Debate on the foundation of human rights

 

Link- https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Live-in-Canada.-Andy-Bannister-Justin-Trottier-debate-the-foundation-of-human-rights

Description-

Justin hosts a public dialogue between Christian Andy Bannister and atheist humanist Justin Trottier, live on stage at the Apologetics Canada conference in Abbotsford, British Columbia.

In front of an audience of 1,400 they debate whether Christianity or naturalism provides a better foundation for the concept of universal human rights, followed by questions from the floor.

Link- https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Can-atheists-believe-in-human-rights-Peter-Tatchell-vs-Andy-Bannister

Description-

Andy Bannister of Solas CPC will be speaking at Unbelievable? The Conference 2017 and is behind a number of short films critiquing atheism.

He debates the subject of one of the films called “What are human rights based on?” with atheist and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

Advertisements

Dialogue between ex-Christian who converted to humanism and Christian

 

Website- https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Bart-Campolo-Sean-McDowell-Why-Bart-lost-his-faith-why-Sean-kept-his

MP3- http://s50.podbean.com/pb/40243c769c0dacdbc83f5eb87a34c15c/5adf3c6d/data1/fs72/1391480/uploads/unbelievable_07_April_bart_campolo_and_sean_mcdowell_full_show.mp3?pbss=81f28c0d-2952-b90c-d17e-7592578860f3

Description-

Saturday 7th April 2018 – 02:30 pm

Bart Campolo is the son of high-profile Christian speaker, author and sociologist Tony Campolo. Bart became a Christian in his teens and went on to run an inner city Christian youth ministry. However Bart recently announced that he had lost his faith altogether and become a Humanist chaplain.

Justin interviews Bart alongside Sean McDowell. Sean also has a well-known father in ministry – Josh McDowell. But when Sean experienced his own crisis of faith he found the rational basis he needed to support his faith. Justin chats to Bart about the reasons for his deconversion as spelled out in a recent documentary ‘Leaving My Father’s Faith’, and Sean responds to Bart’s newly adopted Humanist perspective.

Point, counter-point in the gun debate

  • point- what does it hurt someone who does not own an AR-15 if we ban others from purchasing them?
  • counter-point- it requires a stretch to say that, “since I am not participating in a particular constitutional right, then I can remove that right from others. Apply this logic to other rights and you see the problem.”
  • point- what does it hurt anyone to remove or ban AR-15s?
  • counter-point- this should not be the question. The question is, how can we stop public mass shootings from happening in schools? this prompts the next question, how would removing this gun from law-abiding, well adjusted, responsible citizens impact the amount of public mass shootings in schools? There are multiple ways to answer this question. Banning the sale or manufacturing of a particular rifle would likely make many feel better but would not stop public mass shootings.
  • Point- gun owners or gun rights supporters shouldn’t be concerned about a ban on AR-15s, there are plenty of other guns to protect their families with.
  • counter-point- this is exactly a good reason to be concerned. If the gun rights proponent is arguing that the AR-15 or any “assault rifle” has the capacity to inflict massive destruction and death and therefore should be banned, then the logic also applies to hand-guns. Hand guns are responsible for the VAST VAST majority of gun violence and murder in the U.S. and around the world. Handguns can also inflict massive damage very quickly as well. Just a couple examples: Fort Hood 2009- 13 dead many more injured, Virginia Tech 2007- 33 dead many more injured, Charleston Church 2015- 9 dead. All committed with hand guns.
    • Would gun control advocates promise that this is their last type of gun they try to ban if gun rights advocates agree to make the compromise and give up their rights? Probably not is my guess.

Any law should not be a band-aid but should really attempt to see what actually happened that day and stop it from occurring again. There is common ground and compromise that can be made. Armed security or teachers, metal detectors, automatic lock-down door systems similar to hospitals, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, better enforcement of current laws, consequences for mistakes by the FBI, better mental health policy, etc… are all areas that contribute to this conversation and all should be on the table. All are effected and all of us suffer when the innocent die.