Monday, February 22, 2016
Apologetics and the public square
Even though I would call myself a Christian apologist, I think there is a prior necessity of maintaining an open public square where religious differences can be discussed in a civilized manner, and I oppose anything Christians might do that undermines that kind of open public square, even if it is helpful to the promotion of Christianity at least in the short run. And I have a profound intellectual sympathy with the many atheists who see the public square in the same way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Thank you for saying this.
In terms of comparing one religion against another, specifically Christianity against atheism. why do we need that? Atheism is wrong if there's a
god. we have better reasons to believe in ?God than they do to doubt. I say this because I was an atheist then I came to realize the reality of God.
I agree with your statement actually the statement above was made thinking I was in a different thread. Since I was an atheist I know how they feel. Even though I was an atheist a long time ago before the net.
I'll confess that after ten years I have become a bit jaded. But I'm reasoning with you now regardless, aren't I? I do this most all of the time too. It's also not fair to compare ourselves with those who comment on our sites (although I'll take mine any day over yours, who personally attack me much of the time).
But take a look at this from Stephen Law, whom I'm sure you respect, and see if there is any agreement between us. I would appreciate you commenting on what we said.
Cheers
That link didnt work, John. I'd be interested in seeing what Law said.
Try this then. The link is at the end if you want to skip directly to what he wrote:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2016/01/stephen-laws-five-morals-to-guide.html
But I'm reasoning with you now regardless, aren't I? I do this most all of the time too.
No, John, you don't. You are on record as endorsing mockery, taunting, belittling and arational bullying as tools to deconvert people.
If you've changed your mind on that, say it outright here. Otherwise, you're not part of the civilized conversation Victor is speaking of.
Ah, missed that post earlier today. Let me tepear what what Cal said... Thank you for saying this Dr. Reppert. I must say, though, that your blog is not always the most conducive for rational exchanges, but that's because mostly because of the commentators. Yet, not only because of them, as I have also seen the author decide to ignore serious topics but reply to silly points. I guess, at the end of the fay, it's mostly for entertainment purposes anyway... inconsequential exchange of ideas as I wrote earlier.
Joe, btw, even though of I disagree with you, here, I wanted to say that I was delighted by the note you left on Stan Stephens' blog, Atheism Analyzed. His blog has little to nothing to do with Atheism and, even if he says he is a Christian, absolutely nothing to promote Christianity or any of its positive values.
I had some fascinating exchanges with him, but also witnessed some of the darkest ideas ever. My all-time favorite example, and recent actually, was when we discussed Islam, in the context of Trump's comment on blocking ALL Muslim immigrants. I asked Stan about an hypothetical situation, which was true for me, where one gets to know that guests in their house were Muslims. What would you do, what does it change? His answer: make sure to have his concealed carry on...
John's link
the first two of his laws :
(1) Comparing God to fairies is ok. The thing is after answering that a million times no atheist can tell me why it's invalid. I mean you can't tell me the answer though you hear it all the time. so my fist rule would be start listening ot the other side.l
It's not valid no reason to do itl
(2) IQ studies how atheists have higher IQ;s I have destroyed those studies. they are tally invalidly infect the majority of good studies show tyieopposite. zi have a lot on this at atheistwatch and religious a prori.
most of those studies are connected to the Nyborg-Canazawa citation circle. they are known to be racist.
you respect this Steven Law but he doesn't even the problem with these studies sov I don't respect him.
Page with links to articles exposing the IQ studies
Joe, btw, even though of I disagree with you, here, I wanted to say that I was delighted by the note you left on Stan Stephens' blog, Atheism Analyzed. His blog has little to nothing to do with Atheism and, even if he says he is a Christian, absolutely nothing to promote Christianity or any of its positive values.
Thanks Hugo I noticed that. One thing he did convinced me of: I have revived my political blog We Need More shovels. He went over and argued for creationism. I was not impressed
I had some fascinating exchanges with him, but also witnessed some of the darkest ideas ever. My all-time favorite example, and recent actually, was when we discussed Islam, in the context of Trump's comment on blocking ALL Muslim immigrants. I asked Stan about an hypothetical situation, which was true for me, where one gets to know that guests in their house were Muslims. What would you do, what does it change? His answer: make sure to have his concealed carry on...
wow. I had him pegged. I really feel one of the greatest tragedies of the late 20th century and even more so now the way they destroyed a beautiful move of Gods spirit and turned it into a fascism. It's extremely agonizing for me to hear Cruz talking about God;
I meant to say he showed up on cadre blog
Where on Cadre would that be? Just curious...
Article by Don McIntosh on evolution
Cruz seems to be someone prepared to exploit his religion for political purposes and to lie about the faith of others.
Post a Comment