One of the difficult things about arguing against a presuppositionalist is that the use of the presuppositional method necessitates an emphasis upon discerning contradictions within a worldview even when those contradictions are implied by a manner of speaking utilized by an individual. Two immediately apparent dangers associated with such an approach are that of finding contradictions where none exist and that of revealing one’s inconsistencies through the habit of speech. The latter may be spoken of in a positive sense and an example given in the case of a naturalist ascribing intentionality to nature. Heightened sensitivity to such error stems directly from presuppositionalism and makes the apologetic endeavor that much easier with respect to more obvious inconsistencies.
Witness Christopher Hitchens making remarks about Christian teachings such as the Ten Commandments being, among other things, unnecessary for innate moral understanding while simultaneously asserting that religion poisons everything. Presuppositionalist Douglas Wilson answers Hitchens in Collision by drawing attention to how the moral principles Hitchens adheres to must not have been poisoned by religion given all that Hitchens has said.