Lazy thinking can afflict both believers in God and unbelievers. Indolent thinkers from both groups seem equally afflicted by what might be an even worse vice — dogmatism, being “wise in one’s own eyes”. For some inexplicable reason such over-confidence, like conceit, thrives on a starvation diet.
Not recognizing their own defects in the thinking department, slack-thinking skeptics (aka atheists) are convinced that all who accept the Bible as the Word of God are, ipso facto, brain dead. They invariably brand such believers with the most insulting of all possible epithets — fundamentalists. When in a charitable mood, they merely charge them with “blind faith”.
Indolent believers are almost as prone to tarring all humanists and atheists with the same brush, convinced that anybody who balks at Scripture must be intellectually impaired. By contrast with fundamentalist atheists, though, believers do not seem to have an agreed-upon derogatory term to whip out when referring to their detractors.
One cannot deny the simple reality: many people are wise in their own eyes. But not all! Others from both ends of these opposite poles have actually thought their position through, and have good reason for believing what they believe. They are those rare few who strive to think logically and clearly; most people flee from mental effort, falsely believing that their opinion is as good as the informed position of serious thinkers.
One simple truth is obvious, however: one or the other’s considered position has to be faulty somewhere. No amount of well-intentioned mental contortions inspired by the desire for universal harmony can possibly integrate skepticism and faith into a unified world view any more than Christianity and Islam can be integrated. You may just as well attempt to herd cats or knit with soot.
Dawn to Dusk is totally committed to the Word of God as it is encapsulated in the Bible. We will argue as forcefully as we are able, in as informed a manner as we can muster, in defence of the veracity of the Bible, and do so without merely reheating old arguments. Many, many other sites provide excellent material in defence of Scripture. If we cannot provide new insights, we will not say anything at all. Why should we reinvent the wheel?
Our intention is to argue without being argumentative, to unpick the contentions of unbelievers while showing respect to their logic — when possible. Men and women of good will should be able to stand at the fence and reason amicably with their reasonable counterparts on the other side. But who can blame them if, when lazy, illogical thought bombs are lobbed across the fence, they get a little shirty?
And so, just as we accept the right of unbelievers to mock appalling logic coming from believers, we reserve the right to heap scorn on gratuitous certitude of unbelievers. Please accept our apologies in advance if we sometimes, “Answer a fool
according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes (Prov. 26:5)”.
Conviction we respect; dogmatism really irritates us.
The Flood problem
I've scoured the planet for evidence of the Noachian Flood for years, but couldn't find any. I began to doubt the biblical account until I recognized a simple truth. The secret can be found in "The Flood: easily disproven?"on our legacy site.