links

LINK: The Jones-Parsons-Martin Exchange (1991)

Douglas Jones opens the interchange by sketching the argument for the Christian critique of non-Christian thought. Douglas Jones, an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, is the editor of Antithesis and a Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Idaho and Lewis-Clark State College. Keith Parsons offers the first of two atheistic responses to Jones’s essay. Keith LINK: The Jones-Parsons-Martin Exchange (1991)

Luke Muelhauser: The Courtier’s Reply, the Not My Theology Reply, and Straw Men

The Courtier’s Reply is useless. It ignores the real target of an argument. The Not My Theology Reply is legitimate, though it may be beyond the scope of the present discussion. If someone’s argument does not apply to your philosophy but it does apply to the philosophy of others, then that argument probably wasn’t intended for you. Luke Muelhauser: The Courtier’s Reply, the Not My Theology Reply, and Straw Men

Link: “The End of the Teapot Argument for Atheism (and All Its Tawdry Imitators)” by Mark F. Sharlow

Abstract: Atheists sometimes use Bertrand Russell’s teapot argument, and its variants with other objects in place of the teapot, to argue for the rationality of atheism. In this paper I show that this use of the teapot argument and its variants is unacceptably circular. The circularity arises because there is indirect evidence against the objects invoked Link: “The End of the Teapot Argument for Atheism (and All Its Tawdry Imitators)” by Mark F. Sharlow

Praise from Matthew Wade Ferguson

My co-author Matthew Wade Ferguson just wrote an unexpected, very much appreciated, and very complimentary blog post about my work. LINK He also had some comments about many Christian apologists, including Norman Geisler, Frank Turek, William Lane Craig, and C.S. Lewis. Check it out! Also, if you’re not a regular reader of his blog, you Praise from Matthew Wade Ferguson