Countering Atheism

[kepha31]

Let's face it. Most Christians of every stripe have no business debating with atheists, critics and skeptics. IMO, it's a cultural phenomenon. High priests of knowledge, ordained with PH.D.s' sow seeds of doubt with a sophistication never seen before. Not many of us are prepared enough, or we give stupid answers to challenging questions. But the answers exist. There is lots of good information out there: links, videos, debates etc. I would like to start with something that appeared on my face book page today, so it's very much up to date. I would invite everyone interested to share some gems you may have come across.
introductory clip:

Primary link for more videos: http://www.scottmsullivan.com/christ101-optin/

An old favorite of mine: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism ("The Atom-as-God")

Index: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism (Index Page for Dave Armstrong)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you want to ask in religjous debates or better comparative religion ( non rebate) I can give so e advise on how to talk to atheist about the Catholic faith? Im Catholic, and I dont know if I can talk in this DIR much...

What do you think?

Also, I love Scott Haln. Have you listened to the relation between Catholicism and Judaism? And about the Eucharist (Ill get the youtube videos)? Very well said.

Let's face it. Most Christians of every stripe have no business debating with atheists, critics and skeptics. IMO, it's a cultural phenomenon. High priests of knowledge, ordained with PH.D.s' sow seeds of doubt with a sophistication never seen before. Not many of us are prepared enough, or we give stupid answers to challenging questions. But the answers exist. There is lots of good information out there: links, videos, debates etc. I would like to start with something that appeared on my face book page today, so it's very much up to date. I would invite everyone interested to share some gems you may have come across.
introductory clip:

Primary link for more videos: http://www.scottmsullivan.com/christ101-optin/

An old favorite of mine: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism ("The Atom-as-God")

Index: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism (Index Page for Dave Armstrong)

 

[jeager106]

I'm not catholic or Catholic so can't comment much except I've found it more than difficult to debate
athiests. Many are Phd educated and excell at debate. They are skilled at asking "baiting" question only
to demean and condemn believers/people of faith.
They constantly demand scientific "proof" of that which cannot be proven.

 

[Laika]

My apologies for interfering the Catholic DIR, but I hope it is useful. most of the Atheists around today actual conviction is a form of skepticism that they "don't believe in god" based on reason rather than "there is no god", which makes a statement about objective reality and has a scientific burden of proof. The latter is really difficult to do; the 'success' of new atheism is often reducable to an appeal to the authority of science rather than them having 'good' arguements.
I'd agree with the idea that the statement in the second video that "new atheism is giving atheism a really bad name" as they dodge the philosophical problems of proving the validity of atheism and examining its ethical implications given the depth to which religion is ingrained in society.This is to the point where they almost dissociate themselves from the term Atheism because they don't like the burden of proof or level of certainty it would imply. They seem to be very amateur popularizers of atheism and there are good arguments in defense of faith which- unless you take an extreme position- are hard to dismiss.

 

[kepha31]

If you want to ask in religjous debates or better comparative religion ( non rebate) I can give so e advise on how to talk to atheist about the Catholic faith? Im Catholic, and I dont know if I can talk in this DIR much...

What do you think?

Also, I love Scott Haln. Have you listened to the relation between Catholicism and Judaism? And about the Eucharist (Ill get the youtube videos)? Very well said.

Yes, I've seen many of Scott's videos. And we regard the Jews as our elder brothers/sisters.

I'm not catholic or Catholic so can't comment much except I've found it more than difficult to debate athiests. Many are Phd educated and excell at debate. They are skilled at asking "baiting" question only to demean and condemn believers/people of faith. They constantly demand scientific "proof" of that which cannot be proven.

They don't support scientific proof (developed by Christians BTW) they support scientism, a kind of polytheistic worship, which demands far more faith held by Christians.

My apologies for interfering the Catholic DIR, but I hope it is useful. most of the Atheists around today actual conviction is a form of skepticism that they "don't believe in god" based on reason rather than "there is no god", which makes a statement about objective reality and has a scientific burden of proof. The latter is really difficult to do; the 'success' of new atheism is often reducable to an appeal to the authority of science rather than them having 'good' arguements.
I'd agree with the idea that the statement in the second video that "new atheism is giving atheism a really bad name" as they dodge the philosophical problems of proving the validity of atheism and examining its ethical implications given the depth to which religion is ingrained in society.This is to the point where they almost dissociate themselves from the term Atheism because they don't like the burden of proof or level of certainty it would imply. They seem to be very amateur popularizers of atheism and there are good arguments in defense of faith which- unless you take an extreme position- are hard to dismiss.

