an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Bolt-on

Chris Bolt has deleted ALL his comments from this blog, but didn’t seemingly account on me still having them all in my email. So, for the sake of completion, here are the ones I could retrieve.

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Why I’ll Not Be Bothering With Bahnsen”:

The term “unregenerate” is a theological term that refers to those who have not been “born again.” It’s not a pejorative.

It is not, “just a mass of circular reasoning and appeals to authority” either, and merely asserting that does not make it so. As I pointed out in the post for you on my blog, you fail to distinguish between logical and epistemic circularity anyway, so your readers cannot trust you on this either. Indeed, this was the topic of Bahnsen’s doctoral dissertation at the University of Southern California. Are you trying to say that you know better than the non-Christian philosophy professors there who passed Bahnsen’s dissertation? Where did you get your PhD in philosophy?

Are all of the unbelieving philosophers who have written on self-deception also using, “that same old trick”? At least Bahnsen could say it upon the basis of an all-knowing God who would have such knowledge. Upon what basis does someone like atheist Sam Harris say it?

“[No] one believes that human beings are perfect engines of coherence. Our inevitable failures of rationality can take many forms, ranging from mere logical inconsistencies to radical discontinuities in subjectivity itself. Most of the literature on “self-deception,” for instance, suggests that a person can tacitly believe one proposition, while successfully convincing himself of its antithesis (e.g., my wife is having an affair; my wife is faithful)…” (Sam Harris, The End of Faith, 55; see about six references on 247)

I do wish, for your sake, you would calm down and read these things more thoughtfully. Christians are not the meanies and morons you make them out to be.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 4 November 2011 01:14

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Why I’ll Not Be Bothering With Bahnsen”:

Wait for it…

No, you’re deluded!

I win!

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 4 November 2011 01:25

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Why I’ll Not Be Bothering With Bahnsen”:

Of course my point was that you’re just name-calling. It’s what people do when they can’t think of a counter-argument.

They also make empty assertions that can just as easily be turned around on them. For example, Alex, you’re deluded, and I’m not, as I accept things as real based on actual evidence – you do not.

And let’s not talk about engaging in other things than reason. I asked you two simple questions that you refused to answer.

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Wow! Aren’t I the Lucky One?”:

Oh yeah that Chris Bolt guy, he’s a complete idiot. Only…he’s not.

1. Alex, do you or do you not understand the distinction drawn between belief in the existence of God and belief in God for salvation?

2. Do you or do you not understand that there is a difference between saying that “God does not exist” and saying that “there is no evidence for the existence of God”?

It’s not the No True Scotsman fallacy when you do not understand the definition of a term by the way, but nice try.

Thanks.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 4 November 2011 01:02

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Wow! Aren’t I the Lucky One?”:

“Chris, do you not understand that I’m not remotely interested in your rather muddled opinion?”

Then stay off my blog.

“I think YOU need to look it up,”

I know what it is, thank you.

“because to claim that I was never a believer because I’m no longer one…is pretty much the definition of ‘No True Scotsman’.”

No, because the *definition* of a believer in Christian theology excludes the possibility of ceasing to be one.

“(even though you also say that I never didn’t believe!)”

But not in the same respect. I already explained this in my blog post and asked if you understood it in my questions above which you refuse to answer. But if you want to play ostrich, that’s your deal. I have plenty of unbelievers I can interact with who do not take pleasure basking in their invincible ignorance.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 4 November 2011 01:23

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Wow! Aren’t I the Lucky One?”:

So it’s not really that you’re not interested in what I have to say, it’s that you’re just not interested in trying to answer two really simple questions that I asked you. If a post mentions you or if I respond to you here, then you’re still interested, as evidenced by your continuing to respond. How convenient.

No, I didn’t commit a fallacy again, because I did not do it in the first place. So just to be clear, you’re cool with the talking serpent in Genesis right? “No, snakes don’t talk!” No True Scotsman.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 4 November 2011 02:11

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Wow! Aren’t I the Lucky One?”:

I thought I had commented on this thread, but perhaps it did not go through successfully.

