Talk:Counter-apologetics

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Atheism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Philosophy: Logic / Religion Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of religion

Religion

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Theology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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:

Did you know... that freethinkers answer Christian apologetics with counter-apologetics?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Counter-apologetics.

Wikipedia

Matt Dillahunty prominently featured?

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:

American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge.

This month president of the British Humanist Association, Polly Toynbee, pulled out of an agreed debate at London’s Westminster Central Hall in October, saying she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.”

Lane Craig, who is a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., and author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles, is no stranger to the art of debate and has taken on some of the great orators, such as famous atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.

Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: "These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there's no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the students in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies."[3]

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)[reply]

Matt Dillahunty's Iron Chariots counter-apologetics wiki has been offline for more than a year. https://atheism.wikia.org/wiki/Iron_Chariots Knox490 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]