Christian weblinks;

[jonathan7]

Hey all,

 

Below I will give a few links to Christian websites and resources (mp3 talks) for those who may like to investigate the claims of Christianity. This will basically be a thread to debate any and all areas of Christianity and questions/points people may have.

 

A few suggestions for the thread;

 

Do not presume your position is 100% correct and allow others to disagree with you; If you are going to do the above I request you don't post in this thread...

 

Weblinks

 

Well my favourite Christian Apologist is William Lane Craig (Achilles hates him :-P) here is his website, and if you register you can get to listen to MP3's of his talks and debates... http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

 

Dr Hugh Ross (astro-phycicist) is found here; http://www.reasons.org/

 

Finally a great number of Christian MP3 talks and debates can be found here for apologists, but I'm sure ED and Achilles for example will be interested to see what young Christians are being indoctrinated in; http://www.bethinking.org/

[Jae Onasi]

Ravi Zacharias has a website with a number of mp3's of his speeches, and I highly recommend them to any Christian. He can be found at http://www.rzim.org .

 

Dr. Erwin Lutzer (pastor of Moody Church in Chicago) has some fine sermons. If you think he's dry at first, hang in there with him--he was a very dry wit that grows on you. Here's the link: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Moody_Church_Hour/archives.asp

[Arcesious]

Now i realize my other thread posting a link was rather badly set up, and i spoke out of turn a little to much. (okay, i admit i went totally overboard with the Solid proof of Christianity thread- i'm sorry.)

 

But these should be interesting sites to read up on.

 

Why did you guys leave out the Lee Strobel site? He's got lots of videos too- assorted ones, including some by Hugh Ross, who i think is excellent at explaining things on God's side.

 

In this tthread, i promise to not go overboard with my beliefs- in fact, i will not participate in this discussion likely, but instead thank the person who posted this thread for directing me to more informative sites on Christianity.

 

I also suggest going to the Stand to Reason site. good stuff for Christians there too.

[jonathan7]

Now i realize my other thread posting a link was rather badly set up, and i spoke out of turn a little to much. (okay, i admit i went overboard with the Solid proof of Christianity thread- i'm sorry.)

 

But these should be interesting sites to read up on.

 

Why did you guys leave out the Lee Strobel site? He's got lots of videos too- assorted ones, including some by Hugh Ross, who i think is excellent at explaining things on God's side.

 

In this tthread, i promise to not go overboard with my beliefs- in fact, i will not participate in this discussion likely, but instead thank the person who posted this thread for directing me to more informative sites on Christianity.

 

No real reason for leaving Stroebel out, he writes well and your thread had already brought him to people's attention. My one criticism of his works is he doesnt interview athiest experts he instead counts on his own experience as an athiest, which I don't think is fair. I am however trying to harras Achilles into reading a 'A Case for Christ'.

[Arcesious]

That makes sense when debating an issue. Logical choice of planning. (oi- i sound liek a Vulcan whenever i say that word. lolz.)

 

Edit: oh, by the way:

 

 

Lee Strobel's site:

http://www.leestrobel.com/channels/Creator.php

 

Stand to Reason site:

http://www.str.org/site/PageServer

[Jae Onasi]

Strobel's not a bad starting point--he synthesizes some very deep philosophical issues down into something that people with no philosophical background can understand more easily. He's also a recovered atheist.... The importance of his book is he provides information for more reading when someone is ready to pursue a more in-depth discussion of one or more of the topics he brings up.

 

I don't see any reason why Christians should be required to include atheists in their books unless it's specifically a debate. Dawkins, Nagel, and Nietzsche have not included theistic philosophers in their works.

[Arcesious]

I rather like Hugh Ross now- i've onyl seen two of his videos off of his site now, but he's good- really good! note the 'The chance of life existing by random is 10 to the 410th power! and it gets even more less likely each month, ttherefore intelligent design is the only option for that to be possible!' some things are so precise thhat they could not have hapened by random- ex: big bang couldn't have made Earth and solar system. I just used my Algebraic calculator-a really good one- and i got a syytax error trying to calcluate that! my calculator is one of the REALLY good ones.

[Jae Onasi]

posts on why atheists turn to faith have been split to the Why do atheists become people of faith? thread. Carry on with links/sources here, and conversions there.

[Achilles]

A few suggestions for the thread; <snip>

I just want to take a moment to say that I love ground rules and I'm glad to see that more people are including them. Kudos.

 

Well my favourite Christian Apologist is William Lane Craig (Achilles hates him :-P)

Oh, you're much to harsh. I don't hate him at all.

 

His arguments are intentionally deceiving which is immoral. And since he claims to be a moral person and have knowledge about the source of morality, that make him a hypocrite. But even though he's an immoral hypocrite, I think it would be unfair to discredit his arguments without consideration.

