Frank Turek comments on the Hitchens-Turek Debate

On Tuesday night, I debated atheist Christopher Hitchens, author of God is not Great:  How Religion Poisons Everything, at Virginia Commonwealth University. The topic was, “Does God Exist?” 

Thanks be to God (and to you for your prayers) because I don’t think the debate could have gone much better. There were several atheists who approached me afterwards to say that I had won. 

One young lady actually apologized for being an atheist!  Her position was not well represented, and she said that the arguments for God were. 

Hitchens was his usual charming and witty self (I really like him and said as much), but he did not answer any of the eight arguments that I presented for the existence of God.  And as many in the audience acknowledged, he dodged nearly all of my questions.  

Here is the introduction of a long e-mail sent to me two hours after the debate by a VCU Philosophy professor who attended (this professor told me that he is completely “non-religious”):

Dear Dr. Turek, I wanted to say once again that I greatly enjoyed your talk and that, in my judgment, you clearly and unequivocally prevailed against Hitchens. Your two mind-body arguments were, I thought, very good, as were your modernizations of the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. I was also moved by your argument that, given how vanishingly close to zero are the chances of there being any sort of life, let alone intelligent life, it is more reasonable to infer that there is a God than it is to infer that there isn’t — the first an inference, but not the latter, being an ‘inference to the best explanation’, as philosophers of science would say.

Read the rest here.

A Hitch in Hitchens: Observations From the Turek-Hitchens Debate

Here are some observations from a Hitchens fan who was at the debate. Sounds like Turek won the debate, but Hitchens was not in great form (unwell perhaps?). Enjoy.

http://rudyhenkel.livejournal.com/2726.html

Anyone know where the MP3s are?

Debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens at VCU

This should be really exciting for those who like a lively debate!

Frank is from this site: http://www.crossexamined.org/

Check it out. Frank is “in ya face!” and so is Christopher Hitchens — so this should be a fun debate. See a short video of Frank on his website above.

Another debate — Frank Turek versus Christopher Hitchens

http://crossexamined.org/calendar_event.asp?d_ID=121

Debate with Christopher Hitchens: Does God Exist?

Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Virginia Commonwealth University
VCU: Commonwealth Ballroom in the Student Commons
Richmond, VA

Bill Craig - Bill Cooke Debate

It happened in Auckland…

http://mandmandmandm.blogspot.com/2008/06/battle-of-bills-review-of-craig-cooke.html

My small idea of getting Dr William Lane Craig to have a debate at Auckland University ended up being an event that far exceeded my expectations. Despite the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists (NZARH) booking a larger lecture theatre at the last minute we still had to open up three additional lecture theatres with live video feeds and we still had people sitting on the floor! Question time had to be extended because of the interest. The range of people in attendance was excellent; hardened skeptics, evangelical Christians and everyone in between, young and old, high school students through to tertiary faculty.

And is about to happen in Palmy…

http://christiannews.co.nz/2008/debate-bill-craig-and-bill-cooke/

Websites and Blogs

• Beretta (NZ)
• Bible Technology (NZ)
• Culture Watch (OZ)
• John Pickering (NZ)
• Matt Flannagan (NZ)
• Stand to Reason (US)
• Scott Mackay (NZ)
• Uncommon Descent (US)

Dr. JP Moreland Books

This is an excellent book :: the title says it all.

JP calls this book the Magnum Opus of his writings.

Lee Strobel Books

Intelligent Design Arts

Links

• Evolutionary Informatics

Check it out at: http://ultimatequestions.org/

William Lane Craig coming to New Zealand

Christian News has news that W.L.C. is coming to NZ in June. Check it out here.

This is huge news for those interested in apologetics as Craig is one of the best.

Apparently Richard Dawkins was asked if he would debate W.L.C. and replied: "It would look good on his C.V., but not on mine."

Probably what Dawkins really means is that: "Um, I know I will not be able to play fast and loose with this guy like I can with most others, so, um, what derogatory comment can I use to diffuse the question?"

It’s a shame that he turned it down. Craig debated Peter Atkins (MP3)from Oxford University a few years ago, and has done numerous other debates and written and co-written several books.

Check www.reasonablefaith.org for more details!

