Debate: Atheists vs Christians (Krauss + Shermer vs D'Souza + Hutchinson) - YouTube

The following video was a debate where I got to admit that Lawrence Krauss and Micheal Shermer won this debate. It does not make Atheism right, but it does show that some atheists can win debates. I think that the reason why the Christians in this debate lost it is because they didn't defend or explain the Bible. That is why they lost. They practically gave the debate away if you want to show that Science does not refute God.


Debate: Atheists vs Christians (Krauss + Shermer vs D'Souza + Hutchinson) - YouTube

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Dinesh D'Souza Resigned Under Pressure From King's College Amidst Scandal

So what does sour grapes look like? Well when one loses a debate and uses his opponent's public trial years later to insult and belittle him - it is a great example of sour grapes.

While attending a conference last month, the president of the King’s College was spotted in the company of a woman other than his wife. At a typical institution of higher learning, a sighting like that might not have turned into a major controversy. But the King’s College is not a typical institution of higher learning. It is a tiny Christian college based in a downtown Manhattan office building, whose mission statement articulates a “commitment to the truths of Christianity and a biblical worldview. The King’s College announced Mr. D’Souza’s resignation on Thursday, two days after World Magazine, a Christian-oriented publication, reported that he had checked into a Comfort Suites in South Carolina in September with a woman he introduced as his fiancée, despite the fact that he was already married. Link.

Dinesh is in the process of getting divorced. He said, “I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced.” Really? ;-) Now he's saying I am not having an affair with his new girl. Really, no sex before re-marriage? What a prude, or a liar, or something.

If one bothers to actually read the links Loftus posted we can see that there is something going on with people who had issues with D'Souza and who wanted him out of his job. I think it may have more to do with his documentary about President Obama than his theology or philosophy. I didn't agree with the conclusions he had drawn about Obama, but I don't think he should be silenced or censored in some way because of them. I think that Loftus is still smarting from their debate and because he could not make good arguments against D'Souza's presentation, Loftus decided to attack D'Souza the only way he can. If D'Souza is telling the truth that he was not with another woman before his divorce was final, then I don't think he did anything wrong. Divorce is horrible but I don't know why he was separated  from his wife or the circumstances around the divorce so criticizing him for it is none of my business. 

Debunking Christianity: Dinesh D'Souza Resigned Under Pressure From King's College Amidst Scandal

Owned :Debunking Christianity: Biblical Discussions Are Notoriously Manufactured

John Loftus is really really living  in a different world of his own imagination. For example:

Earlier I had said that written out discussions are notoriously manufactured. I said that in reference to Randal Rauser's book, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that all of them are to some degree (barring audio or video-taping). This is especially true when one side of a particular debate gets to write them. Now for the Bible lesson of today. Read the chapter I've reproduced below from Luke's Gospel. Have you ever actually seen religious debates like the ones in this chapter, where one side (Jesus) repeatedly and conclusively stumped the other side? I haven't. It's manufactured. Don't trust it to represent what actually happened. Hint: The Pharisees and Sadducees were not convinced, I guarantee it, and they had rejoinders which were never written down by the gospel writers. The Bible is a biased book that needs corroboration at every turn, and it lacks it. 

He then quotes Luke 20:1-47. Loftus claims that Luke just doesn't write down the Pharisees' or Sadduceess' rebuttal to Jesus because in his mind they of course had rebuttals. And he further says that he has not seen such a debate where one side conclusively stumps the other side. On one hand I would agree that such things are not common because Jesus being who He is can stump and shut down anyone, but I would disagree that this kind of thing doesn't ever happen. Jesus' opponents weren't just stumped. They were humiliated.  For example when Loftus debated David Wood (twice) and when Loftus debated D'Souza this was actually what happened. It was terribly embarrassing...too bad to be humorous. It was like watching a deer caught in the headlights of an incoming mack truck.  Loftus is too deluded to realize just how badly he lost. If Loftus disagrees that Jesus' opponents were not stumped, then I wonder how he would have answered Jesus. I doubt he could do it either.  It'd be worse than when he debated D'Souza or Wood. Jesus owned him before Loftus even formed his first thought.

