Download Free A Friendly Dialogue Between An Atheist And A Christian Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online A Friendly Dialogue Between An Atheist And A Christian and write the review.

UNDERSTAND CHINA through the eyes of a renowned Chinese diplomat's conversations with Luis Palau, American Evangelist. In A Friendly Dialogue between an Atheist and a Christian, Luis Palau, representing the Christian faith, and Zhao Qizheng, representing atheism, present a composite of recorded dialogues held in China in 2005 between them. Through these dialogues, readers are provided insight into the current struggles atheists have regarding the truth claims of the Christian faith. Topics discussed include philosophy, history, religion, the Bible, creation, atheism, Confucianism, politics, ethics, Chinese and Western cultures, and the relevance of Jesus Christ to society. Through the engaging dialogue between Luis Palau and Zhao Qizheng, many of the stereotypes and misinformation concerning the Chinese culture are exposed, revealing a nation in which the Bible is published and new churches are being built. By avoiding the use of complicated theological language, these discussions express the concerns of both Christians and atheists in a clear, meaningful, and respectful way. A Friendly Dialogue between an Atheist and a Christian is a must read for anyone interested in gaining a greater appreciation of the oriental world of China and how the Christian faith is being received within that context.
A Friendly Dialogue Between an Atheist and a Christian is an exchange between Luis Palau and Zhao Qizheng presenting a composite of recorded dialogues held in China. Luis Palau is a well known Christian evangelist and Zhao Qizheng is the Vice Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and former Minister of Information for China. A Friendly Dialogue represents a dialogue on philosophy, history, religion, the Bible, creation, atheism, Confucianism, politics, ethics, Chinese and Western cultures, and the relevance of Jesus Christ to society.
For thousands of years, the faithful have honed proselytizing strategies and talked people into believing the truth of one holy book or another. Indeed, the faithful often view converting others as an obligation of their faith—and are trained from an early age to spread their unique brand of religion. The result is a world broken in large part by unquestioned faith. As an urgently needed counter to this tried-and-true tradition of religious evangelism, A Manual for Creating Atheists offers the first-ever guide not for talking people into faith—but for talking them out of it. Peter Boghossian draws on the tools he has developed and used for more than 20 years as a philosopher and educator to teach how to engage the faithful in conversations that will help them value reason and rationality, cast doubt on their religious beliefs, mistrust their faith, abandon superstition and irrationality, and ultimately embrace reason.
The question of God is simply too important--and too interesting--to leave to angry polemicists. That is the premise of this friendly, straightforward, and rigorous dialogue between Christian theologian Randal Rauser and atheist Justin Schieber. Setting aside the formality of the traditional debate, the authors invite the reader to join them in an extended, informal conversation. This has the advantage of easing readers into thorny topics that in a debate setting can easily become confusing or difficult to follow. Like any good conversation, this one involves provocative arguments, amusing anecdotes, and some lively banter. Rauser and Schieber begin with the question of why debates about God still matter. They then delve into a number of important topics: the place of reason and faith, the radically different concepts of God in various cultures, morality and its traditional connection with religious beliefs, the problem of a universe that is overwhelmingly hostile to life as we know it, mathematical truths and what they may or may not say about the existence of God, the challenge of suffering and evil to belief in God, and more. Refreshingly upbeat and amicable throughout, this stimulating conversation between two friends from opposing points of view is an ideal introduction to a perennial topic of debate.
The new atheists are on the warpath. They come armed with arguments to show that belief in God is absurd and dangerous. In the name of societal progress, they promote purging the world of all religious practice. And they claim that people of faith are mentally ill. Some of the new atheists openly declare their hatred for the Judeo-Christian God. Christian apologists have been quick to respond to the new atheists’ arguments. But there is another dimension to the issue which begs to be addressed--the root causes of atheism. Where do atheists come from? How did such folks as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens become such ardent atheists? If we are to believe them, their flight from faith resulted from a dispassionate review of the evidence. Not enough rational grounds for belief in God, they tell us. But is this the whole story? Could it be that their opposition to religious faith has more to do with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but obedience. The psalmist declares, “The fool says in his heart there is no God” (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that lack of evidence is not the atheist’s problem. The Making of an Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
Both believers and non-believers who are looking for answers to life's hard questions will find this an engaging and thought-provoking book, which defines each term, historical person, event, or doctrine as it arises, rather that relying on a presupposition to prior acquaintance with Christian history, vocabulary, or beliefs.
One in the series New Dialogues in Philosophy, edited by Dale Jacquette, Michael Ruse, a leading expert on Charles Darwin, presents a fictional dialogue among characters with sharply contrasting positions regarding the tensions between science and religious belief. Ruse's main characters—an atheist scientist, a skeptical historian and philosopher of science, a relatively liberal female Episcopalian priest, and a Southern Baptist pastor who denies evolution—passionately argue about pressing issues, in a context framed within a television show: 'Science versus God— Who is Winning?' These characters represent the different positions concerning science and religion often held today: evolution versus creation, the implications of Christian beliefs upon technological advances in medicine, and the everlasting debate over free will.
"This debate appeared originally in Christianity today, and is re-printed in this format with permission"--T.p. verso.
Do atheists hate God? Many Christians seem to think so. For the last three centuries Christians have widely assumed that atheism is always a result of a rebellious, sinful rejection of God. According to this view, at some level atheists really do know there is a God, but they sinfully suppress this knowledge because they want to live independently of God. But what if that is not correct? What if some folks are atheists not because they're sinful and foolish but because they've thought hard, they've looked carefully, and they have simply not found God? What if the common Christian assumptions about atheism are little more than an indefensible prejudice? What if the atheist really is our neighbor?
We're invited to sit at the table with Randal Rauser as he and his atheist counterpoint, Sheridan, engage in a real world apologetic dialogue. As we follow them down rabbit trails and through personal revelations, we experience a paradigm shift in apologetics—where a familiar quibble over terms becomes a mutual apprenticeship with the truth.