The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail
Hey all. It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy.
The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading. It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here. The book is written by Becky Garrison.
If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't. So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book? Well, I'm glad you asked. This is a book written by a True Christian. HUH? For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs. Caposkia is my name.
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.
This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white. How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc. She touches on all of this. I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone. If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it. It's not a very long book.
When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress. Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress.
Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end. This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian. I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully. I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God. This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.
This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following.
It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information. It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses. As said, it is from the point of view of a True Christian.
enjoy, let me know your thoughts. I would also request, please be respectful in your responses. I'm here to have mature discussions with people.
Caposkia, why are you wanting people to provide evidence for the statement, "I have seen no evidence for a deity"?
I don't think it's possible to provide evidence of no evidence beyond its not being there.
Where have you seen God? Can I get tickets?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Are you suggesting that without evidence all claims are 50/50? You have not presented any of your so called evidence.
what evidence have I not presented? I just suggested a book.
Your analogy failed because you referred to the design of a computer to the way living beings work, humans are no different than the rest of the animals. You have yet to establish that a mediation exists or that it is required for life to be as it is.
You're starting to twist the origin and point of bringing up the computer analogy. It was taking the for instance idea that a soul existed and how that would be a mediation for the body. The analogy explains it clearly. You're still trying to compare with the state of mind that the soul doesn't exist. If a soul does not exist, then of course the computer analogy does not work.
Remember, you had asked "what mediation?"
It's your magical word, you should have the evidence to support it if you don't it is irrational to believe there is such a thing as a soul. The real question is why do you believe it without any studies done on it?
I brought up a suggestion of reading. You brought up the idea of a soul and tried to challenge it. The soul is not the defining factor of my belief. If you're going to bring up a topic and try to challenge it, I'm going to need some sort of basis of research that you will accept. Otherwise, don't bother bringing it up.