A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
And it is just another trip on the atheist treadmill, complete with specious, self-contradictory comments. Honestly, you begin to think they believe that using big words while uttering nonsense suddenly turns it into philosophical gold.
BTW, did you note that the Oregon Community College shooter specifically targeted Christians, shooting them in the head? His other victims got it in the leg, a somewhat-less Final Solution.
So that's what an atheist looks like when he flames out.... takes as many Christians with him as he possibly can in one ginormous tantrum.
I've recently visited the commonsense atheism site a few times trying to get someone over here to debate Stan over any related issue.My first comment was posted immediately but the next few is still awaiting moderation.Anyway,this one article was about Dr.Craig and his debate techniques.I have to admit I did not know Dr.Craig posed such a huge threat to Atheistic philosophies.Many of the Atheist commenters admitted Dr.Craig has won most of his debates against his Atheist opponents.
Okay,so this is not the page I was referring to but just came across this one while searching for the other.It's a review of Dr.Craig's past debates and these Atheists admit,WLC not only wins debates he's a nightmare that thrashes his opponents.
I'd certainly welcome a debate with an Atheist at this point. I would start with an explanation of the difference between Aristotelian hypotheico-deductivism plus falsification as a prerequisite to empirical validity, and the current Atheist scientism favorites of evolution and AGW, Then I would explain the difference between dialectic and rhetoric, and finally, the source for informal fallacies. Then we could begin if the Atheist were still interested.
5 comments:
And it is just another trip on the atheist treadmill, complete with specious, self-contradictory comments. Honestly, you begin to think they believe that using big words while uttering nonsense suddenly turns it into philosophical gold.
BTW, did you note that the Oregon Community College shooter specifically targeted Christians, shooting them in the head? His other victims got it in the leg, a somewhat-less Final Solution.
So that's what an atheist looks like when he flames out.... takes as many Christians with him as he possibly can in one ginormous tantrum.
Ugh.
I've recently visited the commonsense atheism site a few times trying to get someone over here to debate Stan over any related issue.My first comment was posted immediately but the next few is still awaiting moderation.Anyway,this one article was about Dr.Craig and his debate techniques.I have to admit I did not know Dr.Craig posed such a huge threat to Atheistic philosophies.Many of the Atheist commenters admitted Dr.Craig has won most of his debates against his Atheist opponents.
Okay,so this is not the page I was referring to but just came across this one while searching for the other.It's a review of Dr.Craig's past debates and these Atheists admit,WLC not only wins debates he's a nightmare that thrashes his opponents.
William Lane Craig’s Debates(Reviews)
I'd certainly welcome a debate with an Atheist at this point. I would start with an explanation of the difference between Aristotelian hypotheico-deductivism plus falsification as a prerequisite to empirical validity, and the current Atheist scientism favorites of evolution and AGW, Then I would explain the difference between dialectic and rhetoric, and finally, the source for informal fallacies. Then we could begin if the Atheist were still interested.
Post a Comment