From the responses to me at both my blog and your own it is evident that you are interested in what I have to say, even though you claim the opposite when I asked you two simple questions.

I did not engage in the fallacy in question “again” and I did not engage in it the first time you misapplied the fallacy either. Just to be clear, are you cool with the talking serpent in Genesis 1? “No, snakes don’t talk!” No True Scotsman

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “On Omniscience”:

“Anyway Sye, stop dodging, answer the question here, for all to see.”

Pot, meet kettle. How about you take your own advice and do so with respect to the two questions I asked you on the other post? Good grief. lol

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 4 November 2011 02:48

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Wow! Aren’t I the Lucky One?”:

Oh yeah that Chris Bolt guy, he’s a complete idiot. Only…he’s not.

1. Alex, do you or do you not understand the distinction drawn between belief in the existence of God and belief in God for salvation?

2. Do you or do you not understand that there is a difference between saying that “God does not exist” and saying that “there is no evidence for the existence of God”?

It’s not the No True Scotsman fallacy when you do not understand the definition of a term by the way, but nice try.

Thanks.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 4 November 2011 01:02

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Wow! Aren’t I the Lucky One?”:

“Chris, do you not understand that I’m not remotely interested in your rather muddled opinion?”

Then stay off my blog.

“I think YOU need to look it up,”

I know what it is, thank you.

“because to claim that I was never a believer because I’m no longer one…is pretty much the definition of ‘No True Scotsman’.”

No, because the *definition* of a believer in Christian theology excludes the possibility of ceasing to be one.

“(even though you also say that I never didn’t believe!)”

But not in the same respect. I already explained this in my blog post and asked if you understood it in my questions above which you refuse to answer. But if you want to play ostrich, that’s your deal. I have plenty of unbelievers I can interact with who do not take pleasure basking in their invincible ignorance.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 4 November 2011 01:23

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Wow! Aren’t I the Lucky One?”:

So it’s not really that you’re not interested in what I have to say, it’s that you’re just not interested in trying to answer two really simple questions that I asked you. If a post mentions you or if I respond to you here, then you’re still interested, as evidenced by your continuing to respond. How convenient.

No, I didn’t commit a fallacy again, because I did not do it in the first place. So just to be clear, you’re cool with the talking serpent in Genesis right? “No, snakes don’t talk!” No True Scotsman.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 4 November 2011 02:11

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Wow! Aren’t I the Lucky One?”:

I thought I had commented on this thread, but perhaps it did not go through successfully.

From the responses to me at both my blog and your own it is evident that you are interested in what I have to say, even though you claim the opposite when I asked you two simple questions.

I did not engage in the fallacy in question “again” and I did not engage in it the first time you misapplied the fallacy either. Just to be clear, are you cool with the talking serpent in Genesis 1? “No, snakes don’t talk!” No True Scotsman

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 4 November 2011 02:44

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Wow! Aren’t I the Lucky One?”:

Reynold,

I deleted your comment and explained why in response to that same comment on JC’s blog, but then he deleted that explanation.

My blog is not a platform for atheist preaching. Your comment was off topic and irrelevant. Sorry to let you down, but it was not that your comment was so profound I could not answer it while all of the other atheist comments I let through are not. Stick to the topic and stop spamming with links and you might get your comments let through just like everybody else.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 6 November 2011 05:48

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Internet God Botherers: Mostly Horrible People”:

“Chris Bolt seemingly setting up a whole blog to attack me”

Wow. lol Leggo your ego!

First, I set up my blog to write on broader topics than what I do on Choosing Hats.

Second, if my blog is to “attack” you, then it is to “attack” others as well, since the bulk of my first post was a response to Jnani C’s terribly flawed pot roast argument.

