That said, I do, however, desire to make some response, because the topic (like anything having to do with the Bible) is interesting, and because I think it is an opportunity to illustrate the (inevitable) severe flaws and fallacies of “atheist exegesis.” So I thought I could deal with a few selected arguments on this overall topic, and demonstrate how erroneous and wrongheaded they are. In such a circumstance, the last thing one wants to do is undertake a massive research project, requiring hours of excruciating “hard research”. Added to those dynamics are my present life situation, in which I feel a bit overwhelmed, with too many things going on, and an excessive amount of stress. Then, of course, if a Christian recognizes this and doesn’t feel like replying to the mountain of alleged “counter-evidence” at any given time, he is accused of cowardice or inability to refute it, or both. To refute such massively polemical endeavors (even if answers are easily obtainable) is always a hugely tedious affair, requiring starting from ground zero. Now, as usual with these sorts of generally “scattershot” treatments by atheists and agnostics, an effort is made to hit the Christian with dozens or even hundreds of separate “evidences,” the desired cumulative effect of which is supposed to be tremendously debilitating and demoralizing to the Christian. Price (one that, indeed, was important to him in his “deconversion” from Christianity). Matthew then referred to yet another paper by Robert M. In the discussion thread for that post, Matthew’s friend John Loftus suggested his own paper on the topic, and two by Ed Babinski, an agnostic who is particularly interested in Bible-and-science discussions. This is a continuation of a preliminary reply to atheist Matthew Green.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |