Tag: bad arguments
-
Is Paul Baird Ashamed of Atheism?
“Every system of philosophy must tell us whether it thinks true knowledge to be possible. Or if a system of philosophy thinks it impossible for man to have a true knowledge of the whole of reality or even of a part of reality, it must give good reasons for thinking so. From these considerations, it follows that if we develop our reasons for believing that a true knowledge of God and, therefore, also of the world, is possible because actually given in Christ, we have in fact given what goes in philosophy under the name of epistemology. It will then …
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (6)
History
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/an-argument-for-paul-baird/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/helping-paul-baird-recognize-an-argument/
Introduction
…Paul Baird said…
You have to remember that this didn’t used to be a hypothetical for me. I was a card carrying North European Solitary Pagan at one time, and there was some revelatory basis to my worldview so I’m not playing some devils advocate game with CBC here.
That said, the purpose of using the Pagan worldview is that, arguably, and leaving aside characters like Aleister Crowley, it is an indigenous faith of these islands, alongside Druidism and many others. That is to say it predates Christianity and shares none
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (5)
History
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/an-argument-for-paul-baird/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/helping-paul-baird-recognize-an-argument/
Paul’s Problems
The conclusion to my previous post in this series was that Paul offers no new objection to my pointing out that he provides no support for PR, no new objection to APR, no objection to my answer concerning alleged competing transcendentals, and no acceptance or rejection of my debate proposal.
Paul’s Response
In his latest comments Paul references the Choosing Hats Twitter account and a number of posts pertaining to FSC’s (Fristianity Style Counters). Neither of these has anything to do with the line of argumentation I have followed …
-
"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 …
-
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 …
-
Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal (2)
See Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal and Paul’s exceedingly weak reply.
Apparently Paul Baird did not like my post which recounted Paul’s decision to leave the blogosphere (we see how long that lasted) and tries to cast it in the same light as his fundamentalist atheist rhetoric (“banter”) when in actuality that post was addressing Paul Jenkins’ insubstantial rhetoric about my podcasts. Paul boasts that he is going to print out our exchange and show it to his pagan friends. He predicts that they will agree with him about it. Pagans agreeing with …
-
A Feminist examines Presup
The post I’m about to respond to came in on my google alerts today. It was so packed with common objections and misconceptions that I decided to answer.
Evidentialism v. Presuppositionalism
I have noticed a worrying trend among some Christians. It is the turn away from evidentialist apologetics toward presuppositionalist apologetics.Let’s start our presuppositional examination right here. From the get-go, presup is a “worrying” trend. Second, the author is apparently unaware of the link between Sola Scriptura and Covenantal apologetics. As I have said quite often on this blog, and in our chat channel, Covenantal apologetics is Sola Scriptura …