Debunking Christianity: Biblical Discussions Are Notoriously Manufactured

Dinesh D'Souza on the Existence of Jesus - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted a great quotation from Dr Dinesh D'Souza.

“Do you believe in the existence of Socrates? Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? If historicity is established by written records in multiple copies that date originally from near contemporaneous sources, there is far more proof for Christ’s existence than for any of theirs.”

- Dinesh D’Souza
What’s So Great About Christianity, p. 296.

Dinesh D'Souza on the Existence of Jesus - Apologetics 315

YouTube - Theodicy, God and Suffering - A debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman

YouTube - Theodicy, God and Suffering - A debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman

Debunking Christianity: Step Outside the Box and See it for What it is

Recently John W. Loftus posted an article on his blog that I think shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian. He asserts that people are Christians because they have been indoctrinated because we are raised as Christians. If Loftus is correct than we would never expect people who were not raised in a Christian context or culture to ever become Christians. And only people who learn about psychology and anthropology and science would leave Christianity. The problem is that there is too much examples of how none of these things are true. How do you explain people like William Lane Craig and Lee Strobel? They were atheists and became Christians. I was raised in church my whole life. Although I've dedicated my career to science and engineering, going as far to earn advanced degrees in physics, engineering, and computer science, and yet I just don't see any evidence that would prove that the Bible is untrustworthy. Loftus himself tried this argument against David Wood in his debate with him earlier this year to which Wood responded that he had been an atheist and was raised an atheist. As long as people like Wood exist, Loftus' argument can't be valid.

Let's step it up a notch, and ask what about people like me who are Christians and were raised as Christians? We all come to God the same way. We have to agree with God that He is right and we have to make the committment to God for ourselves. My father and mother choosing to live lives serving God means nothing for me and my life. It means they get the blessings and rewards but not me after the point in which I had to decide for myself if Jesus is what He claimed to be and if the Bible is true. After researching other religions and examining the Bible throughout my life I find that it more than measures up. Are there things in the Bible that I would change? Yes. This is why I am accountable. But I can't reach that standard on my own. Neither can you. Because it cuts through everyone's excuses and calls us to a higher standard than anyone of us can live on our own, this is evidence that the Bible is true.

John Loftus wrote:

Christians ought to learn about the influences in their lives that cause them to believe as they do. They should study a bit of psychology and anthropology that describe how we think and how foreign other cultures are to one another. I think doing so will cause them to be skeptics. For skepticism is an acquired trait through the process of learning about these things. Doing so will cause Christians to begin to see their own inherited religion as the box it is. I'm a skeptic in part because I have learned through the sciences that I should be skeptical. Skepticism is therefore an acquired virtue. People who are unaware of the cultural influences that shape their thinking have not yet developed this acquired virtue. It requires a certain distance from ourselves and our cultures. But only through skepticism can someone see the cultural box as a cultural box. Until you have the courage and the will to be skeptical, you don't even know you're in one.

I disagree that holding fast to the Bible and its revelations is choosing to be in box. No, rather, holding on to Jesus is breaking out of the box that you don't know just how deep you in. When a person gets saved they have an epithany. They realize just how wonderful and holy God is and then you take a look at yourself and for the first time in your life to you see you as truly are. All apostates and people who walk away from Christianity all have in common that they have not had that experience. When you realize how hopeless in sin you are - drowning your own crap - and crying out to Jesus and He helps you out of it - giving you a new heart and a change of mind. If you have not experienced it you cannot understand it. However, I love the testimony from Isaiah. I didn't have the experience He had where He saw God's glory and he immediately understood his place. I didn't see God's glory but I had the same realization. This is why I understand Isaiah's gratitude for salvation. Isaiah said in Isaiah 6:5 -

"Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty."

