Showing posts with label James White. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James White. Show all posts

September 10, 2019

Atheists and Misrepresentation

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.


Atheists and evolutionists frequently misrepresent Christians and creationists. Dr. James R. White points out some of these things. Christians need to be on guard against both receiving and giving them.
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 are usually in footnotes of Bibles (such as, "...older manuscripts omit..." or similar). Claiming sneakiness from ancient Christians without evidence is not only illogical, it also makes him the liar. (I know of tinhorns who do the same thing: assert that someone is deceptive without offering evidence, then claiming that they "proved" someone is lying by irrationally invoking the fallacy of repeated assertion.) The atheist that White is discussing would do well to read "100 Alleged Bible Contradictions Answered" at the Domain for Truth.

Seeing this sort of thing helps Christians and especially creationists be on guard against harassment and misrepresentation by atheists and evolutionists. Also, we have to be mindful of our own approaches, avoiding "Gotcha!" tricks and so forth. We are not in this to glorify ourselves through our rhetorical skills, but to spread the truth and to glorify God.


The part I would like you to watch begins at the 25 minutes 49 seconds mark. I'm only asking a few minutes from you, from the Mohammedan and into the discussion about the atheist. You may want to watch Dr. White address each of the fifteen items, but I am not asking for that much.

ADDENDUM: Sometimes atheists pretend to be Christians, but you can tell from their misuse of the Bible and their attitudes that they are unbelievers in sheep's clothing. Ladies and gentlemen, for your edification and amusement, let me present Haywire the Criminal Cyberstalker (the crowd goes wild). Hailing from London in the UK, he stalks and harasses people, especially intelligent people, who do not agree with his narrow, convoluted, bigoted views. Although he hates the God of the Bible and rejects the authority of Scripture, and he does not understand either, he uses them in his idolatrous pursuit of internet validity. He also has a habit of proving his critics right. Let's have a big round of applause for Haywire the Criminal Cyberstalker:



July 9, 2017

Incoherent "Reasoning" from Silverman in Debate

James White shows that atheist David Silverman is incoherent

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 on subjective, personal preference as a basis for morality.

Some of the debate involved matters of theology. I do not get into deeper theological matters with misotheists, as they are not only opposed to such things, but cannot understand them (1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Matt. 12:30). Dr. White discussed some theology from his Reformed perspective. Agree or disagree, Silverman was still unable to refute anything or support his own claims. However, White also managed to make the gospel message clear. Some of his detractors have said he does not do this, especially with Mohammedans, but that is easily debunked when honestly considering the source material. Here is one example (try to ignore the excessive piano music).

As I understand it, closing remarks are not the place to introduce new claims in a formal debate. David Silverman did not quite follow the debate rules in his opening statements and in several places in the course of the event. He made some interesting and unsustainable assertions about Neanderthals and the origin of religion in his conclusion. Being an atheist, he used the naturalistic evolutionary scientific principle of Making Things Up™. That fits, because his naturalistic subjective morality is inconsistent and unlivable. Perhaps that would explain the desperate-sounding "Oooooh! Aaaaah!" sounds while Dr. White was talking, as if those were "Gotcha!" moments. Silverman didn't get a gotcha, except those he inflicted on himself.

I recommend that Christians watch this video. There are two specific things I'd like you to notice. First, theology is vitally important when having a debate or a protracted discussion with an unbeliever. Many Christians try to refute evolution and atheism by posting a captioned picture. (We share many of those at The Question Evolution Project, but the posts contain links and other text because we're hoping to edify and equip Christians.) You do not have to be an expert in every aspect of theology, else there would be almost nobody talking about it. But you do need to have a good working knowledge of Christian essentials, whether debating or not.

The second thing I'd like you to notice is the importance of presuppositional apologetics. Those of us who use it are infuriating to atheists and evolutionists, since we not only believe the Bible, but we show how their worldviews do not work. The biblical worldview, beginning in Genesis, is the only one that can consistently answer the basic questions of human experience. White made it clear that Silverman's worldview is based on his biases and preferences, not on reason or reality. I frustrate Calvinists because I refuse to identify as Calvinist or Arminian, but strongly affirm presupposition apologetics in many of my writings.

