The Reason For God - Tim Keller

Audio and study guide at this site

His take on these issues

Exclusivity: How can there be just one true religion?
Suffering: If God is good, why is there so much evil in the world?
Absolutism: Don't we all have to find truth for ourselves?
Injustice: Hasn't Christianity been an instrument for oppression?
Hell: Isn't the God of Christianity an angry Judge?
Doubt: What should I do with my doubts? (by David Bisgrove)
Literalism: Isn't the Bible historically unreliable and regressive?

Belief in the Age of Skepticism:
Veritas Forum at UC Berkeley two weeks ago

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value=";hl=en&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param></object>

Hi Ridge, hope the rest of the semester goes well for you. Come back when you have time.

your "OPINION" of his argument is flawed

you are stating your opinion that his argument is flawed, it's not a fact.

any opinion...including mine unless it vcan be proven is flawed, and if it can be proven..then it is no longer an opinion.

who wins debates arguments are similar to whats the greatest rock band? it's all subjective. A thiest will certainly say a theist won the debate..a atheist likewise.

very rarely will one or the other admit the other side has won.

prof has stated he respects Dr. WL Craig as a debater. I have said Hitchens is a good debater.

let me ask you...have you ever seen a debate where you thought the theist beat the atheist?

what makes a free thinker a free thinker?

would not a true free thinker actually be open to the possibility of a deity? would not an agnostic take be more rational then yours or mine?

lets say a society is 85% atheist and 15% theist..would not the theists be the free thinkers then?

one thing I know...everybody has an mail man


what would you consider to be a secular humanist? that term has always got me thinking. what is a secular humanist? Is it an atheist, an agnostic, a non religious spiritual person, a deist?

I'm serious

Yeah, from what I can interpret, secular humanists have a philosophy that believes that we can get our ethical and moral beliefs without a "divine spark" or whatever you would call it.  We can find an objective good and bad without need of anything supernatural, it's within the abilities of reason, empathy, and human nature.  Nothing is to be taken on faith, but critically scrutinized.  And, uh, you generally don't bother people if they're not hurting anyone. 

That's what I see anyway. That's not to say that they won't go off on kooky tangents and gather for ceremonies or something. What for I don't know, fellowship? To say, "Look at the possibilities"?   I don't think a Deist would technically be a secular humanist because there would be a supernatural god, even if a disinterested one. 

Here's the "what is"

Well crescentwrench history doesn't prove you right.

All atheist regimes in past history evolve to be ethically and morally bankrupt. You need to read Dinesh D'Souza's book, "What's so Great About Christianity"

Uh, what?  How does history prove a position statement wrong? 


I'm with CW on this one.

dr. keller's view on heaven and hell?

he says that people choose hell because they dont want to spend eternity in a realm that god dictates to them.

if you accept the rules of the christian god you get to live in their heaven. if you dont you are choosing to fry for eternity in a lake of fire. that is THE anthropomorphic divisive ultimatum that christians use threaten heathens with. sounds a little desperate doesnt it? you shouldnt need to be threatened at "gun piont" to do good.