Don't apologize, I appreciate your well thought out input. Thank you for viewing at least the second video. The real danger is when atheism spills out from the academic sphere into the political sphere, and parental religious instruction is deemed as child abuse by the state. And the argument I've had from an atheist is that it was not atheists that killed 20+ million people, it was the government. Can you see the twisted reasoning?

 

[Laika]

Don't apologize, I appreciate your well thought out input. Thank you for viewing at least the second video. The real danger is when atheism spills out from the academic sphere into the political sphere, and parental religious instruction is deemed as child abuse by the state. And the argument I've had from an atheist is that it was not atheists that killed 20+ million people, it was the government. Can you see the twisted reasoning?

Thanks. glad to be of help.

I find that Religion is deeply ingrained in our society, in the way we think and reason so a political form of atheism does pose serious risks. I'm on the same wavelength as the Communists, though I still find a lot of what they did deeply disturbing. That said it was a legitimate manifestation of atheism and underlies the biggest problems involved when, to put it crudely, man tries to replace God by 'mastering' his own social organization in a totalitarian way in the name of social progress. Communism was an offshoot of the enlightenment that was an extreme form of materialism and atheism. That didn't stop a lot of them having debates over how to promote atheism and fight religion on the assumption that it was a regressive/reactionary force in society and these debates and the ineffectual nature of their attempts underlie just how difficult it is to go without religion entirely. My personal view is religion reflects some emotional and psychological needs that were not met by communist ideology. There may be answers to it's problems but it's difficult find them.

So far I haven't heard the New Atheists say anything other than "Communism was a religion", or "communists started out as religious" (which is Christopher Hitchens on Stalin) so I find there position hypocritical, if not intellectually cowardly because they are unwilling to recognize that atheists aren't automatically liberal. They really don't have a response to it because it would mean admitting the Atheism is not necessarily a rational position. Some of the most fanatical atheists were anti-religious because they objected to religion as a means for social oppression rather than down to 'proof' that there was no god. Frederich Nietzsche is a good example. Most of the proofs for atheism in communism are philosophical (the idea that man created god) and rely very heavily on a materialist conception of the world which would be atheist by default rather than based on proof anyway. By comparison I get the impression the "New Atheists" are just noisy and amateurish agnostics.

There aren't many commies around these days, so you won't have to worry about my lot anytime soon.

 

[kepha31]

Thanks. glad to be of help.

I find that Religion is deeply ingrained in our society, in the way we think and reason so a political form of atheism does pose serious risks. I'm on the same wavelength as the Communists, though I still find a lot of what they did deeply disturbing. That said it was a legitimate manifestation of atheism and underlies the biggest problems involved when, to put it crudely, man tries to replace God by 'mastering' his own social organization in a totalitarian way in the name of social progress. Communism was an offshoot of the enlightenment that was an extreme form of materialism and atheism. That didn't stop a lot of them having debates over how to promote atheism and fight religion on the assumption that it was a regressive/reactionary force in society and these debates and the ineffectual nature of their attempts underlie just how difficult it is to go without religion entirely. My personal view is religion reflects some emotional and psychological needs that were not met by communist ideology. There may be answers to it's problems but it's difficult find them.

So far I haven't heard the New Atheists say anything other than "Communism was a religion", or "communists started out as religious" (which is Christopher Hitchens on Stalin) so I find there position hypocritical, if not intellectually cowardly because they are unwilling to recognize that atheists aren't automatically liberal. They really don't have a response to it because it would mean admitting the Atheism is not necessarily a rational position. Some of the most fanatical atheists were anti-religious because they objected to religion as a means for social oppression rather than down to 'proof' that there was no god. Frederich Nietzsche is a good example. Most of the proofs for atheism in communism are philosophical (the idea that man created god) and rely very heavily on a materialist conception of the world which would be atheist by default rather than based on proof anyway. By comparison I get the impression the "New Atheists" are just noisy and amateurish agnostics.

There aren't many commies around these days, so you won't have to worry about my lot anytime soon.

I think the threat of growing unbelief is a serious detriment to society, with The New Atheism, aligned with a majority of university professors, spearheading a movement against ill-prepared Christians. I'm no philosopher but I think liberalism. is just as dangerous as atheism. For the first time in American history, legislation has over-ridden the 1st Amendment, forcing , or trying to force, Catholic institutions to commit intrinsically evil acts, or face heavy fines.

Just how atheism negatively affects our society directly or indirectly is a challenging question.

