Year: 2011
-
Sye TenBruggencate and Eric Hovind on "Fundamentally Flawed"
I am about to go cycle and I will be listening to this:
http://www.fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2011-09-30_episode_13.mp3
Enjoy, and thanks Sye!…
-
Fundamentalist Atheism and the Refusal to Answer Simple Questions
The following exchange is from a public atheist group on Facebook. Toward the end of the exchange I imply that I am an atheist; I have been told on numerous occasions that as a Christian I am an atheist because there are all sorts of gods I do not believe in, hence my wording.
Chris Bolt: Hi Suzane,
I am not completely sure how I was able to see this conversation, and I certainly do not have the time to join in and continue a discussion, but I did notice upon skimming the thread that you continue to make a …
-
"The Chris Bolt Comedy Hour"
Paul Baird had the idea of turning my recent interactions with fundamentalist atheists into the Chris Bolt Comedy Hour. I do not know how much I will get in royalties, but given the popularity of movies like Napoleon Dynamite even a small percentage will do.
Paul introduces the first act, featuring a fundamentalist atheist who repeatedly insists, “I know nothing.” (Audience laughter.) He claims that he does not know whether or not a book by Darwin exists, and admits that he does not even know whether or not I exist, but wants to talk to me about the book …
-
Paul Baird, Crackers in the Pantry, and Scientism
Now, what I would like to read from Chris is a line of argument where he can PROVE (and by prove I mean to a scientific standard, including the method of falsifiability) that a person has had revelation that could only have originated from the Christian god. If he can do that under lab conditions, then I’ll become a Christian.
– Paul Baird (http://patientandpersistent.blogspot.com/2011/10/once-more-unto-breach.html)
…How should the difference of opinion between the theist and the atheist be rationally resolved? What Dr. Stein has written indicates that he, like many atheists, has not reflected adequately on this question. He
-
The Unfortunate Case of the Missing Argument
I’m not going to link all of Paul’s posts in this – they’ve been linked ad nauseum from here, already. His blog is Patient and Persistent – I trust our readers are more than capable of finding these comments of his 🙂
There are times when I’m engaged in an exchange with someone and I’m not sure if I’ve understood them correctly. That’s how I felt reading Chris Bolt’s stuff. It turns out that I did understand him correctly.
Note: Paul does not here explain 1) What he understood correctly, or 2) How it is the case that he understood …
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (4)
Introduction
Fundamentalist atheist Paul Baird asked me to rebut the following proposition PR:
PR – “I have had a revelation from a non-Christian supernatural transcendental entity that I use to ground my worldview.”
First, Paul is merely claiming that PR provides “grounding and certainty.” But how does it do that? Paul refuses to tell us, and so PR fails to constitute any sort of counter to presuppositional apologetics. It is a mere assertion.
Second, argument APR refutes PR as follows:
If atheism is true, then PR is false.
Atheism is true.
Therefore, PR is false.
The argument form is …
-
The "Humble Suggestion" of Ben Wallis
…Ben Wallis said…
Paul,
If I may make a humble suggestion…
I know how tempting it can be to respond to Chris’s nonsense, but at some point I think you just have to let him have the last word and trust that your readers are intelligent enough to see through to the ridiculousness of it all. I don’t see what point there is in further communicating with him. He’s obviously not interested in having an intellectually fruitful discussion, practically by his own admission. He doesn’t believe one is possible, because he thinks that you’re a bumbling fool. (Don’t feel
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (3)
You will need to review the posts below in order to follow this post:
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/another-round-with-paul-baird-stating-and-defending-the-requested-rebuttal/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/another-round-with-paul-baird-stating-and-defending-the-requested-rebuttal-2/Paul Baird writes, “I read Chris Bolt’s blog pieces again and I just want to address a few issues.”
Notice that Paul has changed his story from when he was claiming that “there’s nothing new to be said.” This comes as no surprise. Paul frequently makes statements that he goes back on only days later. For example, while he states that “there’s nothing new to be said” as quoted above he then goes on to write an entire new post in response to …
-
In Antithesis, Vol 1, No. 1 is now here!
Included in this issue:
An Introduction, by Chris Bolt
The Doctrine of God in Reformed Apologetics, by Joshua Whipps
Problems with Classic Proofs for the Existence of God, by Chris Bolt
Autonomy is Hard Work: Human Autonomy as a Rejection of Christian Theism, by Ben Woodring
Exposition of Romans 1:16-2:16 – The Knowledge of God, by Joshua WhippsWe hope you enjoy reading it, and are both exhorted and encouraged thereby.
(A big thanks to Brian Knapp for his yeoman’s work in getting this issue out for you all!)…
-
Excellent article from Trueman on Nicene Trinitarianism