There's a post at Debunking Christianity that is worth a look. It's "The Straw God: Understanding The New Atheism" by Douglas Groothuis. On Monday I am debating the God Delusion with Marianne Talbot at a Fringe event at the Ox Lit Festival. Rewley House, 1 wellington Square. 7pm. Late bar. Entrance free.
Comments
I see no need to repeat myself, other than to note I'm not Groothuis' biggest fan.
I have published stuff by Groothuis in THINK. This is not his best work. It's puzzling in fact, because he is capable of so much better.
Don't quit! Your site provides a wonderful service to naturalists- or atheists in this context - like me who are pretty unfamiliar with christianity.
IMV Goothius's piece is pretty appalling in terms of reason but publishing it on your site will give it the scrutiny and criticism that it deserves that otherwise might have gone amiss.
Stephen was right to bring attention to this as if this is the best that christians can offer then they don have a leg to stand on, certainly in terms of interfering with public policy and public morality.
ut聊天室, 免費A片, AV女優, 美女視訊, 情色交友, 免費AV, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 色情影片 成人影片, 成人網站, A片,H漫, 18成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人電影, 成人, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊美女, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, a片下載, aV, av片, A漫, av dvd, av成人網, 聊天室, 成人論壇, 本土自拍, 自拍, A片,成人電影,情色,本土自拍, 愛情公寓, 情色, 舊情人, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 情色交友, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 色情遊戲, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 色情a片, 一夜情, 辣妹視訊, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊, 視訊美女, 美女視訊, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室, 視訊交友90739, 成人影片, 成人交友, 本土自拍, 美女交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, A片, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, UT聊天室, 尋夢園聊天室, 男同志聊天室, UT男同志聊天室, 聊天室尋夢園, 080聊天室, 080苗栗人聊天室, 6K聊天室, 女同志聊天室, 小高聊天室, 情色論壇, 色情網站,
There is no god attacking atheists.
God used to strike people down dead for not giving all their money to the church.
Now Dawkins can get a million in royalties from a book attacking God, who does nothing, not even turning up to Dawkins debates to show Dawkins that he is wrong.
I couldn't get past the beginning of his argument, "Historic Christianity, on the contrary, is well rooted in objective historical facts."
Oh really. Then I should be able to pick up any article or book written by an historical scholar of the ancient Levant, and the resurrection from death of an itinerant preacher is treated as a well established fact.
Show me that and the data that support it.
If his first argument is so not right that it can't even be considered wrong, why would I even keep reading (I didn't)?
I think what Groothuis is saying is that there is no evidence for the existence of Arimathea, Joseph of Arimathea, Judas, Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, the Angel Moroni, Joanna , Salome, Nicodemus , Bartimaeus, Lazarus, Martha, Judas,Thomas etc etc
Does one Christian of the first century name himself as ever having seeing any of them?
As soon as there is a public church , in Acts 2, with the possibility of public records, almost the entire cast of Gospel characters disappear from Acts and early church letters as though they had never been.
I assume they went to wherever the Angel Moroni went to when Joseph Smith went public with his claims.
And the Gospels are full of the same sorts of frauds and lies as the Koran and the Book of Mormon are, as my article Miracles shows to all except the most deluded