The End of Biblical Studies

Still a Child Evangelist

A Survey of the Temper Tantrums of Hector Avalos

James Patrick Holding

…It will become clear, however, why I have chosen my title as I have. Avalos is, like Price and Ehrman, of the worst sort of “fundy atheist” — an atheist who has not abandoned the black and white mentality of the fundamentalist, and so continually errs in his assessments of evidence and arguments, or else feels that it is perfectly fine to manipulate the truth in service of what he thinks the greater good. I have also chosen the title and front-page illustration for a reason, in this vein. Avalos was once a child evangelist, and he remains one to this day: An evangelist, for atheism, with the same fervor and willingness to manipulate emotions and/or truth; and a child, in that his fundamentalist mindset, still retained, has prevented him from truly growing up, being honest, and thinking critically.

More: http://www.tektonics.org/af/avalos01.html

A New Edition of Apologetica Now Available!

Are Christians delusional?

Read the latest edition of Apologetica for a response to Richard Dawkins attempt to answer intelligent design theorists regarding irreducible complexity.

Is Natural Selection sufficient to produce the obvious elements of design found in the universe? Brian Thomas doesn’t think so! He argues that the concept of irreducible complexity eliminates the possibility of a graduated development of biochemical “machines” that are essential to functioning cells.

To find out more read the new edition of Apologetica.

Sign up to receive Apologetica by email: cca@apologeticscenter.org

Oxford Scholar John Lennox on Atheism and Richard Dawkins

Well - has science buried God? Of course not. John Lennox answers his own question decisively. No one who understands what science really is and is not could suppose that such interment was ever on the cards. No one who understands what religion really is, beneath its sometimes ugly face, could suppose that it would be good to bury it.

From article:

“He is taken seriously in this not because his arguments are sound but because he is an outstanding rhetorician. It is the art of bamboozlement.”

Source: http://books.guardian.co.uk…

Dinesh D’Souza Debates Daniel Dennett

Thanks to Richard Dawkins dot net for this material!

Description:

Dinesh D’Souza, Christian and best-selling author, faced off against Tufts professor, author, and atheist Daniel Dennett in a debate on the existence of god. The resolution for the debate was as follows: “God is a manmade invention.” Daniel Dennett argued the affirmative, and Dinesh D’Souza the negative.

Full debate - VIDEO QuickTime format (185 MB, 2:15:12)

Full debate - AUDIO only mp3 (60.9 MB, 2:15:12)

Part 1

Read more

God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Dear Professor Craig,

The cumulative case for the existence for God proceeds from some data (physical constants, sentient souls, testimonies for miracles, etc.) to the existence of God as the best explanation of these data. There are some important objections. 1. Such inference does not show why theism is a better explanation than, say, the hypothesis of the existence of a very powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster. 2. Neither it says why some evil being - some powerful, malevolent being, say, something like Satan - is not a better explanation than God; especially when the existing evil is included in the data. How would you counter? Thank you very much.

Answer here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org…

Letter to a Maladjusted Misotheist (Sam Harris)

Published by permission (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/harrisletter.html)

November 2, 2006

Dear Mr. Harris,

Greetings to you. I am writing to you because I am in possession of your latest work, Letter to a Christian Nation, and I have been asked to deliver a detailed response to it, which I intend to do over the next few days. Before I begin writing you letters in earnest, however, I thought I ought to let you know when the first time was I ever heard of you: I saw your appearance in Brian Flemming’s film, The God Who Wasn’t There.

Now if you know this, you will understand why, quite frankly, I consider you a non-starter as an ideological opponent, rather than any sort of informed, worthwhile threat. For you see, it is my policy as a defender of the Christian faith to ignore those who show little or no interest in presenting a fair, accurate, and above all informed critique of Christianity.

Read more

William Lane Craig/Frank Zindler Debate

Ok, so this is a bit old now, but quite embarrassing for the atheist side. Check it out on the www.apollos.ws website.

Craig is like a machine gun, and Zindler was supposedly the best the atheists could find!

The problem of evil

A friend writes:

Other than Ron Nash do you know of any other good resources on the problem of evil?

In reply:

Yes, there are lots of them. Greg Koukl at www.str.org is excellent on this; Ravi Zacharias (www.rzim.org) also has a nice piece from a Q & A session (quoted below).

The key point is learning to think about it presuppositionally. Most people struggle with this, at least initially, because they naturally think that objective morality just is. But this is 180 degrees wrong. If there is no God, there is no objective morality. Yet most people appeal to objective morality every day, which is really an acknowledgement that God exists

Following is Ravi’s piece: you should read it over and over until the force of the argument hits you like a tonne of bricks! It is a pretty simple argument, but devastatingly powerful.

Comments always welcome.

Cheers.

Some time ago I was speaking at a university in England, when a rather exasperated person in the audience made his attack upon God.

