This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Counter-apologetics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Counter-apologetics appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 October 2015, and was viewed approximately 5,925 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Matt Dillahunty is prominently featured in the article. He has no academic credentials so we have no idea about the depth of his knowledge. And he may be a full time software developer. In short, he could easily be an unknowledge hobbiest when it comes to being a counter-apologist.
So to make the article better, I think Dillahunty should ideally be replaced. But with whom is the question.
In 1990, the philospher Michael Martin said there was a general absence of an atheistic response to contemporary work in the philosophy of religion and he kiddingly indicated that it was his "cross to bear" to respond to theistic arguments (Open Questions: Diverse Thinkers Discuss God, Religion, and Faith by Luís F. Rodrigues, page 201). But even he had a 11th hour withdrawal with a debate with Greg Bahnsen and Bahnsen said it was because he trounced atheist Gordon Stein in a debate just before their debate. [1]
The atheist Luke Muehlhauser wrote about William Lane Craig: "As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with atheists. When debating him, atheists have consistently failed to put forward solid arguments, and consistently failed to point out the flaws in Craig’s arguments... This is especially embarrassing for atheists because Craig’s arguments and debates are easily available, and he uses the same arguments all the time. So it should be easy for atheists to prepare for a debate with Craig." [2]
It appears that the counter-apologetics bench doesn't have much depth and that they are not arguing from a position of strength.
We do need a mainstream news source.
Here is something that has potential:
On August 19, 2011, Fox News reported:
This source could help show that atheist/agnostic side of the aisle (which is the counter-apologetics side of the aisle) is not of the same calibre of Craig when it comes to debate. Knox490 ( talk) 21:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Counter-apologetics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Counter-apologetics appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 October 2015, and was viewed approximately 5,925 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Matt Dillahunty is prominently featured in the article. He has no academic credentials so we have no idea about the depth of his knowledge. And he may be a full time software developer. In short, he could easily be an unknowledge hobbiest when it comes to being a counter-apologist.
So to make the article better, I think Dillahunty should ideally be replaced. But with whom is the question.
In 1990, the philospher Michael Martin said there was a general absence of an atheistic response to contemporary work in the philosophy of religion and he kiddingly indicated that it was his "cross to bear" to respond to theistic arguments (Open Questions: Diverse Thinkers Discuss God, Religion, and Faith by Luís F. Rodrigues, page 201). But even he had a 11th hour withdrawal with a debate with Greg Bahnsen and Bahnsen said it was because he trounced atheist Gordon Stein in a debate just before their debate. [1]
The atheist Luke Muehlhauser wrote about William Lane Craig: "As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with atheists. When debating him, atheists have consistently failed to put forward solid arguments, and consistently failed to point out the flaws in Craig’s arguments... This is especially embarrassing for atheists because Craig’s arguments and debates are easily available, and he uses the same arguments all the time. So it should be easy for atheists to prepare for a debate with Craig." [2]
It appears that the counter-apologetics bench doesn't have much depth and that they are not arguing from a position of strength.
We do need a mainstream news source.
Here is something that has potential:
On August 19, 2011, Fox News reported:
This source could help show that atheist/agnostic side of the aisle (which is the counter-apologetics side of the aisle) is not of the same calibre of Craig when it comes to debate. Knox490 ( talk) 21:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)