C. S. Lewis and the Moral Argument for the Existence of God

Views: 276

Replies to This Discussion

We are people who make comments on whether or not we think something posted to a group called Atheist News is, in fact, news. We have this right because we are members of the group Atheist News. Feel free to disagree with our opinions, but they are our opinions and we have every right to discuss the "news-worthiness" of a piece when it is posted to the group.

Are you the new lord god who speaks to what is news for all?

Grow up.
News is current events. How hard a concept is this?
I am not going to abandoned somebody who made an innocent posting to Atheist News when the suggestions that it was not news have been rude. Had they been gracious, to a great extent I would have agreed. As things stand there has been an intimidation attempt and this may only be understood as a stifling of the right to freedom of speech. Moreover, I can point to other postings that were no more news than this one and not only did nobody take exception to them but they were entertained with multiple comments. Finally, the manner in which the initial exceptions were made did not suggest that the original posting was inappropriate but rather that my comments on it were. This literally reeked of a stifling of freedom of speech.
How is this "news"?
I'm glad you agree with it.
I've always thought the presence/absence of evil has always been a pathetic argument whether used to prove or disprove God.
Logic tells us that, by necessity, a Creator or Moral Lawgiver was required to impart internal, intrinsic morals and that this is where they came from and the Source of them.

Reading the blog, the author unconvincingly attempts to refute an alternative naturalist cause and explanation for human ethics. Worse yet, the flawed refutation seems to serve as the only foundation for the premise in his absurd syllogism noted in other comments here. He does not even attempt to posit any "reasoned" explanation or evidence for his premise. In no way is his premise "logic"al as he asserts. If anyone can characterize it so, it is "news" to me.
Learning something new is not the same as "news".
According to Webster news is previously unknown information. Are you looking to suppress someones freedom of speech? You certainly exercise yours.
Why kick them out? A credible recent article was posted.
And the credibility of this artcle can only be improved when it's moved to a more appropriate group. That's the point.
There's no real point in moving it now...but I think the original poster now knows this may not be what this group generally looks for in a post, and that's a good enough response I'd think.

No offense Soulf2! We are always glad to have people bring us news.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service