This is exactly how I felt when I got saved. It's not about what you do but what God does for you. It's about the purpose for which God made us not what we think or what we want. Christianity is not supposed to be a religion engaged in fear and manipulation where you try to live a life good enough to convince God to let you into Heaven. Christianity is not about you getting to live any kind of way just because you prayed the "sinner's prayer" at some point but there is no change in their character. Loftus says he understands Christianity but he misses these fundamental points. The proof is his poor showing in his debates against D'Souza and David Wood. Apostates like Loftus merely trade one box for another and they don't even realize it. They think they are free but even more hopelessly enslaved. Christianity is not inherited....it's a gift that not everyone gets.


Debunking Christianity: Step Outside the Box and See it for What it is

Debate: Christianity Good for the World? - D'Souza vs Shermer

I recently watched a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Michael Shermer. I was great! The debate topics was "Is Christianity Good for the World?" Shermer tried to apply all of arguments to religion in general, basically handing the debate to Dinesh on a platter. I though D'Souza did an awesome job going after Shermer and pressing him on key points. In effect neither of their arguments were new, but always interesting. Morality and it's source always comes up in discussions such as these. Shermer and the like-minded are ready to equivocate problems with accepting homosexuality with slavery, racism, and sexism as backward ideas that need to be rejected. The thing is the Bible never condones slavery, racism, or sexism...and the fact that we as a society reject these repugnant evils now means that we are now more in line with what the Bible says more than that now we are doing better than the Bible. Shermer cries out that he doesn't see anything wrong with homosexuality or gay marriage. He doesn't see the harm. Duh! That is why we need God to tell us what is right and what is wrong because we can't see the big picture.

I was particularly offended when Shermer said that Christians reject homosexuality because of only one Biblical passage and refused correction saying that it doesn't matter. Those other passages explain why gay marriage is harmful and why we need to avoid homosexuality for own good. Dinesh did not get a chance to address this fully because I believe he was trying to avoid being side tracked.








Is Christianity Good for the World? Part 1

Apologetics 315: Dinesh D'Souza vs. John Loftus Debate MP3 Audio

I got this debate from Apologetics 315. From the introduction of John Loftus I expected a lot more. He didn't offer anything new. No new argument. Nothing - just like what God used to create all of reality. I love to see Dinesh D'Souza argue for God and Christianity. He is brilliant. While I understand the need for his apologetic in the public square, I prefer an apologetic based on the Bible being true. This debate is the one where I think I've seen D'Souza defend the Bible because Lofus really did attack it. He made some claims and thoughts that D'Souza did not have time to address. The thing about Loftus that I found most interesting is that it says that he was once a student of William Lane Craig and at times it seems that Loftus was debating him not D'Souza. My favorite point that D'Souza made was when he compared the historical evidence for Socrates's life and teaching and showed how what we really know about him is less than what we know about Jesus if we apply the same criteria to Socrates. Yet I have not ever heard a qualified historian argue that Socrates never existed. I disagreed with many of the facts that Loftus asserted. They weren't right. Neither were his conclusions correct. For example, as far as I can tell everyone agrees that the universe began as a singularity - the debate is the nature of that singularity and how it got there. Also Loftus proof that Jesus did not claim to be God is the exact opposite of what Jesus claimed. Look at  Matthew 19: 16-17.

¹⁶Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
 ¹⁷"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." (NIV)

¹⁶And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
 ¹⁷And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (KJV)

Loftus tried to use this to argue to say that Jesus was saying that no one is good but God and that he wasn't claiming to be God. D'Souza didn't have time to address this, so I will, because I can't stand this objection because it is stupid.. Jesus was not claiming that he was not good. This is what you would have to assume to get Loftus' understanding. No, Jesus is calling attention to all what the Young man has said in calling him good. If no one is good but God, and Jesus is good, then that means Jesus is God.  QED!


On Wednesday, Dr. James White was on a radio program discussing the Trinity, a Jewish woman called in and offered this very same scripture as a rebuttal to the Trinity. Listen to how White  handled it.

On Apologetics 315, you can find the audio link to the debate and below is a playlist from YouTube.