New Atheism web site definition:

Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion.
Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview.
Get in your trucks, folks, and drive through the holes.

In the hard-hitting book, The Godless Delusion, apologetics experts Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley help Christians wake up to the crisis of godlessness, alerting them to the imperative need for taking seriously atheism's challenge, while learning how to effectively engage in today's atheistic debate. With a systematic and comprehensive approach, Madrid and Hensley make plain the truth of God's existence and the foolishness of the atheist-naturalist worldview.

Most books that take on the current spate of atheists look at the inner contradictions in their arguments—and there are many. But Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley try another, and ultimately more fruitful approach.

They look at the contradictions of the atheists with themselves, showing that above all, their arguments against God are at embarrassing odds with their own everyday experience and actions, their own deepest assumptions, and their own moral compass.

 

[Laika]

I'm no philosopher but I think liberalism. is just as dangerous as atheism. For the first time in American history, legislation has over-ridden the 1st Amendment, forcing , or trying to force, Catholic institutions to commit intrinsically evil acts, or face heavy fines.

Just how atheism negatively affects our society directly or indirectly is a challenging question

The US constitution and First Amendment were created by Liberals who value free thought, both religious and non-religious. Atheism does not automatically have a negative effect on society, but does create opportunists to change things in ways that were not possible with widespread religious people. It depends on how you view the relationship between morality, freedom, atheism and religion.

They look at the contradictions of the atheists with themselves, showing that above all, their arguments against God are at embarrassing odds with their own everyday experience and actions, their own deepest assumptions, and their own moral compass.

I'll agree on the last one, as atheists have largely inherited a Judea-christian ethical tradition. Only Fredrich Nietzsche presents a serious challenge to it. Communist "ethics" are a mess and I can't really tell what is in there.

 

[kepha31]

The US constitution and First Amendment were created by Liberals who value free thought, both religious and non-religious. Atheism does not automatically have a negative effect on society, but does create opportunists to change things in ways that were not possible with widespread religious people.

I am open to viewing one example of how atheism has contributed to the development of Western Civilization over the past 1000 years. "widespread religious people" does not hamper progress, it was the Catholic Church that invented the university, encouraging free thought. "Free thinkers" did not invent free thinking.

It depends on how you view the relationship between morality, freedom, atheism and religion.

"...Usually, the opponent of Christianity is quite willing to critique what they feel to be our glaring deficiencies, but quite unwilling (for some strange reason) to examine what we regard as the shortcomings in theirs. People in all worldviews seem to be much better at levying charges and poking holes, than at scrutinizing their own beliefs, wouldn't you agree?

The atheist:​

1) Can't really consistently define "evil" in the first place;

2) Has no hope of eventual eschatological justice;

3) Has no objective basis of condemning evil;

4) Has no belief in a heaven of everlasting bliss;

5) Has to believe in an ultimately absolutely hopeless and meaningless universe...

What I was implying was that according to the atheist's presuppositions, taken to their ultimate logical (and above all, practical, in concrete, real-world, human terms) consequences, cannot be carried through in a non-arbitrary manner, and will always end up incoherent and morally objectionable. All attempts that I have seen (admittedly I may very well have missed many) have not adequately explained how to overcome this inherent moral relativism, whereby some man (often, in real life, a dictator) "determines" what is right and wrong, imposes it on a populace, group, or family, and people try to live by it happily ever after.

Simply put..., atheist justifications for morality (i.e., logically carried through) will always be either completely arbitrary, relativistic to the point of absurdity, or derived from axiomatic assumptions requiring no less faith than Christian ethics require. I think it was Dostoevsky who said "if God doesn't exist, anything is permissible." Sartre said something similar, which I don't recall at the moment (probably someone here would know to what I am referring)....

...And I would contend that it could also (by logical extension) be that in the mind of an immoral atheist who felt himself to be the "measure of all things," as the humanists say. I'm very interested in what the decent, moral atheist would say to these folks; how it would be
explained to them that atheism is incompatible with such reprehensible behavior (and why and how the other person should be "bound" to the moral observations).

And why is that? We say it is because God provides the over-arching "absolute" and principle of right and wrong which allows for coherent ethics and non-arbitrary determination of good and evil. We even believe that God IS love. Love and goodness is personified and expressed and grounded in His very Being. Furthermore, Christians believe that God put this inherent sense in all human beings, so that they instinctively have a moral compass, and therefore largely agree on right and wrong in the main (murder is wrong, so is betrayal, rape, stealing, etc., in all cultures - it may be defined in particulars somewhat differently, but the consensus is there).

