An administrator from Conservapedia who goes by the username Conservative has challenged Richard Dawkins to a debate on the following topics, in the following terms as posted on the following topics...
Richard Dawkins, former Professor for the Public Understanding of Atheism at Miskatonic University, has posed so very many reasons as to why he will not debate William Lane Craig that it is difficult to keep up with his various evasions...
FYI: I just finished posting a series dealing with an ubiquitously promulgated well within the box atheist talking point de jour which is the claim—popularized by Richard Dawkins, his cult of personality hero worship adherents, et al.—that “God did it” is a science stopper.
Imagine being so shockingly ignorant of 1) the very foundations upon which science is premised and 2) the fact that most of the world’s most erudite scientists have been Jews and Christians and you get a taste of what it is like to be a New Atheist.
The following are selections from an essay by Boris Talantov entitled, The Moscow Patriarchate and Sergianism (italics in original). “On June 12, 1969, Boris Talantov was arrested, and on September 3 he was sentenced to two years in prison for ‘anti-Soviet activities.’ He died in prison on January 4, 1971” “for having written these and similar texts.”
As I mentioned in my debate with an atheist; truth is not an imperative in an atheistic universe since in such a case survival is all that matters and you can survive by ascertaining empirical truths or by being utterly deluded—it matters not.
On the other hand, in YHVH's universe truth is not only an imperative and ascertainable but truth is a person: the Messiah Jesus.
So while the preservation of the human race, at least for the sake of the children—think of the children!—is this atheist’s ultimate premise he did not answer as to why.
But why answer as to why? Why have a why? Is it not enough in and of itself?
I am not sure if you cannot identify a rhetorical device when you encounter one or if you are being sarcastic. Obviously, or so I thought, I was attempting to get you to elucidate because you did no “show” anything—you merely presented some assertions and I was asking why those assertions are valid and or upon what they were premised.
Moreover, you are incorrect in stating that “so much for the xian claim of atheists having no moral code,” this is not the claim, the claim is that you have no premise beyond your personal preferences.
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were asking in what manner I condemn them as opposed to what justification I'd use for condemning them.
Still, it's easy. The deaths of innocent children, pain and suffering, (would you want that kind of thing done to you), and then there's the fact that acts of genocide aren't really conducive to the human race's survival.
Your god set up a lot of lousy precedents in the OT which history shows that your fellow believers made use of.