Third, each post on my blog thus far has been a response to atheists, meaning that the dialogue each time was initiated by atheists, not me. The only reason your name even came up in the first post was because you cited Jnani’s ridiculous pot roast argument in your podcast titled, “Fundamentally Flawed” where you are known not only for expressing your hatred for Christ, alleged arguments against Christ, and filthy jokes concerning Christ, but have actually engaged in verbal assault on Christians like Sye TenBruggencate. Someone has a plank in his eye.

Fourth, I do not “attack” you in my posts concerning you, but rather attacked your arguments, and you failed in defending them. Instead, you quickly retreated into dishonesty and a dismissive attitude rather than analyzing and responding to my points as I have done with every one of yours.

Your position is bankrupt, but whining about the alleged nastiness of your interlocutors is not going to fix that Alex. You need to think a bit deeper about these issues than what you are, but sadly, you seem more interested in attempting to mock those who disagree with your shrill, arrogant proclamations concerning your fundamentalist atheism.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 10 November 2011 05:00

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Internet God Botherers: Mostly Horrible People”:

You were preaching atheism. You failed to make any substantial argument, you made a number of assertions that already assume atheism is true, you linked to several atheist sites, and you made a bunch of irrelevant comments. As I already explained:

Reynold,

I deleted your comment and explained why in response to that same comment on JC’s blog, but then he deleted that explanation.

My blog is not a platform for atheist preaching. Your comment was off topic and irrelevant. Sorry to let you down, but it was not that your comment was so profound I could not answer it while all of the other atheist comments I let through are not. Stick to the topic and stop spamming with links and you might get your comments let through just like everybody else.

But now I have devoted a whole post to you – http://pousto.blogspot.com/2011/11/reynolds-irrelevancy.html So you can stop complaining, and perhaps improve upon the quality of your comments in the future.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 10 November 2011 06:49

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Internet God Botherers: Mostly Horrible People”:

By the way, your comment here isn’t relevant to the four points I made either. lol You should try to stay on topic and actually think about the things you are responding to. Wasn’t, “Oh please” Michelle Tanner’s favorite rebuttal when she was a little girl on Full House?

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 10 November 2011 06:52

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Internet God Botherers: Mostly Horrible People”:

The peace of Jesus is not upon you Alex. You would know that if you had bothered studying Christian claims prior to mocking them.

Your tone is shrill, and you are arrogant. For example, you claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God, but that assumes that you know everything; that you have examined every alleged piece of evidence for the existence of God. And the list goes on concerning your arrogance. Does it make me a horrible person to say that you are shrill and arrogant? No. It means that you hate hearing criticisms about your less than morally sound character. Do you ever read the sort of nasty stuff you write here about other people? Why the constant contentious tone of a playground bully? If you had good arguments and good points, you would not need to resort to the language, names, and insults that you do.

Since you have not yet responded to my refutation of the pot roast argument that you used, the need for you to satisfy the burden of proof concerning your claim that there is no evidence for God, Paul Manata’s comment and the like (all documented on my blog), you really have no place to sit here and proudly proclaim what you think I need to prove.

All of that aside, I will gladly prove the things you mentioned, but I am tired of this back and forth over blogger. Let’s have a formal debate with equal time so as to be fair to each side and not talk over one another, and I will prove the items you mention in your list.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 10 November 2011 16:13

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Internet God Botherers: Mostly Horrible People”:

Um, no, I was never saying the opposite, and I am not sure why you would think that. Anyone can go follow the discussion on the post you provided, as well as my responses to it both here and elsewhere, and see that I have consistently stated that in order to support the *universal negative claim* that there is *no evidence* for the existence of God, one would need to be omniscient. So I don’t know where you are getting that I said the opposite, and think you’re confused. Can you quote me saying the opposite?

“JC’s argument stands” is not a counter argument to the problems I brought up concerning that argument. It is a bare assertion.

