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 the...

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...

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: