Comments for Manawatu Christian Apologetics Society

Comment on The Day After the Elections of 2008 by Darryl

Darryl — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:08:58 +0000

“There are so many Christians today who refuse to call evil, evil”. This is so true. The things that the Lord calls an abomination are the very same things we “entertain” ourselves with. Amazing.

Comment on A Hitch in Hitchens: Observations From the Turek-Hitchens Debate by Derek

Derek — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:50:31 +0000

Completely agreed. Hitchens was in very poor form (he didn’t even look well imo), and though I believe that Turek’s points are easily shown unsound he certainly won the debate. Unfortunate.

Comment on A Hitch in Hitchens: Observations From the Turek-Hitchens Debate by Brian

Brian — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:07:22 +0000

Full MP3 Audio of the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek can be found here at apologetics315.com.

Comment on Debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens at VCU by Brian

Brian — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:58:35 +0000

Full MP3 Audio of the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek can be found here at apologetics315.com.

Comment on Frank Turek comments on the Hitchens-Turek Debate by Brian

Brian — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:58:07 +0000

Full MP3 Audio of the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek can be found here at apologetics315.com.

Comment on William Lane Craig coming to New Zealand by admin

admin — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:05:55 +0000

Given Dawkins’ arrogance toward people he disagrees with, coupled with his “sophromoric” (Alvin Plantinga) philosophical ability as demonstrated in the “The God Delusion”, it seems quite reasonable to infer what Dawkins meant by his statement.

Simply, he will not debate philosopher William Lane Craig because he would not be able to get away with the “sophomoric” blunders.

If Dawkins were to trash Craig in a debate, many Christians would be much the weaker for it. Of course, this cuts both ways

Comment on William Lane Craig coming to New Zealand by Dr Stuart J Judge

Dr Stuart J Judge — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:52:08 +0000

May I suggest you remove the speculation about what Richard Dawkins means. Dawkins has said plenty of things one can take issue with, but there is little value in tendentious statements about what he may have meant in this case. Why should he not have meant what he said - he is (alas) a far more widely known figure than William Lane Craig.

Comment on A Hitch in Hitchens: Observations From the Turek-Hitchens Debate by Rudy Henkel

Rudy Henkel — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:03:09 +0000

Hitchens claimed to believe in morality, not necessarily in moral absolutes. For example, we have good reason to thing that all people (with the exception of sociopaths and psychopaths,) are biologically predisposed towards certain moral behaviors. This gives a basis for morality, if not necessarily objective morality. I talk about that question somewhat in the second part of my article.

Comment on A Hitch in Hitchens: Observations From the Turek-Hitchens Debate by admin

admin — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:01:34 +0000

Thanks Rudy. One thing I don’t understand is Hitchen’s position on moral absolutes. Can you explain? How can he claim to believe in moral absolutes without God?

Comment on A Hitch in Hitchens: Observations From the Turek-Hitchens Debate by Rudy Henkel

Rudy Henkel — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:10:31 +0000

Thank you for linking my article. And yes, I cannot deny that Hitchens lost the debate; he was in the poorest form I’ve ever seen him.

I have posted the second part of the analysis, which looks at some of the specific arguments. Come and disagree with me if you like! I do not censor posts at all.

http://rudyhenkel.livejournal.com/2869.html