God Must Exist Yet Hitchens & Harris Talk Trash

Modern Atheism is aggressive, but is it true?
Nope.
An ethical absolutist is certain that an adequate & consistent moral theory will produce accountability for honesty, & forbid dishonesty in regard to the scientific method, civil legal jurisprudence, school (exams). see: first look at site below and answer the questions there and i will answer triple the amount of questions u pose thereafter. if u repent and become a Christian - let me know. go here: thelordgodexists dotcom /2011/06/questions-a-christian-should-ask-a-pugnacious-atheist/ Moral duties support the proper function of the Laws of Reason & gives the imperatives necessary of understanding our world & to communicate that truthfully to others.
Why should I absolutely be moral?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• reason
• atheism
• atheists
• Christ
• Christianity
• evolution
• creationism
• ID
• charles
• darwin
• richard
• dawkins
• ben
• stein
• expelled
• greg
• bahnsen
• vantilian
• john
• frame
• scott
• oliphint
• cornelius
• van
• til
• william
• edgar
• paul
• monata
• triablogue
• anderson
• ravi
• zacharias
• mcdowell
• macarthur

[assym2006]

dawkins was spot on.

[Goddoesexist]

@assym2006 nope. his sloppy argumentation and inept philosophical notions make him a joke among intellectual atheists.

[assym2006]

@Goddoesexist

rubbish he is one of the most respected and honored scientists around.  You just don't like him because he does not believe in sky fairy's.

[Goddoesexist]

@assym2006 Nope. "Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course" (atheist Michael Ruse: Science and Spirituality).

"To expect to learn anything about important theological problems from Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett is like expecting to learn about medieval history from someone who had only read Robin Hood" (Rodney Stark).

[Goddoesexist]

@assym2006 It's possible that RD is an adequate scientist in some ways, but he's beyond awful when he makes philosophical or theological arguments. His atheism is built upon shaky epistemic ground.

[Goddoesexist]

You seem like you may be an irrationalist. Moreover theism not only is rational, it alone has the necessary ontic ground to provide the a priori essentials for reason.

Cosmos ~ immutable

Cosmos ~ immaterial

Cosmos ~ universal

LNC is immutable, immaterial, universal.

God is immutable, immaterial, has universal reach

LNC is necessary for reason and intelligibility

God is nec for rea/intell

atheism is imposs

[jjobie]

@Goddoesexist I'd like to see your references for that, please.

[1919dpg]

just by reading the description i can tell this is gonna be dumb.. atheism is the non beleif in god due to a lack of evidence... it is not a beleif onto itself, so how can it be wrong.

[neuromatiker]

@assym2006 Dawkins points definately holds water logically. Now it may not be nice to hear if you are a believer, but comtemplate your own explaination - magic man did it! - Not really a convincing counter argument.

[XRedxEyedxWandererX]

@Goddoesexist You could be wrong and you could be right until you make this distinguishment you are as no better than I am but without hesitation christianity can be proven to be false many many many times over

[assym2006]

@Goddoesexist

there is nothing important can be learned from theological study as it is all based on the lie that god exists.

There is no god.