Atheists have this sense, put there by God, just as believers do, whether they acknowledge it or not (though it can, of course, be unlearned by intellectual conditioning or surroundings). And their behavior proves it. That's why (in our opinion) they are usually as moral and upright as a group as any other group of people. But to the extent that they are moral and good, I argue that this is inevitably in conflict with their ultimate ground of ethics, however it is spelled-out, insofar as it excludes God. Without God it will always be relative and arbitrary and usually unable to be enforced except by brute force. Atheists act far better than their ethics (in their ultimate reduction).
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Dialogue With an Atheist on the "Problem of Good" and the Nature of Meaningfulness in Atheism (vs. Mike Hardie)

 

[Laika]

I am open to viewing one example of how atheism has contributed to the development of Western Civilization over the past 1000 years. "widespread religious people" does not hamper progress, it was the Catholic Church that invented the university, encouraging free thought. "Free thinkers" did not invent free thinking.

Atheism represents a relatively recent phenomena, at least outside of intellectual and philosophical circles, and you are right to say that religious people did for thousands of years made a valuable contribution to developing civilization. In more recent times, atheists have too, particularly in the scientific field. whether atheism will superceed religion is a 'big' debate (and I remain uncertain on it).

I did a quick look on google and this page may provide some good examples:
The 50 Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time

"...Usually, the opponent of Christianity is quite willing to critique what they feel to be our glaring deficiencies, but quite unwilling (for some strange reason) to examine what we regard as the shortcomings in theirs. People in all worldviews seem to be much better at levying charges and poking holes, than at scrutinizing their own beliefs, wouldn't you agree?

The atheist:​

1) Can't really consistently define "evil" in the first place;

2) Has no hope of eventual eschatological justice;

3) Has no objective basis of condemning evil;

4) Has no belief in a heaven of everlasting bliss;

5) Has to believe in an ultimately absolutely hopeless and meaningless universe...

Atheists come in all shapes and sizes, but for my view point;

2 & 4 concern the afterlife. As I don't believe in the soul, physical death means the death of a person, so I don't believe in the afterlife.

1&3&5 concern the nature of right, wrong and meaning; I believe these come from people and so am very relativistic, I also struggle to frame this objectively except in terms of whether it makes a person more or less free. Personally Freedom gives a source of hope and meaning, and death doesn't negate that since what we do has lasting effects on other people and on the physical world for us simply being here.

What I was implying was that according to the atheist's presuppositions, taken to their ultimate logical (and above all, practical, in concrete, real-world, human terms) consequences, cannot be carried through in a non-arbitrary manner, and will always end up incoherent and morally objectionable. All attempts that I have seen (admittedly I may very well have missed many) have not adequately explained how to overcome this inherent moral relativism, whereby some man (often, in real life, a dictator) "determines" what is right and wrong, imposes it on a populace, group, or family, and people try to live by it happily ever after.

lol. I'm finding this a problem, so I'll agree with you it is really difficult as the way I define "freedom" often overlaps with "power" and so gives me considerable pause for thought.

Simply put..., atheist justifications for morality (i.e., logically carried through) will always be either completely arbitrary, relativistic to the point of absurdity, or derived from axiomatic assumptions requiring no less faith than Christian ethics require. I think it was Dostoevsky who said "if God doesn't exist, anything is permissible." Sartre said something similar, which I don't recall at the moment (probably someone here would know to what I am referring)....

...And I would contend that it could also (by logical extension) be that in the mind of an immoral atheist who felt himself to be the "measure of all things," as the humanists say. I'm very interested in what the decent, moral atheist would say to these folks; how it would be
explained to them that atheism is incompatible with such reprehensible behavior (and why and how the other person should be "bound" to the moral observations).

The problem here will be whether man can live without morality as a restriction of a persons freedom, and this is dependent on whether we believe man is innately good and then try to explain how man comes to commit evil. finding that sense of 'good' is really about learning to love mankind and whilst there could well be an objective ethical basis, it will never make sense without that emotional ingredient.

And why is that? We say it is because God provides the over-arching "absolute" and principle of right and wrong which allows for coherent ethics and non-arbitrary determination of good and evil. We even believe that God IS love. Love and goodness is personified and expressed and grounded in His very Being. Furthermore, Christians believe that God put this inherent sense in all human beings, so that they instinctively have a moral compass, and therefore largely agree on right and wrong in the main (murder is wrong, so is betrayal, rape, stealing, etc., in all cultures - it may be defined in particulars somewhat differently, but the consensus is there).

