Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: bad arguments

  • Another Round With Paul Baird: Stating and Defending the Requested Rebuttal

    Introduction

    Recently on the Praxis Presup podcast I have been reviewing an exchange that took place between the three Pauls of the Skepticule podcast and Sye TenBruggencate with Eric Hovind.

    Paul Jenkins mentioned the review on his blog, and I responded:

    https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/fundamentalist-atheism-why-bother/

    https://choosinghats.org/2011/09/paul-jenkins-and-damage-control/

    By this point Paul Baird had already written on his blog that he was leaving until the New Year.

    I’m also going back to doing what the vast majority of people do with regards to the Christian faith – get on with my life as though it isn’t there and doesn’t matter.

    It reminds me of

    …

  • Helping Paul Baird Recognize An Argument

    Paul Baird has taken a third break from his hiatus at his blog to respond to a post I wrote here.

    Recall that Paul proposed the following (PR):

    I have had a revelation from a non-Christian supernatural transcendental entity that I use to ground my worldview.

    He wanted me to, “Disprove that revelational epistemology, preferably in less than 1,000,000 words.” I offered the following argument:

    PR states: “I have had a revelation from a non-Christian supernatural transcendental entity that I use to ground my worldview.”

    If atheism is true, then PR is false.

    Atheism is true.

    Therefore, …

  • Paul Baird breaks his silence

    Paul Baird felt it necessary to break his posting hiatus with his post, “For Chris Bolt,” which is written in response to my latest post, “Paul Jenkins and Damage Control.” According to Paul, he is “annoyed” that he must do so, not even getting past his second word before using the typical fundamentalist atheist rhetoric. The rhetoric continues with Paul’s description of my post as “paranoid delusion.” Of course, Paul does not actually explain how I exhibit paranoia in the post, or how it is delusional, or whether or not his description even makes sense in …

  • Paul Jenkins and Damage Control

    Paul Jenkins mentions in a recent post that some of his “readers may have endured what has become known as The Fourth Debate, in which the three Pauls of the Skepticule Extra podcast were subjected to the presuppositional apologetic argument of Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate.” Note that Paul’s rhetoric begins when his post does with the use of “endured” as though there was something particularly unbearable about Eric and Sye’s performance in their discussion with the three Pauls when in fact the only thing that might be considered unbearable in that discussion was the ignorance, inconsistency, …

  • Fundamentalist atheism – why bother?

    Paul Jenkins has written a post here (you need to read this post to make sense of what follows) which, I take it, is supposed to be some sort of response to my “obsessive and tedious” commentary on one of his podcasts. Really it is an implied instruction to his fundamentalist atheist friends not to listen to the three Pauls failing miserably in their attempt to defend their foolish fundamentalist atheism. Paul’s post reminds me a bit of a cult leader’s plea to his followers not to listen to the satanic messages of the outside world. In any event Paul’s …

  • Assertions, Assertions, Assertions

    Recently I received an email that reminded me of how much time is wasted and discouragement brought about by fundamentalist preaching of unbelief. Apologetic encounters with the more evidently hostile tend to desensitize believers to that sort of behavior whereas those who may not have had as many exchanges of the aforementioned nature are often taken aback by the overwhelming number of assertions that can be set forth in such exchanges. But assertions are often merely that; assertions. And mere assertions are readily dismissible. They distract from the apologetic endeavor, often discourage the well-meaning believer, and should be pointed out. …

  • Ben Wallis Poisons the Well and Dodges the Issue…Again

    In my last post I directed readers to some comments that have been posted on Ben Wallis’ blog concerning Brian Knapp’s post on the Atheist’s Burden of Proof. As expected, Ben was not very happy with what I had to say in that post. All indications are that he has run out of pseudo-rational justifications for his hatred of God, and so has resorted to attacking my character. Ben writes the following in the comments of the aforementioned post on his blog:

    In his characteristic mocking style, Chris Bolt has published another strange post on his blog here, which

    …

  • Ben the Agnostic…uh…Atheist…uh…Whatever Means I Don't Have Anything to Prove!

    There is a somewhat humorous exchange between Ben and Paul here. I have posted it below. As you can see, Ben has resorted to just sticking his head in the sand with respect to the problem. Ben is aware of the difficulties with defending an atheist position and I think uncomfortable that his agnosticism is likewise untenable. Note again two of his statements from my debate with him and tell me if he has a clue what his position even is.

    “I’m an agnostic, in particular, of the negative atheist variety, by which I mean that I
    neither believe …

  • All Hail Cosmic Broccoli!

    Let’s talk about ignorance. The sort that makes you drop your jaw and stare. I really couldn’t care less about the opening line; it’s the things that he says are “not in the Bible” that are amazingly bad. If what he says weren’t reposted so often by atheists, it might even be hilarious; akin to Silverman’s infamous “Bear Theism” performance he gave during the closing statement of his debate with James White in August of last year.

    The next time believers tell you that ‘separation of church and state’ does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop

    …

  • Wallis Responds to Knapp's Atheist Burden of Proof

    Recall that Brian Knapp recently wrote a post here on the subjects of atheism and the burden of proof.

    Ben Wallis has responded here.

    While I only skimmed Ben’s post, it looks as though he offers the same (toasty) objections that were addressed here and especially here.

    If not, then at least the readers have some background for the discussion. Hopefully Brian will have the opportunity to add more.

     

     …