The Argument from Reason
This is William Lane Craig’s opening speech to his 1996 debate with Doug Jesseph:
Friedrich Nietzsche, the great atheist of the last century who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life. I think that Friedrich Nietzsche was right. But we’ve got to be very careful here. The question here is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? I am not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God? I certainly think that we can. Rather the question is: If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?
Jesus Myth: Self-Refuted
Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.
When one becomes experienced with debating atheists on online forums, one quickly begins to observe a recurring theme… many atheists seem to confuse two concepts: 1) a rationally constructed, fact-based argument, on one hand, and 2) forceful assertions laced with strident rhetoric and a priori (before the fact) assumptions, on the other hand.
This is especially noteworthy when you consider that atheists usually present themselves as rigidly rationalist. But, if a person truly held their atheist views for exclusively rational reasons, that person would simply state those rational reasons in a gracious and calm manner. The spewing forth of angry rhetoric is highly suggestive of emotionally charged ideology underlying that rhetoric, not bare rationality.
But not really… :)
People may refuse to see the truth of our arguments, but they cannot evade the evidence of a holy life.