 

Luckily, they are so full of logical fallacies that one does not have to wait long to dismiss his arguments on more legitimate basis.

 

I am however trying to harras Achilles into reading a 'A Case for Christ'.

I'll PM you my mailing address and you can arrange to have a copy sent to me. I think that's a fair trade for afternoon that I'll never get back.

 

Or if you like, you can post what you feel are his most salient arguments here and I'll be happy to examine them for free

 

(hint: I think the wiki for the book attempts to summarize. You can probably just point me there)

 

Take care!

[Jae Onasi]

His arguments are intentionally deceiving which is immoral. And since he claims to be a moral person and have knowledge about the source of morality, that make him a hypocrite.

 

That's quite an accusation, and I'd be interested in seeing how you acquired this...opinion.

[Achilles]

That's quite an accusation, and I'd be interested in seeing how you acquired this...opinion.

I read several of his articles and a few of his debates.

[Jae Onasi]

And so by reading those you've determined that he's set out to actually lie to people?

[Jvstice]

I rather like Hugh Ross now- i've onyl seen two of his videos off of his site now, but he's good- really good! note the 'The chance of life existing by random is 10 to the 410th power! and it gets even more less likely each month, ttherefore intelligent design is the only option for that to be possible!' some things are so precise thhat they could not have hapened by random- ex: big bang couldn't have made Earth and solar system. I just used my Algebraic calculator-a really good one- and i got a syytax error trying to calcluate that! my calculator is one of the REALLY good ones.

The extremely long odds are also part of the logical justification for the many worlds arguement in quantum reality (that an infinite number of worlds actually exist, we just exist in the one capable of supporting life, therefore everything that is, is so much bigger than the Universe or anything we could conceivably measure).

 

If logic is your only standard, it has to be one of the two. There's no way to logically choose between the two, without some other basis for preference.

[Achilles]

And so by reading those you've determined that he's set out to actually lie to people?

Yes. Dishonesty is not hard to spot, Jae.

For instance when someone introduces a strawman argument in a formal debate (a real one) and the opponent points out that it's a strawman and the first person neither retracts nor corrects their statement, but instead continues to repeat it, then they are being dishonest. They are intentionally trying to misrepresent someone else's statement for their own gain.

 

Now I'm sure you'll want to counter-argue that a man with a masters and two doctorates might not be aware that his arguments are strawmen, but I'll counter your counter-argument with the fact the his strawmen are frequently pointed out. Furthermore, he uses them in more than one debate. So he can't feign innocence without having another lie pinned on him.

 

It's like when your children try to slide a little white lie past you. You're smart enough not to pick up what they're putting down (unless you really do believe that the lamp broke itself). You don't divine these insight magically, you reason them out.

 

I hope this helps.

[Jae Onasi]

I would tend to think first that that was 'disagreeing with the opponent's statement that it's a strawman' rather than assuming the more slanderous 'he's lying for personal gain'.

 

If you have specific proof of deceit, that's one thing, but if you don't, then it would be wise to stop any slanderous characterizations.

[Achilles]

I would tend to think first that that was 'disagreeing with the opponent's statement that it's a strawman' rather than assuming the more slanderous 'he's lying for personal gain'.

There's a difference between disagreement and strawmen.

 

Here's a link to get you started. I hope you find the additional information beneficial.

 

If you have specific proof of deceit, that's one thing, but if you don't, then it would be wise to stop any slanderous characterizations.

Sure. Go to Craig's web site and click on any of his articles or debates. I hope that helps.

[Jae Onasi]

There's a difference between disagreement and strawmen.

 

Here's a link to get you started. I hope you find the additional information beneficial.

Thank you for the link but that's not what I meant. Craig is free to disagree with his opponent's assertion that his statement was a strawman, and he may or may not be correct. That's entirely different from being intentionally deceptive.

[tk102]

His arguments are intentionally deceiving which is immoral. And since he claims to be a moral person and have knowledge about the source of morality, that make him a hypocrite. But even though he's an immoral hypocrite, I think it would be unfair to discredit his arguments without consideration.

You said that it is unfair to discredit his arguments without consideration. I was wondering if you were going to critique particular portions of the video that jonathan7 posted.

 

Read: nudge to stay on topic

[jonathan7]

Oh, you're much to harsh. I don't hate him at all.

 

His arguments are intentionally deceiving which is immoral. And since he claims to be a moral person and have knowledge about the source of morality, that make him a hypocrite. But even though he's an immoral hypocrite, I think it would be unfair to discredit his arguments without consideration.

 

If you are going to say such things I will back up Jae and ask that you give me several pieces of evidence...

 

1. Where Craig is wrong

2. Where is he deceiving people?

3. That said above deceit is intentional

 

I'll PM you my mailing address and you can arrange to have a copy sent to me. I think that's a fair trade for afternoon that I'll never get back.