I need to add that what is seen is typical among atheists. I've heard Silverman before, and much of this was very similar to other debates. Other atheist debaters (whether anonymous keyboard warriors or others) are very much like what you will hear in this debate. They equivocate on definitions, change the subject, attack the person, misrepresent people and positions, and more. Then they consider people like Silverman to be brilliant. Not hardly! Illogical thinkers applaud each other for affirming their preconceptions.

Here's the hard part: the video is intimidating at first because it is three hours long all told. However, there are some links in the video itself where you can skip the introductory remarks, skip the debate rules, and so on. David Silverman begins, and his opening remarks start at the 13 mini. 50 sec. mark. Also, the audience questions begin at 2 hrs. 34 min. 39 sec., so the debate itself is just over two hours. So, get your chips and soda, get comfortable, and here is the video when you're ready.

November 15, 2015

Atheists Display Galactic-Sized Ignorance in Debate

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 tinhorns deny that there is anything wrong with their Mighty Atheist Intellects™ by denying having made the fallacies, or even trying to cover up by committing 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, people who claim both agnosticism and atheism in the same comment, and others detest presuppositional apologetics is that we show how their epistemologies are fundamentally flawed. Those worldviews are incoherent and self-refuting, lacking the necessary conditions of human experience that are found in the Bible. Advocates of atheism and such hate us for showing their flaws, and also for our uncompromising stance on the Bible. Yes, we do believe in using evidence, but in a presuppositional framework and not accepting the lie of "neutral ground". Unbelievers get a mite riled when we point out that they are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves!


Professing atheists often claim to have superior reasoning skills. In a recent debate, their arguments shattered before their eyes.
Thanks to Why?Outreach for the background image of shattered atheism.

At the 2015 Bahnsen Conference, atheists Andrew Breeding, Sean Taylor, and Bruce Gleason debated Christians Paul Viggiano, Sye Ten Bruggencate, and Jeff Durbin. It was an interesting format, with both sides giving presentations, rebuttals, cross-examinations, and so on. Then there were audience questions.

I almost had a case of Cranial-Keyboard Embedment Syndrome early in Bruce Gleason's presentation at the beginning of the debate. He said to watch for logical fallacies, and that the Christians would be making many of them — then he commenced to committing a passel of them himself, including poisoning the well! (One reason I'm mighty skeptical of doing debates is that I call people out on their fallacies, and don't like to let someone build an argument that is faulty from the get-go.) Although the Christians were presumably knowledgeable in spotting fallacies, there was not a great deal of pointing them out.

Also, some of the professed atheists were condescending toward the Christians, and I consider that an attempt at emotional manipulation. It also has elements of poisoning the well, also. 

Let's ride way down the trail to the question and answer session at the end. One of the questions involved evolution, which is a cornerstone for the religion of atheism. The atheist argued from his presuppositions, and also showed that not only does he lack understanding of natural selection, he was using a fallacious comparison. Dr. James White had some very interesting comments on this. 

Know how you go to some sites and they have so many videos embedded, the whole shootin' match slows way down? I reckon that would happen here if I embedded the two videos that are needed, so I'll link to them instead.

To see the video of Dr. White's analysis of the evolution question, click here and go to the 35 minute 20 second mark (the link is supposed to go there anyway, but I wanted to make certain that you knew). After that, he has some analysis of apostate Bart Ehrman's erroneous debate remarks. Also, you can see the video or download the audio on Dr. White's site at this link

As for the debate itself, it runs three hours all told. To watch the video, click here. For audio (embedded or for the download link), you can get that from Apologia Radio's site.

Despite all the proud strutting, assertions, bad logic, and so forth, there is still time for those professing atheists to humble themselves, repent, and seek forgiveness from Jesus Christ. He is the Creator and Redeemer they deny.

June 2, 2012

Richard Dawkins Shows His Massive Intellect


Buon giorno. I am really at a loss as to why people consider Richard "Daffy" Dawkins a great thinker. In another post, I gave evidence that he is either uninformed (unlikely) or dishonest (likely) about the idea that atheists wouldn't destroy religious buildings [1]. People copy and paste quotes from Dawkins and the other so-called "New Atheists" (much easier than using brain cells) as if they were brilliant bits of philosophy. No, they are simply insulting diatribes, feeding on the existing biases of misotheistic sheep. They hear some insult, say, "Yeah! Yeah!", then repeat such nonsense.

Here is Daffy being dodging an honest question and being rude to the questioner. Then, his response is discussed by someone who can actually think:

Subscribe in a reader