TCNJ Frank Turek is confronted by a Skeptic

Dr. Frank Turek was confronted by a skeptic at TCNJ after his second debate with Christopher Hitchens. I'm not really sure what they were arguing, but at least it sounds interesting.

Also, on April 15, 2009 Dr. Turek will be having his "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" seminar at La Salle University in Philadelphia, PA. Non-La Salle Students are welcome!

THE FACEBOOK INVITATION IS HERE:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=70235192027&ref=mf


Are you a Christian and interested in applying Biblical Principles to all areas of life including the Humanities, Theology, Apologetics, and more! Then visit this excellent website:
http://www.leaderu.com/menus/socialsciences.html

Christians need a Biblical Worldview, especially regarding there place in Politics. Visit this site:
http://www.americanvision.org/

Want to think more clearly visit? Can't see through the logical fallacies? Visit this site:
http://www.christianlogic.com/

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Frank Turek
• Atheism
• Atheist
• Christianity
• Christ
• Jesus
• Torah
• Heaven
• Hell
• Salvation
• Love

[AtheistdotEDU]

Turek is a charlatan. He KNOWS he is lying, and he KNOWS his sources are false. It cannot be more clear. Someone that eloquent can be that brainwashed, but cannot be that unintelligent. He is a charlatan.

[MrDasmaster]

turek is an embaresment  to logic

[charlietuna34]

Turek should give up all his wordly possessions and go out into the forest and just get lost.

[brindlebriar]

Two faithers trying to figure out how to make non-sense make sense. Both asserting faith-based postulates. How could this discussion possibly find resolution when there is no evidence with which to verify or falsify?

They might as well stop talking and wait for whoever is wrong to receive the divine revelation of truth, which the one who is right must have already received.

Or maybe, through discussion, one or both will get the inkling that faith-based arguments are useless and unresolvable.

[MrBeautifulba1]

Never trust the suit and tie. Especially when "god" is the subject of discussion.

[philosophy7575]

@nrgianni

1) You're defining faith as "belief without evidence". This is a modernist definition & not in the NT. 2) Having poor arguments & circular logic doesn't mean one is a charlatan. 3) Most of our beliefs are based on testimony. Every school book and college text you learn from is testimony. News sources are testimony. I have never seen Obama in the white house except on TV, but I trust the testimony of the media that he is president and lives in the real white house.

Peace

[philosophy7575]

@AtheosRecords

Please read some scholarly historical books on the topic before you make such comments.

[Ematched]

I can't even believe he's citing natural theology. Has he really missed the last 200 years of acquired knowledge?

[nrgianni]

@philosophy7575 This is a big tricky language. Holding a belief isn't wrong in and of itself, it's about why you hold that belief. If you hold a belief on faith, it's unreasonable. If you hold a belief based on evidence, you're justified in your belief, and for the record, the evidence I hold that he's a charlatan is his poor argument and circular logic. The last point is holding a belief based on the testimony of a trusted source, which is dangerous territory.

[philosophy7575]

@AtheistdotEDU

Funny thing is, the internet atheists community claims to only hold beliefs based on proof. Yet here you are (and the people giving you thumbs up) holding the belief that Turek is a charlatan. You are judging his heart. Yet you cannot prove this!

[philosophy7575]

The man sounded more like a Calvinist who opposes natural theology, rather than a skeptic.

[cuevarap]

@AtheosRecords Bingo, You summarized it brilliantly.