 

Or if you like, you can post what you feel are his most salient arguments here and I'll be happy to examine them for free

 

(hint: I think the wiki for the book attempts to summarize. You can probably just point me there)

 

Take care!

 

You haven't PM'd me your email address yet bro, send it and I'll arrange to send you the book Its a pretty detailed book and I'm somewhat allergic to Wiki, I only use it for 'casual information' myself due to random people being allowed to edit it, although that is improving, You take care too!

[Achilles]

Thank you for the link but that's not what I meant. Craig is free to disagree with his opponent's assertion that his statement was a strawman, and he may or may not be correct. That's entirely different from being intentionally deceptive.

If you had clicked the link and read the contents, you'd see that strawmen arguments have very specific characteristic that are easy to identify. Dr. Craig does not acknowledge that his argument has been called a strawman, nor does he attempt to clarify or rephrase his point. He simply repeats it.

 

You said that it is unfair to discredit his arguments without consideration. I was wondering if you were going to critique particular portions of the video that jonathan7 posted.

 

Read: nudge to stay on topic

I have critiqued Craig articles for jonathan7 before via PM, so I'm actually a little disappointed that he's parading Craig out and asking me to do it again as though we've never spoken this topic. If it would make you feel better for me to do this once more for the sake of the topic, I'll do so.

 

If you are going to say such things I will back up Jae and ask that you give me several pieces of evidence...

 

1. Where Craig is wrong

2. Where is he deceiving people?

3. That said above deceit is intentional

Jonathan7, you and I exchanged several lengthy PM over the course of a week a few months back (early April. The topics were "Keep you going" and "Craig article from www.bethinking.org"). The topic of those PMs was Dr. Craig and specifically one of his articles that you asked me to read and critique. Several of his flawed argument you acknowledged, but several you did not and in the interest of not pushing too hard on someone that appeared to be struggling with a previously unexamined viewpoint I did not pursue those points.

 

So, if you are going to come back and post a Craig link, pretend as though no one has ever pointed out his tactics to you before, and insist that I critique his work for you again, I will do it. However I will not be giving a pass on any points of discussion and I will wait to do so until you indicate to me that your school and the work on your book will not interfere with our discussion (ala "I will respond on Friday" which you sent me on 4/8/07). Fair enough?

 

You haven't PM'd me your email address yet bro, send it and I'll arrange to send you the book

On it's way.

 

Its a pretty detailed book and I'm somewhat allergic to Wiki, I only use it for 'casual information' myself due to random people being allowed to edit it, although that is improving, You take care too!

Google books has an excerpt online. I think you may find that you and I have different interpretation for the word "detailed".

[Pavlos]

I always found this video to be most interesting. Richard Dawkins and the Bishop of Oxford sit down and have a very pleasant conversation about why he believes, gay rights, evolution, euthanasia, indoctrination and faith branding, miracles, the virgin birth, religious hatred, faith schools, and religious moderates. It may not be relevant for what you're looking at but it's a nice discussion.

[tk102]

If you are going to say such things I will back up Jae and ask that you give me several pieces of evidence...

 

This thread is incurring some of the same troubles as the earlier weblinks thread by Arcesious. I believe this forum would be better served if the original poster would in the future explicitly state the arguments to be discussed and provide web links as backup, rather than centralize the thread on the weblinks themselves. It would greatly help to meet the potential respondents half way in initiating a debate.

[Jae Onasi]

Thread pruned of posts that really belong in PMs instead. Before this thread gets off topic any further, debating the existence of the historical Jesus is a complex topic of its own that would be better served in a new thread in order to keep this relatively focused on general Christian links. This post in no way negates tk102's earlier comments, in fact I agree with him completely.

[Arcesious]

Okay then... Back on topic.

 

Here's some random links:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/

http://www.basicchristian.org/creation_evolution.html

Hehe- Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

 

And a bunch of links to a bunch of sites on the almighty Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Christianity+vs+Evolution&btnG=Search

 

I dunno what you guy'll think of allt hose, but i randomly found and selected them off of the internet for you guys to read- note i havn't read all fo them yet, but thought they'd be interestign reads. Mostly Christianity vrs evolution that i looked up.

[Jae Onasi]

If you had clicked the link and read the contents, you'd see that strawmen arguments have very specific characteristic that are easy to identify. Dr. Craig does not acknowledge that his argument has been called a strawman, nor does he attempt to clarify or rephrase his point. He simply repeats it.

.

That's not the same as proof of actual deception--it just means that he doesn't agree with the atheists' assertions that he's presenting a strawman. The burden of proof is still on you to provide examples where he's being intentionally deceptive, and you haven't even provided a single specific bit of evidence. If you can't, you should withdraw that accusation just as you tell everyone else to. I don't see anything in his speeches where he's trying to lie, and I don't agree that non-acknowledgment of someone's accusation of a strawman is the same as a lie.