betsy

What is the best argument for Theism? William Lane Craig has responded to rebuttals made by Richard Dawkins on traditional arguments for God's existence like the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological argument for God's existence. Here they are: The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God (must register to read): http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8088

A thread for a thread. And an answer to New Atheism. Besides, why shouldn't we know and understand the new atheist? No, I'm not faulting you or blaming you for MCC. I've been responded to much much worse than that. But as you can see.....I'm not one to shy from or get disturbed by them. I know where I firmly stand.

Read this and you'll understand where I'm coming from. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18436 If you don't believe in God (yet)....I suppose it's more logical to be an agnostic. Why would you put yourself in a corner making a firm conclusion that there is no God, when science (which atheists rely on) cannot even irrefutably explain how we came to be.....and by the looks of it science is even supporting some of the claims in the Bible. Well you can't make a conclusion either that faith is unprovable. I don't think so.

As for generalizing...I've given you the goose - the initial reason for this gander. Furthermore, if you've read that article I'm asking you to read - that answers your question! But now that I've made this topic (which I was not gonna make if not for that MCC response)....I might as well go with it, since that article confirms...yeah....the gander is the New Atheist.

And who sez it's incomplete? Where did you pull that one out? I already responded to that....asking you to give a back-up to your statement! Where is it? GIve a credible source and let's talk. I'm not gonna debate based on your personal opinion alone. Or imagined stuffs! Boy, for all I know this is one of your hypochondria moment!

Already?

If you are a new atheist, obviously you're going to follow the doctrine of New Atheism. Oh boy, why does this ring a bell again....I'm having deja vu. Well, this thread is in response to this initially, ....but it now became quite interesting. Then we cannot discuss since you won't understand what New Atheism is all about and where I'm coming from. Besides, I don't want to force an argument on you if you're not interested. Have a nice day.

But they are! And I've been fair in describing and making sure that New Atheists are not mistaken for the regular Atheists. Because there is a stark difference between the two. NEW ATHEISTS. And to support my claim, will you read the openning article in the Church Of The Non-Believers. Anyway just so to let you know....you guys aren't the only ones with a definition pile, you know.

Well I'm referring to the parrot! The parrot well-trained by the 4 horsemen. Aside from the parrot...they've trained some seals too! I've been distracted readiung the hypochondria part.... Uh....what epistomological argument is that again? Be specific.

Now as I said, the regular atheists tend to b comfy in their stance. Yep. They are confident with their decision. The New Atheists on the other hand....are not. Infact, they are confused. Utterly confused. If you've been following the skirmishes in the topics....how many times have I pointed out each and everyone's confusion?

Rude. Did I mention that already? The tell-tale signs have been observed on this board and other sites. Confering with other Christians actively debating elsewhere....the same "phenomenon" are attributed to other new atheists in other boards. One need only to read the topics in religion and in no time at all, you'll know who the new atheists are among the regulars here. They stand out. As for making these arguments "personal," what's more personal than having someone ridicule one's faith? To make it their purpose and to go out of their way to do so. Not to mention the kind of hostile and rude response(s) to any Christians who gives their two cents based on faith. Have you seen the other topics? Have you read the posts? Just because no one is complaining to the mod doesn't mean they're not there. Well, if the new atheists have the 4 horsemen....Christians have William Craig! So far, he's got one Horseman Dawkins galloping into the sunset....with hardly any neigh-neigh! Who knows what goes on in themind of that one....maybe looking for oats....or bishops....and cardinals.... Pardon me MHardner, but aren't you being a little bit biased?

An interview of Craig by Michael Coren. The New Atheists are Not Intellectually "Bright"

Another tell-tale sign. They are angry and bitter. The regular atheists are comfortable with their belief....but not the New Atheist. Their hostile attitude suggest there's some issues with religion....that they carry like a chip on their shoulders. A lot of hostilities usually come from ex-Christians. I guess it's like a smoker who finally quit smoking. The cigarette becomes the enemy, and they want to badmouth the cigarette and stop anyone from smoking.

Well, the New Atheist is founded by Dawkins et al. If he does not give a crap about the founders or any of this crap....then why call one's self a new atheist? There is indeed a differing connotation to new atheists - something that distinguish them from the regular atheists. They are defined mostly by their attitude and "reason." New Atheists are into the in-your-face rudeness in their zero tolerance for religion and faith! Their aim is to ridicule and dis-respect religion/faith at every opportunity they get! And that's no bull. You should read the Church of The Non-believers (the openning article) so you can understand the difference.

Oh Cybercoma Do Muslims and Jews believe in Christ? How can it be a Christian God if they don't even believe in Christ. The root word. Christ. MHardner is talking about the Christian philosophy. Not Muslim. Not Jewish! Wait a minute.....you do have a point.... Anyway, explain that to MHardner! Those who already seem to get it half-right do not dare call themselves Christians....and yet, one who gets it all wrong calls himself one! Go figure. Thank you for that.