There are certain fundamentals which are necessary for society to operate, but trying to find an anthropological explanation for it is really hard as a lot depends on our subjective experience.

Atheists have this sense, put there by God, just as believers do, whether they acknowledge it or not (though it can, of course, be unlearned by intellectual conditioning or surroundings). And their behavior proves it. That's why (in our opinion) they are usually as moral and upright as a group as any other group of people. But to the extent that they are moral and good, I argue that this is inevitably in conflict with their ultimate ground of ethics, however it is spelled-out, insofar as it excludes God. Without God it will always be relative and arbitrary and usually unable to be enforced except by brute force. Atheists act far better than their ethics (in their ultimate reduction).
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Dialogue With an Atheist on the "Problem of Good" and the Nature of Meaningfulness in Atheism (vs. Mike Hardie)

I don't think that ethics come from god (by virtue of being an atheist) and that they are derived from man. my own ethical system is a mess and I rely on my intuition as a guide, but I would agree that Atheist are (often) far better than their ethics would imply, as there is an openness in relativism which could let us be evil but generally we aren't.

p.s. impressive blog you got there. I'll have to give it a read sometime.

 

[kepha31]

The problem here will be whether man can live without morality as a restriction of a persons freedom, and this is dependent on whether we believe man is innately good and then try to explain how man comes to commit evil. finding that sense of 'good' is really about learning to love mankind and whilst there could well be an objective ethical basis, it will never make sense without that emotional ingredient.

You have to define freedom. You can't have freedom without morality. Restriction from what? Selfishness? Egotism?

One of the most favorite words people use is the word freedom. It is mostly used in politics since it attracts so many and loved by many. It is something to be perfected. Freedom perfected is when the man himself becomes truly free.

Freedom's obligation is to make man truly free. Many have made a caricature of the word freedom. Freedom is not doing whatever you choose. Freedom is given so that a person has a chance to be good. Goodness however, is not subjective, but objective. In other words, it's not a person doing what he feels is good, but rather, doing what is truly good, such as doing virtuous acts.

If moral values were not objective, then we can't condemn an evil act. Condemning evil actions shows that we presuppose an objective standard to which people apply. To abuse freedom and do evil acts would make you lose your freedom. The more evil actions you do the less freedom you would get.

For example, evil people go to jail or even lose their life since they need to be kept out from the public because we know they can't be trusted when they are free. This is because we ought to do what is right with our freedom.

Freedom is in itself good. However, it is imperfect. A good will followed by a good action perfects the free will. Actions then become a habit and would eventually build a character. This is true for either a good will or a bad will. For example, a person who consents to a bad will, like doing drugs, would make that action a habit and would eventually become a drug addict. However, a person who consents to a good will, like doing virtuous acts, would act upon it, and will make it a habit, and would eventually become a virtuous person. A person who is virtuous is one who is truly free and also happy.

When can man be truly free? A man is truly free when he is not determined by outward circumstances, when he is so far above environment as to be uninfluenced by it. In other words, he is independent. However, an independent person is actually dependent. In fact, every declaration of independence is a declaration of dependence.

Take the Declaration of Independence of the United States for example. In it, it says that people have inalienable rights. However, where did they get this idea from? It came from its theological foundations, that the Creator gave it to them, that makes it "inalienable." In order for the United States to be independent from England, they needed to be dependent on something higher, which is the Creator. If it came from the government, then the government could take it away.(by removing the Creator, the government can take away inalienable rights, which is what is happening, italics mine)

This is where communism failed. Communism destroys human freedom. Man is free in two ways: economic and spiritual. The economic freedom man has is private property since it enables him to call something his own which is outside him. The spiritual freedom is his soul, which makes him independent of dictatorship. Communism destroyed private property and from its atheism, persecuted religion. Not only did it destroy freedom, it destroyed itself since it took out all objective standards.

In this way, politicians could become democratic one day, and become deceitful and full of lies the next day. Every idea according to Karl Marx is "true." When this happens, the country cannot be dependent on something strong. It is built on a shaky foundation which could be swept away. This is what America needs to stay away from.

America has been strong because she is built on a solid foundation, dependent on the Creator. If America does not stay away from relativism, she would end up like a dictatorship and would destroy herself. No society has lasted where its foundation was relativism. This is because a man can't truly be free if relativism is its foundation. Man would make contradictions again and again and would exhaust himself. He needs to be dependent on something which cannot be destroyed. When he does that, then no prison bar, no despair, and no humiliation can affect him. He has peace within himself and this is when he reaches happiness, which is the desire of all men, either consciously or unconsciously.

