1. Does Peter Atkins have any response besides knee-jerk acerbic repudiation of anything and everything Jonathan McLatchie says no matter how reasonable and evidence-based it is? Atkins is impervious to reason, but pervious to scorn and derision which ooze from him like vinegar oozes from a bottle. Atkins comes across like a bitter old man.
2. Jonathan is great at synthesizing various lines of argument from various thinkers in order to readily deploy them against Atkins (e.g. the McGrews, William Lane Craig such as Craig's response to Atkins on "negative" and "positive" energy, the ID guys). Not to mention Jonathan is a very well-rounded apologist, conversant with biblical, historical, scientific, and philosophical arguments and evidences. Not to mention his knowledge of Islam. I think Jonathan won hands-down.
3. That said, I'd disagree with Jonathan at around 19:30 regarding the Bible having "errors that are good faith errors, errors that are the product of good faith mistakes, lapse in memory or something like that". I'll leave this aside though because it'd be too much to get into.
4. I assume Atkins was joking about keeping Alzheimer's disease at bay. In any case, it's not as if Atkins is in fact sharpening his mind since this would presume (among other things) attempting to understand the other side's arguments and offer intelligent counterarguments. Rather Atkins repeats the same tired arguments I've heard him make from decades-old debates. He doesn't seem to have learned anything new in his many debates with various Christians. He's the opposite of intellectually agile. Intellectually sluggish if not frozen.
1. Does Peter Atkins have any response besides knee-jerk acerbic repudiation of anything and everything Jonathan McLatchie says no matter how reasonable and evidence-based it is? Atkins is impervious to reason, but pervious to scorn and derision which ooze from him like vinegar oozes from a bottle. Atkins comes across like a bitter old man.
ReplyDelete2. Jonathan is great at synthesizing various lines of argument from various thinkers in order to readily deploy them against Atkins (e.g. the McGrews, William Lane Craig such as Craig's response to Atkins on "negative" and "positive" energy, the ID guys). Not to mention Jonathan is a very well-rounded apologist, conversant with biblical, historical, scientific, and philosophical arguments and evidences. Not to mention his knowledge of Islam. I think Jonathan won hands-down.
3. That said, I'd disagree with Jonathan at around 19:30 regarding the Bible having "errors that are good faith errors, errors that are the product of good faith mistakes, lapse in memory or something like that". I'll leave this aside though because it'd be too much to get into.
4. I assume Atkins was joking about keeping Alzheimer's disease at bay. In any case, it's not as if Atkins is in fact sharpening his mind since this would presume (among other things) attempting to understand the other side's arguments and offer intelligent counterarguments. Rather Atkins repeats the same tired arguments I've heard him make from decades-old debates. He doesn't seem to have learned anything new in his many debates with various Christians. He's the opposite of intellectually agile. Intellectually sluggish if not frozen.