what I wrote. I clearly wrote, “Why should atheists allow theists to define what an atheist is? We ought to let those who espouse a philosophy articulate their own positions.”

    3. You need to use definitions from the dictionary.

    Response: Which one? Over the years, words have had different meanings, and the definitions of words do evolve. It is not uncommon for dictionaries to give definitions that disagree with one another. The person who suggests that we should only use dictionaries is being intellectually lazy.

    Not to mention, just because a definition is in the dictionary does not mean that the definition is not flawed. For instance, when I ask atheists for a definition of evidence, they will typically Google it and use this definition: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. 2

    ‘Fact’ is presented as a synonym of evidence. How does this same dictionary define the word ‘fact?’ Let’s find out. Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case. 3

    Notice that the definition of ‘evidence’ referred to a body of ‘facts’ that indicates whether (or not) a proposition is valid or true. Yet, ‘fact’ means ‘a thing that is indisputably the case.’ This makes the definition given for ‘evidence’ tautological because the ‘evidence’ is simply that in which the person who is making an argument is already assuming is true. Invoking this definition of ‘evidence’ will always result in begging the question.

    There is yet another option. I suppose I could sarcastically say, “So I guess communication was impossible prior to the time when everyone had a Webster’s Dictionary on their shelves.”



    1. American Atheists, <>

    2. Google, <



      Religious Liberty is Under Attack: In Defense of Georgia House Bill 757

      Yesterday, I wrote a blog post that called for all Christians to boycott Disney. I also started a petition for Christians to sign to indicate that they are boycotting Disney until they relent on their threat to boycott filming in Georgia. For those who have not read the previous blog post, I’ll summarize it by posting Disney’s statement and the summary of House Bill 757. Disney released this statement:

      “Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law.”

      House Bill 757‘s summary:

      “A BILL to be entitled an Act to protect religious freedoms; to amend Chapter 3 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to marriage generally, so as to provide that religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion; to amend Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to selling and other trade practices, so as to change certain provisions relating to days of rest for employees of business and industry; to protect property owners which are religious institutions against infringement of religious freedom; to define a term; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.”

      The most common objection is that the bill is an attack on equality. Unfortunately, it seems that ‘equality’ is not important to an activist that levies this objection because they are advocating forcing someone to participate in activities that are against their own religious values. That is not equality, that is tyranny. Their lack of concern for ‘equality’ negates their own objection that feigns concern for equality. The second objection invokes emotion. One detractor asked me on social media, “So you advocate a homeless shelter refusing service to a gay man?” People who invoke these sorts of examples have not read the bill. The bill’s applicable range of issues is clearly limited to the officiating of marriage ceremonies.

      These are the main objections to the bill, and neither objection is of any legitimate concern.

      It is Time for Christians to Boycott Disney

      These days, pastors are in danger of being forced to do things that are against their Christian beliefs (such as officiating a gay wedding). As a result of this possible danger to religious liberty, governors have been signing bills for pastors into law; however, in the case of Georgia, Disney (who also owns Marvel) is threatening to boycott filming in the state of Georgia if the governor signs legislation into law. Other major companies such as Time Warner are joining in with threatening Georgia as well (maybe it is time to boycott them too). I am calling on all Christians to boycott Disney until they retract their threat. Disney’s threat is as follows:

      “Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law,” said a Disney spokesman today over a bill that the Georgia legislature has passed. House Bill 757 would permit faith-based groups and organizations in the state to discriminate based on sexuality.”

      House bill 757 allows for pastors to refuse to perform marriage (which the government should stay out of anyway) ceremonies for homosexual couples. It also allows religious organizations to refuse hiring for people who do not represent their faith. It used to be said that religion is just a personal choice, but now that seems to be only applicable if the values of that religion do not contradict secular beliefs. It is Disney’s choice as to whether or not they film in Georgia, but if they are going to try to threaten a state over protecting religious liberty, I think it is time that all Christians stand up to Disney by boycotting them. Christians are a sizable portion of the US population, and if even a quarter of them boycott Disney movies (heck, we can boycott their shows too, though I am not sure if that would be quite as damaging), it will be devastating to Disney’s sales.

      As for officiating marriages, I do not see why pastors have to do something in which is against their religion. After all, there are plenty of pastors that are content to ignore what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. In fact, one can go to Universal Life Church’s website and be ordained online (as blasphemous as it is), and it would be legal. In any event, the notion that we have to accept values that we disagree with, yet those who stand in opposition to Christianity are not obliged to accept Christian values is ridiculous. It goes to show how foolish and devoid of rationality people in this country have become. How would these fools feel if they were legally forced to go to Church every Sunday to listen on a sermon against homosexuality every Sunday? I suspect they wouldn’t be happy about it. They think that Christians are oppressive. Allow me to respond with the following: Pot, meet kettle.

      Please help support Georgia’s efforts to protect religious liberty by signing this petition.