This is freedom perfected; freedom's obligation.

Freedom by A.L.​

 

[Laika]

This is where communism failed. Communism destroys human freedom. Man is free in two ways: economic and spiritual. The economic freedom man has is private property since it enables him to call something his own which is outside him. The spiritual freedom is his soul, which makes him independent of dictatorship. Communism destroyed private property and from its atheism, persecuted religion. Not only did it destroy freedom, it destroyed itself since it took out all objective standards.

You have to define freedom. You can't have freedom without morality. Restriction from what? Selfishness? Egotism?

Communism was intended to make people free. This definition of freedom was a form of positive freedom, or freedom of action, by which a person could satisfy their own needs. the conception of needs is relative to level of social development. By having a system based on common ownership, everyone would have a right to satisfy their needs and to access the social wealth. Following the development of a highly automated society which reduced the amount of time people needed to work, individuals would be free to pursue their own interests, intellectual, cultural, scientific and "spiritual" in so far as atheism and humanism would make people conscious of their own psychological needs. Morality is defined in terms of the conscious limits necessary to achieve harmony with others.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If we take out the political nature of atheist "beliefs" and just said plainly, athiest x does not believe there is a god, case close. How are they a threat to society?

I kinda got that impression reading these posts.

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Post***

Thread moved to Religious Debates. ​

 

[outhouse]

I'm not catholic or Catholic so can't comment much except I've found it more than difficult to debate
athiests. Many are Phd educated and excell at debate. They are skilled at asking "baiting" question only
to demean and condemn believers/people of faith.
They constantly demand scientific "proof" of that which cannot be proven.

You know how you defend against that? You claim it is my faith it is what I believe.

We are not demeaning the people, only the things you posit as many are claims of faith, and many are claims that mythology is historical. In that case it becomes and evidence based debate.

Then your on equal footing provided evidence supports your position. If it does not support it, then why believe in something that looks to be clearly mythology?


Why not have a passion for the thing you love and study at the same level as we do?

I have a friend who is apologetic, and he has the education I do. Guess what, we never argue and it works out that we agree to disagree with a high degree of respect.

That is what happens when you reach a level of education. If your not at that level its your own fault for remaining less educated and deciding to debate.

 

[outhouse]

Not many of us are prepared enough, or we give stupid answers to challenging questions

Then take a class. I did. I signed up and took classes at home in my spare time. All of my religious knowledge was gained in the last 5 years.

I stated here in this forum knowing less then you do today.

There is lots of good information out there: links, videos, debates etc

There is. But its not found at the apologetic garbage you posted. It will literally leave you blind in a debate.

If you want to be able to debate you don't take twigs to a gunfight. YOU get real bullets. The same bullets we use.

Early Christianity: The Letters of Paul | edX

Take this free class at Harvard and do yourself a favor.

26-lecture course: Introduction to New Testament History and Literature (RLST 152) | Virtual Professors

Watch these videos from Yale.



If you wish to remain historically ignorant its your own fault due to the vast amount of free credible knowledge.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey, this thread moved!
I can post here now!

Let's face it. Most Christians of every stripe have no business debating with atheists, critics and skeptics

Many do though.
We have fun & interesting times together.

High priests of knowledge, ordained with PH.D.s' sow seeds of doubt with a sophistication never seen before.

PhD = Piled higher & deeper
I don't find that this degree confers any authority.

 

[outhouse]

The New Atheism, aligned with a majority of university professors, spearheading a movement against ill-prepared Christians.

And you don't have a credible source for this.

Without sources isn't this blatant dishonesty ??????????????

I'm no philosopher

Obvious but thanks.

, Madrid and Hensley make plain the truth of God's existence and the foolishness of the atheist-naturalist worldview.

They are known apologist making those with no historical education feel good about faith, not facts, history or science.

To claim we have a foolish view is narrow minded apologetic unsubstantiated rhetoric.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Don't have too much to add to this thread, but I would suggest that conflating New Atheism with atheism is mistaken.
One 'flavour' of atheism does not describe atheism any more than one religion describes theism.

 

[outhouse]

Don't have too much to add to this thread, but I would suggest that conflating New Atheism with atheism is mistaken.

Isnt this a term sort of perceived by some theist?

I know there have been some outspoken atheist, and I understand the 4 horsemen concept.

But isn't this just a perception more so then an actual group that is overly aggressive to theist????