Imagine yourself wherever you believe that God is going to judge people.  God in all of his infinite wisdom and justice declares you will go to heaven.  The next person comes up for God's judgment.  

The person's name is Sara.  

Sara is a normal 14 year old girl.  She has never committed any acts that you would consider horrible.  She wasn't raised in a religious family and she doesn't believe in God.  

God in his infinite wisdom and justice declares that as an unbeliever the girl should go to hell, but also in his infinite wisdom and justice God declares that just this once you should decide.  There will be no personal consequences to you whatever you decide.  

What do you do?

A)  Accept God's infinite wisdom and judgment and send the girl to hell.  

B)  Go against God's infinite wisdom and judgment and send the girl to heaven.  

After skimming most of the front page articles it seems to me that most of the posts here are not about having a debate but rather how Christianity in general is wrong. It is  intriguing that there is a crusade for free thinking but this organization is not reaching out to people being held under Sharia Law in the the Middle East, and trying to see them set free from the hand of an even greater tyrant of a God than some seem to believe Jehovah is, or liberating people of tribal religions from cannablism and warfare. I would like to come in contact with the people who really want a debate and would base their information on logic rather than a deep rooted fear, hurt, or anger at Christianity. If you haven't guessed I am a Pentecostal believer in the Ressurection of Jesus Christ and have faith in the atoning blood that was shed on Calvary. I am not here to be converted or to convert others, but to simply fulfill the command to "preach the gospel to every creature". God bless and look forward to reading your comments.

Hey

Is secularism a wise thing for the coming generations ?

Thanks

This guy is fashioning his own scripture in real time...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyV4m4uHQLU&feature=related

Has anyone ever heard of this?

In the debate of Reverend Matt Slick versus Doctor Edwin Kagin debate held at the University of West Florida in Pensacola, FL, April 17, 2008, Matt Slick defaults and demonstrates that he does not have a sound reasoning, upon which he can build any theory for any gods, at 3:23 of his opening statements.
 

" Simple Logical principle

If there are only 2 possibilities, and if 1 of the possiblilities is incapable of explaining it, then by default, the other is validated. ":  Matt Slick

The underlined segment of Matt Slick's statement shows the equivocation, and logical fallacy.

" Without logic, we don't have a debate. ":  Matt Slick

He has refuted his own (TAG) argument for the existence of a god.

There are more than 2 possibilities, to explain reality.

These people are really not too bright...

I wonder if anyone can explain in plain English what Jean's world view is.  

Let's break it down:

1) The bible is literally true.

2) In order do posses real knowledge, you need to arrive at it from God, with the bible as his word.

3) One can only gain knowledge through logic and god? 

My question is, where does logic fit in? I mean... if you believe 1 and 2, why do you need logic? Logic is a tool to reason stuff out through questioning, but why is that necessary if you have all the truth in front of you?

I wonder what kind of compartmentalization is required for his kind of thinking?

Jean, feel free to pipe in and break it down in point form what your world view is.  Please refrain from using ambiguous terms from either philosophy or theology.  Explain it as if we were 10 years old.  I think this would serve as a measuring device against the claims that you constantly make. 

THE DEATH OF DARWIN'S DAUGHTER AND THE "PROBLEM" OF EVIL

People like Brian are atheists because of an emotional reaction. In Brian's case it was the sad death of his dad while he was only 13.

All atheists become absurd atheists becaus of some emotional reaction. Even Darwin had an emotional reaction. It was over the death of his daughter

The PBS television serier Evolution, episode 1, dramatized a turning point in the spiritual life of Charles Darwin. This was caused by the sickness and death of his beloved daughter Annie. Although the series did not spell it out, Darwin's biographer, James Moore, makes it clear that this tragedy destroyed the truth of Christianity in Darwin's mind. "How could there be a God if He allowed this to happen. Instead, Darwin decided that Annie was an unfortunate victim of the laws of nature, that is, she lost the struggle for existence.

Annie's death raised, for Darwin, serious questions about God's goodness. but the prevailing view of his day (that the earth was old and had long been filled with death and violence - Lyel), provided no adequate answers.

Alas, the prevailing church view was a "long age" (progressive creationism) of the earth, which placed fossils millions of years before Adam. This view entails that death and suffering were around for millions of years before Adam, and yet God called His acts of creation, very good. Such a view of God evidently didn't appeal to Darwin.

Atheists like to switch up their standards of evidence in mid conversation.

So, I have a solution.

Just state the most obvious thing, and I will prove that God exists from it.

That is all.

Did any atheists here take up my offer and actually call into Matt Slick's radio show?

Or are you all a bunch of turkeys who act tough behind a computer but are unable to handle the rigors of live one-on-one debate?

Borrowed from another thread:

Hi Sandy,

I understand your position since you are an atheist. But I've been arguing this since I got here. A consistent atheist is a screw up. They have no morals.

Dan Barker from FFRF says he BORROWS the morals from Christianity (more like steals). Which demonstates that atheism is an empty void of nothing. It's like Nietche nihilism.

Now, I speak of consistent atheists. This actually makes me sad. But it is my argument and Jimmy is the 2nd example on here to demonstate my point.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Okay, Jean, I'll bite.

1) What's the difference between a 'consistent atheist' and an atheist?

2) What makes you think that atheists borrow their morals from christianity?