"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Oh yeah, Zacharias has an awesome life story and is a very good speaker. Hitchens is the atheist's spokesman when it comes down to telling stories and tying them into an atheist agenda. Zacharias is the parallel opposite for Christians. He tells a story and ties it into Christianity but not out of an agenda, rather out of love.narnia4 wrote:One of my early influences that got me into apologetics was Francis Schaeffer. I enjoyed the logical and very smart stuff by Craig and he's been one of my favorites. I think my favorite right now (I think they're all, or at least most, good, so I'm using the term "favorite" pretty loosely) is Ravi Zacharias. I think sometimes Christians underestimate the importance of Christians reflecting Christ... and I really feel like Zacharias does that so well. You can just tell that he has a deep walk with Christ and a deep love for unbelievers.
Forget Origin of Species, in the grand scheme of things it's immaterial (lol, pun intended). I would recommend reading the militant atheist literature first. The likes, of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchins, then come back to Plantinga, Aquinas, Ross, Craig, and Feser. Only then will you see the utter futility of atheism.Stygian wrote:As typical as this my sound, C. S. Lewis really is my favorite, mainly because he's the one that really influenced my decision to become a full-on Christian (notable Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters, which both helped me determine the futility and dangers of atheism respectively). However, I've recently been attracted to Dr. John Lennox (a fantastic debater if I do say so myself), William Lane Craig (shows an unbelievable understanding of scripture), and I have started reading Thomas Aquinas (currently reading through Summa Theologica... little by little). I've been meaning to look more into the works of Zacharias, McGrath, and Ross. I should do that soon, lol!
My brother (also a Christian) is pretty big of science, so he decided to read On the Origin of Species "just to get it over with." So, I should maybe get into some of the science-y apologetics so I can find a few good ones for him (any suggestions to start with, anybody?). At, folks like Alvin Plantinga and Hugh Ross come to mind as good authors to begin with, and, of course, John Lennox!
That sounds like a plan! In a way, that would be my approach.Byblos wrote:Forget Origin of Species, in the grand scheme of things it's immaterial (lol, pun intended). I would recommend reading the militant atheist literature first. The likes, of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchins, then come back to Plantinga, Aquinas, Ross, Craig, and Feser. Only then will you see the utter futility of atheism.
Jlay, you beat me to it. I was just in the middle of a post, extolling Kent Hovind, and you posted. You must be a mind reader.jlay wrote:What, no votes for Hovind?
Oy! If the atheist movement is resting on Russel and Hume I dare say then the movement is dead.Beanybag wrote:Dawkins is a biologist first and writer second. I'm not a fan of his written work. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist first and philosopher second and is philosophically illiterate - he repackages old ideas unknowingly and claims them as his own and his ethical ideas are a little problematic (seriously? Racial profiling?). Dennet is good but philisophically dense and doesn't bring too much to his field - I still enjoy his philosophical work but I'm not sure what he's contributed to the "new atheist" movement per se. And while I absolutely adore Hitchens, any theist will reject and loathe his work - he attacks religion on a more aesthetic level and seems to defy god as though he believes in him - fun but not particularly argumentative.
If you want intellectual atheists, I prefer Bertrand Russel or Hume (struggling to think up more recent examples). If you're an atheist looking to feel better about yourself, then maybe the four horsemen's work is a better read.
It's lovely to hear an appraisal like this from an atheist, Beanybag. While I'm well aware of the existence, and number, of more moderate atheists, I encounter far too many rabid Dawkins fans (of the sort who think he can do no wrong and has single-handedly crushed Christianity intellectually) for my liking. If only moderates were more vocal. But you're quite mistaken on Hitchens--how could I loathe a man with that much wit, even if I despise his position and find fault with his logic. We writers can't help but adore each other's work, even when we hate it, and if Hitchens brought only one thing to the table (and I often think he did) it was a talent for writing.Beanybag wrote:Dawkins is a biologist first and writer second. I'm not a fan of his written work. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist first and philosopher second and is philosophically illiterate - he repackages old ideas unknowingly and claims them as his own and his ethical ideas are a little problematic (seriously? Racial profiling?). Dennet is good but philisophically dense and doesn't bring too much to his field - I still enjoy his philosophical work but I'm not sure what he's contributed to the "new atheist" movement per se. And while I absolutely adore Hitchens, any theist will reject and loathe his work - he attacks religion on a more aesthetic level and seems to defy god as though he believes in him - fun but not particularly argumentative.
If you want intellectual atheists, I prefer Bertrand Russel or Hume (struggling to think up more recent examples). If you're an atheist looking to feel better about yourself, then maybe the four horsemen's work is a better read.
Literally! Although, every great old philosopher has ideas worth looking at, even if many are now defunct. The new atheists are a proud bunch and could do with a great deal more of that Socratic humility.Byblos wrote:
Oy! If the atheist movement is resting on Russel and Hume I dare say then the movement is dead.