tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post4239206625664266876..comments2024-02-11T06:57:23.174-05:00Comments on SchansBlog: my bro blows up Dawkins and HitchensEric Schansberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16147388189415035752noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-22658540083670558572009-06-23T10:23:23.796-04:002009-06-23T10:23:23.796-04:00I thought your brother had very interesting points...I thought your brother had very interesting points related to this debate - in particular, this: <br /> <br /> [Until they learn to admit the difficulties inherent to their own atheistic perspective they will simply not be able to present a coherent (or interesting) review of their own case for atheism. One of the most powerful tools in any apologist's arsenal is the phrase "I don't know..." - because it is precisely at this point that your audience is looking for what you will do next.]<br /><br />Christians and atheists could learn something here. The FACT is that no one - neither Atheist nor Christian - can prove their case definitively. You look at the totality of the evidence and come up with the most logical conclusion. <br /><br />I have not read these books, but if in fact these authors are relying mainly on "rhetorical intimidation" to make their case, they lose the intellectual audience along the way and end up making their conclusions seem even less probable.Janet Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254155762393532108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-34186232015032681392009-06-23T09:15:43.082-04:002009-06-23T09:15:43.082-04:00Would that be called "proof by age"? Wha...Would that be called "proof by age"? What do you have against old arguments? ;-)<br /><br />There are two good rejoinders here: <br /><br />1.) To the extent that D&H make arguments, there's are quite old as well. <br /><br />2.) One of the primary points of his post was that Dawkins and Hitchens don't make a substantive argument. (This was disappointing to him and is certainly ironic given their reputations. Hitchens is quite impressive in other arenas.) I'd rather make a strong 2000-year old argument than a more modern but lame argument. <br /><br />Finally, the atheist must rely on Evolution to "explain" the development of life. Nice narrative, but little explanation is there. It's odd to see atheists so avidly embrace faith over such things.Eric Schansberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16147388189415035752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-70042333370000320812009-06-23T07:17:13.900-04:002009-06-23T07:17:13.900-04:00Oh, of course your brother "blows up" Da...Oh, of course your brother "blows up" Dawkins and Hitchens while sitting on his corner of the Internet yapping up their respective trees just like many pastors have done before him.<br /><br />Your brother wouldn't last a minute in an actual debate with either of these authors that are actually known for contributing something to the debate, unlike your brother who only seems to regurgitate 2000 year old arguments.Korinthianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10876658079597853473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-23799125783056502342009-06-23T07:16:06.845-04:002009-06-23T07:16:06.845-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Korinthianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10876658079597853473noreply@blogger.com