Stormbringer's Thunder

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Some time ago, I wrote an article about the proper use of debates , which drew heavily on what I had learned from Dr. James R. White. At this writing, he has done 169 formal debates. One thing he emphasizes is that to do this, both sides have to know what the other represents so they can discuss things properly. Screenshot from The Dividing Line, September 3, 2019 (linked below) There is a section of The Dividing Line  that I would like you to see. Dr. White is telling how he represents the other side correctly (at the moment, he was talking to a Mohammedan). That is an excellent set-up for the next segment where he is (if I understood this correctly) going to debate an atheist. This atheist wrote a post where he makes fifteen assertions that parts of the Bible had material that were inserted deceptively. What he is doing (and what the Mohammedan was doing earlier) is focusing on textual variances. Christian scholars know about these things, and they ar

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This 2010 debate between atheist David Silverman and Christian Dr. James White illustrates how things that are considered logical from an atheistic perspective are, in reality, incoherent. Silverman used many fallacies: Argument from outrage (essentially, the New Testament is evil because he doesn't like what it says) Straw man arguments (when he was called on this, he promptly redefined the meaning of a straw man for his own convenience) Appeal to motive plus some ad hominem  remarks against Dr. White Equivocation For a debate on the New Testament, he went back to the Old Testament several times. Especially Genesis, which helps illustrate why biblical creationists affirm its truth Several others that I'll leave to the listener to observe James White clearly showed that David Silverman's arguments for the nature of good and evil are irrational, standing on the biblical worldview when he calls something evil, but Silverman also relies

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Professing atheists riding the owlhoot trail are frequently claiming to be purveyors of "science" and "reason", but often displaying an inability to understand either. People with even a rudimentary understanding of logic can see their posturing for what it is. ( Even after having their fallacies pointed out , some t inhorns deny that there is anything wrong with their Mighty Atheist Intellects™ by denying having made the fallacies, or even trying to cover up by commit ting more . Some of us don't cotton to wasting our time on them .) One of their many fallacies atheists use is over-generalization, such as saying that the recent ISIS terrorist attacks on Paris are a reason to outlaw all religion . Oh, please. There are Christians who get into battles of trying to out-evidence the other side, but those of us who use presuppositional apologetics take a different approach. One reason atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, Deists, peop

A bit of a play on words in the title. Justin Brierley's show "Unbelievable?" has people debating, whether it's atheists and Christians, liberal and conservative Christians, world religions and other things. I am not a huge fan of the show, but it does get my interest on occasion. This episode was interesting. The topic was whether or not Mohammed even existed, and if there is historical evidence to support the idea. Like other Mohammedan "scholars" in debates, Adnan Rashid showed hostility, ignorance, kept going off topic and exhibited dishonesty. Robert Spencer called him on it numerous times, eventually getting a bit perturbed himself. Heck, so would I. ( Dr. James White is acquainted with Rashid's nonsense. ) Rashid came out of the gate attacking the historicity of Jesus and attacking Spencer's character. You can listen to the debate at "Unbelievable?", here .

There were voices in the night  "Don't do it!" Voices out of sight "Don't do it!" — Chris DeBurgh, "Don't Pay the Ferryman" Buon giorno. I did some bad logic. Yes, I know it's astonishing. But your astonishment will evaporate when I tell you that it was on purpose. You see, when I did an article about appearing on an atheist "show" (podcast thing), I asked the viewing public if I should engage in this activity: The question itself is biased. Then, the first two answer choices contained loaded wording. The third selection was legitimate, and the last two were because I wanted to be funny (I was the only one to vote on "Sorry, what?"). If I worked for a pollster, I would have been sacked. In the article, I pointed out my dealings with some of those people in this "show" included manipulation, personal attacks, ridicule, profanity and fundamentally flawed logic. They must think

You’ll forgive me if I am a bit snarky, but I’m not going to pull any punches. You’ve been warned. (This is also going to be somewhat link-heavy; to really follow along you might have to follow me around the internet. I will also be wordy… pack a lunch.) I have two main points. First, atheism is a paper tiger. Second, the real threat to Christianity is not found outside the church, but from within. I suppose the first bleeds into the latter in a way, but they are somewhat separate points. Now by atheism I am referring, for the sake of this post, to popular atheism such as you’ll hear from the average person, advocated in comments on facebook, the same  kind that’s advocated by the popular atheist evangelists like Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and Dawkins. These guys are not sophisticated thinkers. They are not philosophers and they frankly, don’t even care enough to do any homework on what they speak on. The whole sorry bunch should have stuck to Dawkins’s wise decision to

Buona sera. This will be an odd lesson in personal productivity, I guarantee it. Yours truly took a while to "come down" after some "discussions" in a forum with some arrogant atheists. (It wasn't even a forum that is set up for religious debates; they kept interjecting their snide remarks in the other discussions.) Flames were shooting out of my eyes when I was done. Readers of this Weblog know that I have written up my problems with their "logic" and their antagonistic attitudes. You should also remember that I really do not care what someone believes as long as they do not attempt to destroy the faith of others. These people who try to destroy the faith of others are the same ones who cry, "Stop cramming your religion down my throat!" A Christian is offering their message of hope because they are motivated out of concern for where the other person is going to spend eternity. By the way, do you know what the atheist offers? To strip away