apologist watch

Another Failed Defense of “The Inevitable Consequences of an Atheist Worldview”

Steve Hays has commented on my previous post, “Fact Checking the Inevitable Consequences of an Atheist Worldview.” That post was a detailed summary and refutation of eight specific claims. Hays does not interact with any of the specific claims. Rather, he makes general points about my post as a whole. Here is Hays: Over at Another Failed Defense of “The Inevitable Consequences of an Atheist Worldview”

Fact-Checking “The Inevitable Consequences of an Atheist Worldview”

Earlier this year, J. Warner Wallace reposted on his blog something written by an anonymous writer which describes “the inevitable consequence of an atheist worldview.” Wallace gives the writer the nickname “John.” I want to comment on “John’s” comments as well as Wallace’s commentary. Before I address “John’s” remarks, I first need to point out a fundamental Fact-Checking “The Inevitable Consequences of an Atheist Worldview”

Pot, Meet Kettle

This is from Steve Hays on the Triablogue blog.  He writes: In my experience, internet atheists typically act like lawyers. Lawyers only argue their side of the case. And they use whatever argument is convenient. … It’s funny how utterly hidebound and anti-intellectual they are. That’s why they regard it as treasonous when a real Pot, Meet Kettle

Can Atheism Support Ethical Absolutes? A Reply to Roger Olson

Roger Olson, a fellow Patheos blogger who can be found in the Evangelical channel on Patheos, has recently written a post entitled, “Can Atheism Support Ethical Absolutes? Is Ethics without Absolutes Enough?” In that post, he appeals to what has been called “Karamazov’s Thesis,” which is the claim (attributed to Dostoyevsky), that “If God does not exist, Can Atheism Support Ethical Absolutes? A Reply to Roger Olson

Stupid Apologetics Tricks

Here are some stupid apologetics tricks I’ve come across lately in things I’ve been reading. Feel free to add your own in the combox. If I like it enough, I may just add yours to the list! Stupid Apologetics Trick #1: (1) Really crappy debaters used stupid arguments and objections against H. (2) Therefore, H Stupid Apologetics Tricks