Apologetics 315: Dinesh D'Souza vs. John Loftus Debate MP3 Audio

Related articles by Zemanta

• Former Pastor John Loftus debates Christian Apologist Dinesh D'Souza (new.exchristian.net)
• Reasons to Believe that there is a God (oup.com)

Dinesh D'Souza vs. Daniel Dennett: Is God a Man-Made Invention? Debate MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

This was a great debate. I admit Daniel Dennett came across well, although I disagree with him. The thing is I would agree with Dennett that teaching our children about the truth claims, history, and view point of all the major world religions. I would go further. Actually what would be wrong with comparing their claims with empirical science and history and see who is telling the truth. We can have the best apologetic arguments for each religion and see if they can carry weight. I'm confident that Christianity is the only one which can withstand such scrutiny.


Dinesh D'Souza vs. Daniel Dennett: Is God a Man-Made Invention? Debate MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Saddleback Apologetics Conference Audio MP3 and Video - Apologetics 315

There is a great post from Apologetics 315. Apparently there was an Apologetics conference at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church. I liked this! There are are six lectures from some of the best Christian apologists alive today. Posted on the blog are links to audio and video files containing the lectures given during the conference.

Saddleback Apologetics Conference Audio MP3 and Video - Apologetics 315

Dinesh D'Souza vs. Peter Singer Debate: Can There Be Morality Without God? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

The Apologetics 315 blog has recently posted a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Peter Singer. Their topic was Can There Be Morality Without God. Singer, who is an atheist, argued that we can have morality with God. D'Souza argues that there is a God and we need God to understand Morality. Singer's approach is to just change morality to match the secular worldview. For example. Singer has proposed that a baby should not be considered to have human rights until it has lived about about 24 days to make sure its viable. I find that repugnant. Singer however attacked the Bible and I wish that D'Souza had defended the Bible in his arguments. I did like D'Souza's arguments.

Dinesh D'Souza vs. Peter Singer Debate: Can There Be Morality Without God? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

James White Comments on the D'Souza vs Barker Debate

On the 04-16-09 webcast of the Dividing Line, Dr. James White commented on the debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Dan Barker. I've posted on it before but I feel the need to talk about it again because seeing it through Dr. White's viewpoint I got to think about it differently. I still don't think that D'Souza did badly in the debate, but White's criticisms are also valid. At first I thought D'Souza's plan of attack - to argue against Barker without defending the Bible but to win on Barker's terms using only philosophy, science, and history. I see now how he failed to be most effective because Barker attacked the Bible. Dr. White is preparing for his upcoming debate against Dan Barker so of course he is thinking about the larger issue: How do you defend the faith against people who don't believe. A lot of Christians take the viewpoint that you can't use the Bible to witness or as an affective defense of the Bible if the people you are dialouging with refuse to acknowlege the Bibe as the Word of God. Dr. White takes a different view: defend the Bible, explain the Bible, stand on the Bible. I would further argue that this is the methods the Apostles used themselves. I have two examples: in Acts 2:14-41 - Peter's first sermon - all Peter used to prove his point was the Old Testament scriptures and he appealed to their own experiences. Remember Jesus had been crucified some 40 days prior and many, if not all, of his hearers had eyewitness knowledge of everything Peter was preaching. My other example is Acts 17 when Paul was in Athens on Mars Hill. What did Paul use? He used some philosophy and with the bulk of arguments based on scripture. The audience was different - people who likely had no idea what the Old Testament said. This shows me that we have tailor or preaching and teaching to our audiences. Dr. James White's comments are well-worth review. Here is the web cast: Dividing line 04-16-09.

Here is the full debate between D'Souza and Barker.
What had happen' was.....: D'Souza vs Barker: Christianity Vs Atheism

D'Souza vs Barker: Christianity Vs Atheism

I found this really cool debate at Apologetic 315.

Dinesh D'Souza is awesome. He always manages to come across as not just scholarly but very very articulate. He's a great spokesman for Jesus. He also manages to not seem condescending or mean to his opponent. No matter what stupid thing they say...case in point: Dan Barker!

Video:


Audio

dsouza-barker-deba...