Ohhh, never mind the angry face! Lighten up or you'll really be mistaken for a new atheist - always angry or uptight about something! What you explained sometime ago....it was not exactly definitive (that's why I mistook you for a non-Christian). If I remember it correctly, I was arguing for Intelligent Design....and you blasted it away too. But this time, how about a difinitive explanation? Here, let's make it more simple. Do you believe in Intelligent Design? Just a simple yes or no will do. Whisper it to me....

All MUST accept? Hey, I'm just stating my faith. MY religious belief. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to. But as a Christian....of course - in my view - the Bible has the definitive definition. Logic dictates that to be a Christian, one has to believe the Bible has the definitive definition.

Thank you. What other argument is that? Were they talking about spiritual belief? But that's point isn't it? If you take away God and the divinity of Jesus, the Golden rule doesn't become Christian anymore....it just becomes another rule. That's why I told you there are other rules from other cultures that have something like the Golden Rule. Christ mentioned the Golden Rule to simplify the explanation about loving one's neighbors - which is one of the two most important in the Commandments of God. No....no..no...you're not getting the point. If you take away God and the divinity of Jesus....you are changing the message of His philosophy. And if you change the message of His philosophy....it is no longer His philosophy. And if it is no longer His philosophy....then it is no longer Christian. The framework of our society is already based on that....irregardless of one's belief in heaven and hell. Our laws on murder, stealing, assault, perjury - all are in the teachings of Christ, that governs personal behaviour. We used to reserve Sunday as a day of rest - but that's no longer. There's nothing of the "divine" or supernatural part in our framework now. And we don't call everyone who follows our framework a Christian. Then that's what you think. If that's how you think....what more can I say? Like I said, what more can I say? Although I find it intriguing since I've never come across someone like the one you describe: an atheist calling himself a "christian." So, out of curiosity....please answer, Why don't you want to be called an "atheist?"

As far as I'm concerned, an atheist can call himself anything or everything in the book....but not a Christian, based on the fact in the Authoritative Bible.

So, what is the New Atheist? This must be their code. http://newatheism.org/

Given that we have a topic called, What is a Christian....it's only appropriate to understand what a New Atheist is. I specify New Atheist since this is a new breed - followers/disciples of the men who founded it, known as the "The 4 Horsemen." Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. I forgot the name of the fourth one. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=7&topic=atheism&topic_set= It is similar to just about any other religion debating one another that their God/gods/diety are the real ones....except that the faith of the New Atheist is in the belief of No God at all. They've got a sect called Pastafaria - who I think invokes the Flying Spaghetti Monster - and they even have the required head dress (pasta colander). I don't know if using the plastic ones or stainless steel/aluminum pasta strainers make any difference. Another sect I think invokes the Pie in the Sky. Do they mean sweet pies or savory pies, beats me. They must mean every pies. Do they wear pie plates instead? Must be. I'm not sure though if it goes with a rolling pin. For a history of its founding, its doctrines (yep, they even have their own "sabbath Day") and modus operandi, refer to the other topic "Church of the Non-Believers." So....let's get to know the new kid in the block. Check out this topic for more detailed info: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18436

Okay. But let's be fair, shall we?

Yes. You got that right I'm arguing from Authority. Authority of the Bible. She is an atheist, right? She doesn't believe in the validity of the Bible, or the existence of God! Furthermore, her previous responses have already shown and proven how much she knows about the Bible. And it's not very much at all....other than the simplistic catechism or intro to the Bible given to children! It's called, common sense. Reason. (and by that, I don't mean "excuses.") Rational thinking.

But like I said....how can this not ULTIMATELY be about your belief and my belief? No. It's a fact. Christian philisophy is primarily anchored in belief in God - the God whom Jesus says is The Father. All of Jesus' philosophy - all the good things you like about His teachings - they're all for the purpose of pleasing and obeying that God! In order to gain eternal life! We are arguing objectively. Okay, why would someone who don't believe in the Christian God call himself a Christian? You gave your answers. I base my responses on your answers! Ahh....therefore you don't want a debate. You just want me to "respect"...which means to agree! Not to contradict. This reminds me of an AA movie scene - "Hi. My name is So-and-so, and I'm an alcoholic." Okay. Then why the heck are we discussing this? Why are we wasting time? I posted the topic to discuss! To argue! It was inspired by Canadien's sudden declaration that he is Christian - like I just stepped on a landmine that blew me away! For he didn't come accros as a Christian at all - basing on all his responses.

But how do you know the parrot doesn't know what the Word actually means? That's one of the gripes I've mentioned above.....like Dre, you're just winging it! What do you know about The Word??? Boy, you don't even agree on the simple, validity of the Bible - you can't even grasp the scale of significance that's being given in the other topic - and here you go trying to lecture on The Word, and intricacies of Christian values? Like....you seem to imply a Christian must be perfect? That erring is an opportunity for a "gotcha" moment? Anyway, whether I sin or not, let me worry about myself.... after all it is I who'll face my God for judgement. In the meantime, you focus. You're all over the place! I don't know why you're obsessed with hypochondria! Do focus on the real argument at hand.