http://www.mark-shea.com/pad.html

Against an untenable claim of "neutrality" of beliefs, the article
notes:

"For the New Atheist is full of moral prescriptions and proscriptions:
We should be teaching children about Darwin. We should not be teaching
children religion. We should have greater tolerance for sexual
diversity. We should not be subjecting infants to circumcision. We
ought to be doing X, we ought not to be doing Y, etc."

Against materialist claims he notes:

"The problem is this: Trying to derive a moral universe -- any moral
universe at all -- of Should from a purely materialistic universe of
Is turns out to be impossible. The perfectly just outrage of a
Hitchens at some crime by a theist turns out -- if you grant the New
Atheists' materialism -- to be just one more biochemical reaction. And
privileging a biochemical reaction merely because it is a lot more
complex than, say, combustion is as crude a mystification as bowing
down to a rock because it's really really big."

and in identifying the specific nature of blind faith frequently
employed in atheism:

"What is marvelous is how nakedly Hitchens reveals his own atheist
convictions to be entirely faith-based and -- what is more -- based on
faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy. All the massive
artillery of his adult wit and eloquence is, in the final analysis,
ranked and ranged to protect that boy and his emotional epiphany."

A very thoughtful piece that clearly illustrates many inadequacies
associated with the new atheism.

Regards,

"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
either side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid.  Labeling and
name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away.  If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection.  Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways.  But, it is important
that you face issues.  If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay.   It doesn't mean you are wrong.  It means you don't have an
answer.  Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
effective conversation could there be in either instance?  Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say.  It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it.  It adds to your credibility.  Of
course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing.  It caused the fall.  It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness.  It has no place in the
Christian's life.  Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous.  Admit you made a mistake and go on.  Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists.  There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error.  It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist.  But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position.  You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating."

http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm

On Dec 3, 9:34 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Regards,

On Dec 3, 11:49 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 3, 9:34 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Regards,

On Dec 3, 12:46 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote: