Atheist Justin Scheiber on Bible Translation

After highlighting a difference between the way the NRSV, ESV, NASB, KJB, and WEB translate a particular text of Scripture versus the way the NIV, NLT, and God’s Word “translate” it (This is according to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, but note that the second list of versions provided are not all translations. Some are paraphrases, and it can make a difference to this particular objection, but for the sake of brevity I will move on.) Justin Scheiber of Reasonable Doubts writes:



I should perhaps presume that the ‘real’ Christians have their ducks all in a row – that

Read more

The Argument from Atheistic Activism: “The Achilles’ Heel of Internet Atheism?” Revisited

Introduction

In a recent post here – https://choosinghats.org/2012/02/the-achilles-heel-of-internet-atheism – I made the following observation:

It takes somebody really, really … special … to spend hours upon hours blogging, podcasting, and commenting about an imaginary concept of deity with no more intellectual credibility than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. And yet there are people who do exactly that day after day! Think of all those grown men sitting at their computers wasting their time lashing out at people for believing in God when they could be partying it up before the worms eat them.

Are we really supposed to

Read more

Praxis Presup: Episode 20

Chris makes some initial comments on the second podcast in the series on presuppositional apologetics at Reasonable Doubts.

Read more

Reasonable Doubts About Devastating Arguments

http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2012/02/22/episode-98-presuppositional-apologetics-part-2/#comment-7065

Jeremy says:

February 23, 2012 at 2:14 am

There are plenty of arguments our listeners mentioned that we didn’t get to in this episode. Some that are just as devastating as the ones we did provide. Which bible are we presupposing the truth of? What about other valid TAG arguments that arrive at different conclusions? How can all other possible sources for logic be eliminated? So many problems with presuppositionalism, so little time. But we will be addressing more of these critiques and talking about our atheistic foundations in a near-future episode. At the moment we are switching gears

Read more

Reasonable Doubts About Non-Christian Excuses

The most recent podcasts, and hence comments, at Reasonable Doubts are focused upon presuppositional apologetics. The gentlemen at the aforementioned site are apparently impressed by the comment of one Andrew EC:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2012/02/09/episode-97-presuppositional-apologetics-part-1/#comment-7000

  • Andrew EC says:

February 17, 2012 at 6:09 pm

It seems to me that the fundamental weaknesses of the presuppositionalist position are as follows:

1. There’s no analysis as to what it means to give “an account” of something. Philosophically, something only counts as an explanation if it is what Kant would call an analytic statement; that is, a proposition whose conclusion is not contained within its predicate.

Read more

Justin Taylor’s Post On “What Unbelieving Pagans Know about God and Why They Are Responsible for It”

Justin Taylor over at The Gospel Coalition has a great little introductory post on Romans 1. Justin covers some of the basics of the basis for the responsibility of unbelief and the universal knowledge of God. It is important, as our contributor Razorskiss pointed out on Justin’s blog, to understand that this is speaking of God and not that all men just have some sort of notion of a generic god. It is also important to notice the consequences of the rejection of God. Check out the post here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/02/15/what-unbelieving-pagans-know-about-god-and-why-they-are-responsible-for-it   HT: McFormtist

Also check out Razorskiss’s article “EXPOSITION OF ROMANS …

Read more

Some Thoughts About the Impossibility of the Contrary

Introduction

The “Transcendental Argument for God” (TAG) is typically understood as resting upon the “Impossibility of the Contrary.” We may be in a better position apologetically if we think about the Impossibility of the Contrary (IoC) in terms of three aspects of the IoC. These three aspects of the IoC are definition, dogma, and demonstration.

Definition

What is the IoC?

“Impossibility” refers to the impossibility of predication upon the presuppositions of some position. We might also take the impossibility in view to refer to the impossibility of the truth of some position, the impossibility of the rationality

Read more

Reasonable Doubts About Overload Objections

http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2012/02/09/episode-97-presuppositional-apologetics-part-1

Keith says:

February 10, 2012 at 4:15 pm

Great podcast, guys.

One possible approach to presuppositionalism is to make your own, conflicting presupposition using your own invented God.

Imagine how taken aback a presuppositionalist would be in a debate if you said the following:

“I have a confession to make: I am not an atheist. I believe in the god Drusba*. And he inspired me to write down his only gospel. This gospel says that everyone knows deep down inside who Drusba is, and that no understanding of the world is possible without him. Drusba is the giver of

Read more