Why is Rational Response Squad afraid to debate Paul Manata (see these blog entries)? Who is Paul Manata?, yeah, most people don’t know, but check out his debate with Dan Barker here.
The Squad wouldn’t go near someone such as James White (or any other scholar for that matter) on biblical issues.
Listen to Dustin Segers as he gives a talk on “No Good Reason to Be an Atheist.” Segers also blogged on this topic here, here and here.
Listen also to this lecture “Something Much Too Plain to Say” by K. Scott Oliphint.
You may want to listen the debates between Greg Bahnsen v Gordon Stein, Edward Tabash and George Smith.
Here is a Sound Proof for God’s Existense by Ronald W. Di Giacomo.
You may also want to check out James Anderson’s The Theistic Preconditions of Knowledge: A Thumbnail Sketch.
I would also encourage you to listen to The Narrow Mind audio program with host Gene Cook, Jr. Wednesday is usually “Atheistic Wednesday” where topic dealing with theism and Christianity are address. The Squad will not go on this show either.
You might also want to check out the discussion with (Christians) Gary Habermas and Mike Licona and (atheists) Richard Carrier & Reginald Finley on the topic of the Resurrection of Jesus. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.
SLIMJIM said,
May 11, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Good compliation in light of the recent Rational Responders debate…
Hakima said,
May 11, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Well, actually, I would quite appreciate some answers from you on a variety of things. I think, in all intellectual honesty, even atheists must acknowledge that they don’t really know if there is a god or not, even if they also assert that this is improbable to them. Improbability is not at all the same thing as impossibility.
However, the religious–and in keeping with contemporary global concerns, specifically, the People of the Book(s)–must also answer questions about the unrelenting bloodshed, wars, slave-keeping, domineering, woman-hating aspects of their Revealed Truth, which are exhibited even upon the most cursory reading of the Bible (and the relevant texts in Judaism and Islam, also, obviously.) This is surely reasonable.
Christians to whom I have posed this question refer me to the redeeming teachings of the New Testament. This is somewhat less genocidal than the Old Testament, I agree, and, all things being equal, is also very progressive, but only according to the standards of a non-divine historical figure who lived approx. two thousand years ago. However, my fundamental problem remains: if Jesus was the Son of God, then presumably and indeed I believe he makes this point himself, he is not in any sort of opposition to the preceeding religious laws and teachings. I believe Jesus is on record as having said this. This is very confusing. If Jesus, being God, had the power to modify earlier teachings, then obviously Jesus, as God, changed his mind about these earlier teachings. However, God, being timeless and unchanging, cannot then need modifying or alteration–thus, either God is NOT timeless, or is NOT omniscient (He would have known that He would later change his mind, otherwise) or is NOT omnipotent (because free will can thwart Him) or is NOT infallible (no modification would be necessary.) Furthermore, the whole Resurrection thing is contradictory. If Jesus, being God, was worried about our sins to the point of sacrificing himself for us, then it is obvious that the sacrifice was to appease the God against whom we had transgressed. But God is Jesus, or Jesus is God. Thus, Jesus allowed himself to be killed (and being God, how did he die in the first place?) to appease Himself, for crimes which we had committed against Him. Isn’t this a bit a)circular and b)egotistical and megalomaniacal on God’s part? Please believe me when I say that to those of us still searching for answers, this only makes God seem like a vengeful schizophrenic, in the absence of an attempt on your part to sort it out for us.
I think it must be permissible for us to ask these questions and to expect answers that have more substance than “Just Because,” as that is how we got into problems in the first instance. Hurling imprecations at atheists only confirms us in our opinion that the religious are fanatical non-thinkers who are ready to kill those unwilling to join them in their highly specific and demanding version of non-thought. My experience suggests that this is not true at all, but that same experience also suggests that Christians (with whom I have the most interaction) are themselves perpetrating intellectual injustices, at best, and are complicit in deceit and violence, at worst. Surely your time is better spent helping us to understand?
I’m ready to listen.
Jeff said,
May 11, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Hakima, I’m sorry but I do not have all the time to answer the questions. I can only assume that you did not listen or look at the material I posted in this blog entry…so I’m not sure how “ready” you are “to listen.” It also seems that if you are really wanting answers, you should know that your questions have been answer by many Christian apologists. A simple google search will produce answers to your objections. Actually, in the material I referenced some of your objections have already been addressed.
Second, if I do answer your questions, you must understand that I have no interest in answering the objection so they will satisfy you, unless a biblical answer will satisfy. Since you are asking biblical questions, the answers will be from a biblical worldview.
You state “People of the Book(s)–must also answer questions about the unrelenting bloodshed, wars…”
You certainly understand that parts of the Bible are historical in nature, therefore it’s recording what took place in history with various people groups. Surley you don’t have a problem with the simple reporting of “unrelenting bloodshed, wars.”
You also state we need to answer questions about “slave-keeping”. Again, this has been addressed by many scholars including men such as John Warwick Montgomery, who has done a lot of work in this area. You certainly understand that the slavery found in the Bible was certainly different then what was experience here (and elsewhere) in the U.S. “A cursory reading of the Bible” will show you this. You may also want to check out Slavery, Human Dignity and Human Rights, by Montgomery.
You also state “woman-hating aspects of their Revealed Truth.” Wow, this is news to me. No one reading the Bible should walk away with this understanding…but again this has been addressed. You may want to check out Isn’t the Bible sexist and out of Date?” (audio), by Amy Orr-Ewing. You can also check out her book Is the Bible Intolerant?: Sexist?, Oppressive?, Homophobic?, Outdated?, Irrelevant?.
In fact, in the very opening chapters of Genesis, while Eve was the first to sin, Adam sin second, he took the blame thoughout the whole Bible (see Gen. 3 and Roman 5).
How much Bible reading have you done? If you did a cursory reading, perhaps that is part of the problem. You certainly would want me to do that to your writing and then start criticising it up and down. This indicate to me that you are coming to the text, already with an agenda…perhaps you read these objections on another site or heard them from someone else. Let me suggest that you read the Bible for yourself, then we can talk.
I’d certainly be interested in why you as an atheist have problems with the things you list above, especially (given your assumptions) that these things were acceptable during those times. Who are you to tell the Muslim, in their own culture, that they can not beat or push around their women. Why are you pushing your morality upon people groups? Why are you pushing your 21st century ethics, upon BC people groups?
Well, I must go at this point, I’ve other work that needs to be accomplished.
Jeff said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:24 am
I see our atheist friend has not made it back. I wanted to mention a recent interview between (host) Todd Wilken and (guest) Alvin Schmidt on the topic The Influence of Christianity on Women.