Let's argue the truth of our ideas

John Mark Reynolds: today's arguments for the existence of God are stronger than they were a century ago, because of the need to respond to critics.
___________________________________________
So? That arguments developed in the crucible of conflict is a given.
I think if one could have proven a god exists it would have been done a looooooooong time ago. I recommend that you stop trying. If you were able to, there would be no need for faith. And without faith, you'd be a skeptic.

On second thought, your conversion to non-theism might just be a real born again experience.

The simple fact is that "other countries" do not see America as an entirely secular country and neither do I.

The simple fact is that the Middle East and most of Asia see America as a Christian country, and so do I. That troubles me.

Separation of "church" and state is more than three hundred years overdue.

As for other nations, our foreign service personnel are surely trained to deal with the nuances of religion in other nations.

And if they are lacking in this domain, as they are in so many others, they can be educated.

'nuf said.

For example, today's arguments for the existence of God are stronger than they were a century ago, because of the need to respond to critics. -- John Mark Reynolds

Though of course, the "God" whose existence you've gotten better at arguing for isn't the same god that people actually believed in 100 years ago. 100 years ago "God" was, for most beleivers, an old man with a white beard floating above us on a cloud with an inordinate interest in what we did with our nether regions in our leisure time. In that I'm told that few people believe in that god anymore, I don't think you could count that as an apologetic success story.

I contend that what apologists have really gotten better at is blurring the concept of "God" to a point where it defies definition and description -- and that would be, of course, a pretty difficult concept to argue against.

hi JMR i usually enjoy reading your posts, thank for allowing me to think and respectfully agree and disagree with your positions... My take is this.. there is something in reality and the real world called organized religion, and there is also a very real thing called government.. i see them both as worthwhile for the most part but having completely different functions in the word and society. I think at times both organizations of all country's do some pretty pathetic things but with humans involved this i guess this is to be expected When differences arise they should be maybe addressed and actually fixed or honestly disagreed on publicly and truthfully. I would think the only place religion would have any influence in the real world on an individual representative of a government in doing thier job or vocation is how they as a human being conduct themselves with regards to honesty integrity and compassion. I would think their would be times when a human being could fulfill all these objectives and not be in total agreement with thier religion... If any religion has any problem with this simple truth i now ask them if they are claiming to be perfect in knowledge choice and above making a mistake... while also being a human being, if they answer yes i would ask them when did they first suspect that they were indeed ...God

"There's so little sense to be found in this opinion but I'm most thoroughly confused by the author's use of the word "truth.""

I get the sense that it is his opinion that his personal beliefs constitute the "truth".

The only people who have rights "given by God" are Protestant heterosexual white males. Everybody else in this country has had to fight for them. Women, minorities, GLBT's, Catholics, non-Christians (incl. Jews, Muslims, secularists, etc.) have had to fight just to be treated as first-class citizens. Is this truly what we want to project to other countries?

We need to practice what we preach.

By "Creator-God" I believe Dr. Reynolds is referring to the Declaration of Independence when it states in the first paragraph,"...to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." and to the second paragraph when it states,"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

By "Founders" I believe he is referring, at least in part, to the 56 men who signed that document.

Isaiah 68

There's so little sense to be found in this opinion but I'm most thoroughly confused by the author's use of the word "truth."

What each religion claims as "The Truth" is that which is written in each of their holy books. And guess what, they can't ALL be right. That's why their incompatible and inflexible ideas are better left out of negotiations that have to do with real problems in the real world.

Let's get the Israelis and Arabs to the table to debate about the "truth" of their religious ideas. At the end of the conversation, our Christian diplomats can step in and say "You know what, you're both equally wrong!" Problem solved! Seriously, what universe does this guy operate in?

He's proposing (i think) that US diplomats will be more effective in settling foreign policy disputes between religious actors if they come to the table willing to discuss the "truth" of the parties' religious claims. If there's a shred of historical evidence to support that notion, he should present it. His anecdotal visit with the Mormons is unpersuasive and almost completely inapplicable.

let,s argue the truth of our ideas.

that is a good question who is the creator-god ?and why the god got to be the creator?

where people get the idea that god is 3 or begt a son ?or the son incarnate?or the god incarnate in a son?

why you call the above ideas?

i do not mean to disrespect you or your ideology dr/ R but this is a dam shame people do not know who the creator god is?
christianity not sure about it is he the god or the son of god or the god incarnate in a son or the son incarnate in a father?or the son ,the father and the holy goast?

is america a christian country or a secular country ?and what is the use of the religion if its separated from the state whether domestic or international?

why not the church or the place of worship in general ammalgmated to the state instead of the separation?

seriously and sincerely what you can sell?

"We might get further arguing for liberty if took a page from the Founders and argued that it was given by a Creator-God."

Whose "creator-god"?

"We might get further arguing for liberty if took a page from the Founders and argued that it was given by a Creator-God. We might get further with the majority of the population of the world if we conceded that republican ethics did not have to be tolerant of Vegas values."

I'm a Humanist and atheist. I've never been to Vegas and don't like to gamble.

Are you implying that being secular means that you have 'Vegas values'?

I'm hard-working, moral, faithful Humanist who loves my children.

Please don't label me because I don't believe my ethics don't come from a "Creator-God".

Thank you

And how do you represent Christ with sneering, snarky, Limbaugh-like remarks such as .."people can be persuaded to abandon their religious point of view if we only send them enough CNN, MTV, and uplifting Obama speeches."

How about people can be persuaded to give up diversity, tolerance and religious freedoms if we only send them enough Fox News, Glenn Beck and sarcastic John Mark Reynolds columns?