Atheist Richard Dawkins is featured here in a new video ad for the American Humanist Association. The AHA launched its biggest ad campaign this week, asking the public to consider humanism over the Bible and the Quran.
Posted on 10/28/2011 9:53:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Christian apologist William Craig has offered a response to atheist intellectual Richard Dawkins who called him "a deplorable apologist for genocide" in his column last week.
In a speech at the Sheldonian Theater at Oxford University on Tuesday, Craig responded to Dawkins' allegations during the question and answer session.
“There was no racial war here, no command to kill them all,” he said, alluding to extermination of the Canaanites in the Old Testament, “the command was to drive them out.”
He then said: “I would say that God has the right to give and take life as He sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead … than being raised in this Canaanite culture."
Organizers of the event left an empty chair on stage for Dawkins who has continuously refused to debate Craig, saying Craig does not have the worthy credentials.
“I always said when invited to do debates that I would be happy to debate a bishop, a cardinal, a pope, an archbishop, indeed I have done those, but I don’t take on creationists and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters; they’ve got to have something more than that. I’m busy," said Dawkins.
Dawkins was replaced by a panel of three Oxford Academics. Among them were Dr. Daniel Came and Philosophy Senior Research Fellow Stephen Priest.
Oxford Inter-collegiate Christian Union President Robbie Strachan praised Craig's speech, saying it contained convincing philosophical arguments.
“The next step after establishing that the existence of God is a possibility is obviously to find out what that God might be like. Christians believe in a good and loving God, which is why the ‘problem of evil’ question came up last night," he said.
> asking the public to consider humanism over the Bible and the Quran.
Humanism is the de facto state religion, and the government school collective is its bus ministry.
I am glad someone is answering Dawkins intellectually. Answer a fool according to his folly and so on.
His challenges so very much display his rejection of who God actually is. He claims not to believe in God, yet, his questions reveal a hatred of Him and the centuries-old desire to put ourselves above Him.
Scratch and atheist, you’ll find a bitter, arrogant misanthrope beneath.
Sure, it’s not Canaan, but it’s disingenuous to argue that it didn’t happen:
Deu 3:6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
(+ 35 other cities at least, the same)
Rather than say it didn’t happen (genocide), he should explain “why”...
mea culpa
“People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead … than being raised in this Canaanite culture.”
<<<leaving now...
How could Dawkins find anything “deplorable” as you would need some moral basis to compare behavior to in order to be deplored by it...? Not very atheisticy of him...
Dawkins is perpetually angry at religion, to the point of obsession. Usually that indicates fear. If religion were as impotent and ridiculous as Dawkins claims it would fail on its own. He is a frightened, negative small man.
I have long maintained that modern people--especially liberals--simply can't come to grips with the fact that the people in the Hebrew Bible (the "old testament") were JEWS. Liberals think all Jews have ever done is sing songs from Fiddler on the Roof as they were passively murdered by chr*stians while waiting for the secular "enlightenment" to come and save them.
I like to think the Jewish People are like Clark Kent/Superman (who was created by two Jews, btw). In the Exile they are in their "harmless," nerdy Clark Kent mode. But when the time comes, they'll go into the "phone booth" and emerge as Yehoshu`a Bin Nun once again. And what a surprise that will be to the liberals!
I am not here to defend the atheist, but their reasoning goes like this:
The God that Christians worship is the same God that Jews worship, who revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses in the Old Testament.
This God ordered the total destruction of a huge number of Israel’s enemies ( e.g. the Amalekites ), which was carried out by Israelites in obedience to His command.
THEREFORE, Christians (and of course devout children of Israel) worship a person who approves of genocide.
Are Mormon children far better dead than being raised in Mormon culture?
Are Buddhist children far better dead than being raised in Buddhist culture?
Are Hindu children far better dead than being raised in Hindu culture?
The roots of atheism are almost always moral not intellectual.
Succinctly put. Well done.
In short Dawkins wants big names to debate for him to get publicity.
OMG, I thought the headline read “Christina Applegate Responds to Atheist Richard Dawkins....” Seriously! LOL!
It was the lesser evil.
Well, they were not all the descendents of Judah, so technically, not “Jews”. But of course, he is full of it, because he omits the question: is war wrong, especially if it is war over disputed land? Why would an atheist even care, given that the the history of man is warfare? But of course, he is really challenging Christians to repudiate their Jewish past, to say as some have said since the beginning: The God of Jesus is not the God of Abraham. But, we—most of us—have always said: this is a lie. For us the only answer is: one must look at the whole story laid down in the Bible to get a handle on the person who spoke to Abraham. He is the same person who spoke to Job, and Moses, and to the kings and prophets and sages. And on thing we do know: he is faithful. He have chosen his people, and he is faithful to them through thick and thin, even at the risk of his reputation. And as we Christians believe, even to sharing our very nature and all that which goes with it. Would our Jesus have, like his namesake, taken up the sword? If that were his mission, yes. But we think that he rather suffered a lance through his side instead, and for our sake. Our religion is full of paradoxes. Islam is simplicity itself, meaning that whatever Joshua and his followers knew of the divine nature —the worst construction of that nature—they have not gone beyond that, yet. And in deed, so barely has the rest of mankind, but some have gone further, seeing more clearly what obscured the vision of men who have gone before. I do believe in Providence”lead kindly light....”
“There was no racial war here, no command to kill them all,” he said, alluding to extermination of the Canaanites in the Old Testament, “the command was to drive them out.”
How about "repent, or you will all likewise perish!"
(In other words, Craig's quoted bit sounds mushy.)
But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded, that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the LORD your God. --Deut. 20
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.