“There cannot possibly be a God,” he said, “with all the evil and suffering that exists in the world!”

I asked, “When you say there is such a thing as evil, are you not assuming that there is such a thing as good?”

“Of course,” he retorted.

“But when you assume there is such a thing as good, are you not also assuming that there is such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to distinguish between good and evil?”
“I suppose so,” came the hesitant and much softer reply.

“If, then, there is a moral law,” I said, “you must also posit a moral law giver. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. If there is no transcendent moral law giver, there is no absolute moral law. If there is no moral law, there really is no good. If there is no good there is no evil. I am not sure what your question is!”

There was silence and then he said, “What, then, am I asking you?”

He was visibly jolted that at the heart of his question lay an assumption that contradicted his own conclusion.

You see friends, the skeptic not only has to give an answer to his or her own question, but also has to justify the question itself. And even as the laughter subsided I reminded him that his question was indeed reasonable, but that his question justified my assumption that this was a moral universe. For if God is not the author of life, neither good nor bad are meaningful terms.

This seems to constantly elude the critic who thinks that by raising the question of evil, a trap has been sprung to destroy theism. When in fact, the very raising of the question ensnares the skeptic who raised the question. A hidden assumption comes into the open. Moreover, as C. S. Lewis reminds us, the moment we acknowledge something as being “better”, we are committing ourselves to an objective point of reference.

The disorienting reality to those who raise the problem of evil is that the Christian can be consistent when he or she talks about the problem of evil, while the skeptic is hard-pressed to respond to the question of good in an amoral universe. In short, the problem of evil is not solved by doing away with the existence of God; the problem of evil and suffering must be resolved while keeping God in the picture.

© 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=29

Christmas present: Letter from a Christian Citizen: A response to Sam Harris

You can get this book at an introductory price or at the heavily discounted price of 5 for $25 making them inexpensive enough for you to share with sceptical friends and even the media. We are also including a FREE DVD with every book. This DVD is of a ‘hard hitting’ video clip showing the irrationality of the claims of Dawkins and Harris. Also included are PDFs of related CMI articles and some video clips featuring CMI scientist Dr Jonathan Sarfati.

Get Letter from a Christian Citizen and the DVD Imagine … there’s no God here.

I Liked the Old Atheists Better

William Dembski

Philosopher Antony Flew used to be the most prominent atheist in the English-speaking world. In the last decade, however, that has changed.

Unlike Flew, who has always been civil and insightful, a new breed of atheists, who are crass and unruly, has supplanted him, notably, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins. Also, Flew is no longer an atheist.

Flew’s newfound belief in God and his assessment of today’s neo-atheism are both described in his delightful new book (coauthored with Roy Varghese), There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

More here.

Finnish school shooting: Student social Darwinist dies, kills eight others

Do beliefs have implications? Many people argue in the negative. “His private life has no bearing on his ability to operate in the job”.

Well, this is plainly true in some cases, like, whether you prefer french vanilla or banana flavored ice-cream. Or perhaps which football team you support. But what about a person’s views on the deeper things in life, their worldview, their noetic structure? Can these things really have no effect on their actions?

Finnish school shooting: Student social Darwinist dies…

Watch the Debate: What Has Atheism Done for Us?

Christopher Hitchens versus Dinesh D’Souza

[Watch the debate by clicking here]

Download the .wmv file using Flashget at this address:
mms://216.75.61.152/xstream/neproductions/tkc/debate.wmv?MSWMExt=.asf

http://www.townhall.com/…what_has_atheism_done_for_us

My new book What’s So Great About Christianity, just out, is already an amazon.com bestseller, a Wall Street Journal bestseller and No. 16 on the New York Times bestseller list. On Saturday C-Span broadcast my debate with God Is Not Great author Christopher Hitchens. Many people have commented that this is the best debate on the topic of Christianity v. Atheism that has yet been held. If you haven’t seen it, you can find the debate on my website dineshdsouza.com. Following the debate, AOL posted the video on its main page, and asked people to make up their minds and vote on who won. Modesty prevents me from disclosing the answer.

Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, watched the debate and reported with some agitation that the audience seemed to be applauding more for me than for Hitchens. Dawkins commented on his website that the New York crowd must have been a “dopey” lot. But if you listen to the debate, you will see that both atheists and believers were well represented. The audience applause was initially stronger for Hitchens, and only as the debate went on did it trend markedly toward me. So is Dawkins suggesting that the audience was very intelligent to start with but became more “dopey” as the debate went on? More likely we are seeing evidence of the “Dawkins delusion,” an unwillingness to use good sense and face facts when Dawkins’ own belief system is called into question.

The Case for Christ — Parts 1–8 (10 minutes each)

Read more

Atheism: An Intellectual Revolt or Pelvic Rebellion?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2007/10/27/atheism…

Atheists would love for everyone to believe that their motive for not believing is an intellectual one. Yes, the atheists ardently suppose that they are wise and the Christians, well, we’re the buckle-shoed buttheads.

Yes, darling, the atheists would love all of us to suppose that they cannot believe because they are so astute and rational, and we theists, heck we’re toads . . . a veritable troop of abecedarian simpletons who believe in God and Christ simply because we’re straight goofy.

…

Y’know, Karl Marx said religion is the “opiate of the masses.” I think the real poppy derivative is the black tar belief that tells you atheist lads and lasses that when you take the big dirt nap that’s it. Ah what peace. What a high. No God. No accountability. All our sins of commission and omission will never ever come up again. No pain. No penalty. No heaven. No hell. Imagine. Yeah, dude. Hold that hit. Let it out slowly. Ahhh. Feel better?

There’s your opium.

Lee Strobel — a really interesting read

Where have I been?

by Lee Strobel, 10.18.2007

San Francisco, New York City, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Chicago, Houston - whew! I’ve been bouncing around the country the last couple of weeks to talk about the faith-impacting issues in my new book, The Case for the Real Jesus. But I wanted to pause, catch my breath, and introduce you to the new format for my newsletter.

I’ve decided to adopt a more personal and conversational approach to keeping in contact with you. Consider it a letter from a friend! I’ll keep you abreast of new developments, share some stories, offer a few observations, and alert you to exciting opportunities on the horizon.

New Developments?

Well, I’ve been blown away by the enthusiastic reception to The Case for the Real Jesus, in which I interview experts about the current objections to Christianity that are circulating in popular culture. I think Christians are especially thirsty for answers to the tough challenges that are being promoted by skeptics in best-selling books, in college classrooms, on news programs, and on the Internet. As one physician wrote to encourage me: “This book has answered the exact questions that my skeptical friends have been asking me.” What’s especially exciting is that 206 seekers prayed to receive Christ as their forgiver and leader when I spoke on the topic of the book recently at Saddleback Church in California. (By the way, thanks to Rick Warren for saying to the congregation: “This is Lee’s best book ever!”)

Read more

From Darwin to Hitler

New book by Discovery Institute
Fellow shows influence of
Darwinian principles on
Hitler’s Nazi regime

Discovery Institute is pleased to announce the publication of the provocative intellectual history, “From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany” (Palgrave MacMillan), by Richard Weikart.

In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual history, Weikart convincingly makes the argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles.

“Richard Weikart’s outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society,” says Dr. Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, and author of “The Coming of the Third Reich.” “This provided Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power.”

More here.

Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Well, the debate has happened — and it really was pretty good! More information here.

Richard Dawkin’s website has the audio files here:

Part 1 (47:28, 13.6 MB)
Part 2 (44:01, 12.62 MB)
Part 3 (27:28, 7.87 MB)

Comments on the debate can be made here.

I think Dawkins came out of this debate severely bruised. Lennox showed that The God Delusion is heavy on rhetoric but void of good meaty arguments. Well done both debaters — and especially the winner!

CDs and DVDs of this event are available for purchase, and will be complete and ready to ship by last week of November.

More comments here.

Is it time for atheists to own up?

Atheists are on a recruiting drive in the USA (see this page for example) and certainly feel they are surfing the wave after selling 1,000,000+ books over the past year or so (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens).

But in Christian circles, or at least within a small section of the church, there is also a resurgence going on (listen to the short Reasonable Faith podcasts on this page for an overview).

So what about Alice Shannon and her Letter to the Editor? She shares the same concerns, frustration and anxieties as many Christians (and non-Christian conservatives too) who see western society going down the drain. But is her response Christian? Let’s examine it.

Firstly, how does she suggest we ’stomp’ out atheism? Should Christians use force against atheists? Hardly — that may be the Islamic way, but it is simply not Biblically acceptable (although the atheistic worldview could hardly condemn that sort of behavior — it is just survival of the fittest).

And what of Alice’s “If you don’t believe in God…then get out”? Does she mean that an Islamic America would be ok?

And “In God We Trust” on the currency? What if it was Caesar’s, or the Queen of England’s head? This is hardly a compelling or objective reason to get angry with atheists.

Read more

Next Page »