Calling TAG “RUBBISH” in all caps is not a counter argument to the problems I brought up concerning the pot roast argument.

Claiming that in the context of presenting TAG I bear the burden of proof, while true, is not a counter argument concerning the pot roast argument.

So again, you’re just making assertions, not writing anything of any substance. I am really starting to wonder if you know the difference between a mere assertion and an actual argument.

You seem to think I am arguing TAG, when as far as I remember, I have not done so during the entire course of our exchange. Do you understand? I demonstrated that JC’s pot roast argument fails. I was *not* arguing TAG. So it is particularly odd of you to complain that I am not, “presenting evidence” or satisfying my, “burden of proof” regarding TAG when that’s never been what I’ve actually been writing about during our exchanges.

If you look back through our discussions you will note that I mentioned you stated that even if God did exist, you would not worship Him. This alone is grounds for claiming that you harbor a hatred toward God (even if God existed, you still would not worship Him!), but as you allude to there are other reasons for me thinking that.

But again, none of this is on topic. You have not defended the pot roast argument taken apart on my blog. You have not answered Paul Manata. You have not defended your claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Yet, I still answered you concerning your “challenge.”

Don’t pretend as though I did not address what you posted in terms of the things you want me to prove. (Why are you so *blatantly dishonest*?) I responded:

“I will gladly prove the things you mentioned, but I am tired of this back and forth over blogger. Let’s have a formal debate with equal time so as to be fair to each side and not talk over one another, and I will prove the items you mention in your list.”

The “ball is in your court” stuff sounds nice, but actually the ball is in *your* court Alex, since I *already answered you*. lol The next step is for you to accept or reject the invitation to formal, cordial, beneficial debate concerning the list of items you asked me to prove. I will not attempt to prove these items to you on your podcast in the format (or lack thereof) you have used with previous guests. I am requesting a formal debate with you. If you want, we can see about having it on neutral ground; ask Paul Jenkins to moderate.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 10 November 2011 19:03

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Internet God Botherers: Mostly Horrible People”:

Alex,

I did not contradict myself and I do not need my hand held. The information is there for the readers.

Sorry to hear you refuse to debate me. I have no interest in proving the aforementioned points here.

BoB,

You do not need to explain to me that one does not have to be omniscient to state that they see no evidence for something. You need to listen to the podcast and read the exchange, since that was not Alex’s claim. Alex made the claim (more than once) that there is no evidence for the existence of God. That is a universal negative, and I have explained the problems with it to Alex at length. (www.pousto.blogspot.com) He refuses to address them, and I am done trying to help him out.

Cheers.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 11 November 2011 03:33

C.L. Bolt has left a new comment on your post “Chris Bolt Wants to be Taken Seriously….”:

Alex,

You refused to debate me, ergo, I will not be proving the points to you. I clearly explained this to you before.

Alex, you remind me of myself so much…like me, you are a wicked man in need of a righteous Savior. Like me, your only hope is in turning away from your sin and to Christ Jesus. Jesus Christ was born under the law of God just as you and I were, but He lived a perfect life under that law, satisfied God’s requirements, was crucified on the cross for our sins, was buried, and was raised again in accordance with Scripture. Sin was placed upon Christ, and His righteousness is given to all who come to Him in repentance and faith. Recognize that the things you are doing are evil Alex. Look at the way you treat people even on this blog. Recognize your dishonest tactics. Like me, you are far from perfect. Like me, you are a messed up wretch. Like me, apart from Christ you are left to your self-serving sinfulness. Turn to Christ Jesus and live. Trust Him to save you. There is no other hope for you, and there is no other hope for me.

From here on out, I am cutting off contact with you. Thank you for the discussion.

Posted by C.L. Bolt to An Atheist Viewpoint at 11 November 2011 04:53

I guess his ‘I’m cutting off contact’ in the last post meant he was going to delete everything as if it hadn’t happened.

Single Post Navigation

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: