Seidensticker Folly #80: Non-“Conversations” with BS

Seidensticker Folly #80: Non-“Conversations” with BS February 15, 2022

Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18“I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He added in June 2017 in a combox“If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.”

For over three years, we have had (shall we say) rather difficult relations, with mutual bannings (while I have replied to his posts 79 times: all as of yet unanswered), but when Bob moved to his new location online at the OnlySky super-site, he (surprisingly to me) decided to allow me to comment. As a conciliatory gesture in return, I removed his ban on my blog.  He even stated on 1-21-22 in the same combox thread, replying to me: “There are a few new posts here. (Or, if you haven’t been to my blog for a while, lots of new posts here.) Have at ’em. Let me know what you think.”

Delighted to oblige his wishes . . . Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.


The following “exchanges” (shall we call them?) took place in the combox of Bob’s article, “Christians weaponizing scholars’ quotes: Jastrow, Darwin, and Dawkins” (2-9-22). This is what passes in Bob’s mind as “discussion” or “conversation.” It’s mockery and condescending dismissal all the way.


“ORAXX”: No discovery of science has ever pointed to the truth of ANY religious doctrine.

No discovery of science has ever proven that atheism is the true state of affairs.

True. And irrelevant. Someone is confused about who has the burden of proof. When you’ve proven that God exists, let us know.

No proof is ever sufficient to overcome a will that refuses to believe. It’s quite sufficient for us.

That you keep using “proof” is hilarious. And tragic. I’m sure it’s all been explained to you, so I won’t waste my time.

I was kinda hoping that you’d respond by saying, “OK, you’re right–the burden of proof is mine. It was a slip of the pen to insist that the atheist has the burden of proof to show that God doesn’t exist.” Silly me.

Kidding! All you know how to do is double down.

I was referring to epistemology. Science neither proves nor disproves God. But it is the atheist’s religion, so they often absurdly act as if the study of matter rules out an immaterial Being.

I defend Christianity and the Bible against your attacks (78 times as of this writing). I give both sides and let readers decide which case is more plausible. You ignore all my critiques (which you have actually challenged me to do). Which approach do you think suggests more intellectual confidence in one’s own belief?

“atheist’s religion”? Fascinating. You’ll have to share with us how religion without belief in the supernatural works.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, members of Humanist organizations have disagreed as to whether Humanism is a religion. They categorize themselves in one of three ways. Religious (or ethical) humanism, in the tradition of the earliest humanist organizations in the UK and US, attempts to fulfil the traditional social role of religion. . . . 

Greg M. Epstein states that, ‘modern, organized Humanism began, in the minds of its founders, as nothing more nor less than a religion without a God’. (Wikipedia, “Secular Humanism”)

Some Buddhists would say that Buddhism can be construed and/or practiced without supernatural elements.

Humanism starts with an H, and atheism with an A. That’s how I keep them apart in my mind.

Non sequitur. I was responding to your statement: “You’ll have to share with us how religion without belief in the supernatural works.” My counter-examples were humanism and some forms of Buddhism, as construed by the followers of same.

Not the point. Every involved conversation with you turns out to be a waste of time. I’ve had WLC [William Lane Craig], Koukl, Jim Wallace, and probably others respond to my articles, and I’ve usually responded.

Of course, your view of William Lane Craig is scarcely different from your view of me. In one article, you wrote about him [on 7-21-14; updated on 3-23-18]:

[He has an] unhealthy relationship with facts and evidence.

dark and tangled recesses of the thinking

. . . Craig’s bizarre reply

Craig once again vomits onto thoughtful discourse. He ignores the problem, assumes that he is right, and then shapes the facts to fit.

The mental masturbation continues.

Yes, he really said that. It’d be a pain to have to, y’know, do all that research and stuff. I mean, who’s got the time? Using reason would be inconvenient, so let’s not.

Follow the drunken reasoning . . .

Craig tells us that relying on reason would be inconvenient, so let’s not.

So much for apologetics to raise the intellectual content of the conversation.

You’re the only one I ignore.

It must be a new definition of “ignore” that I am unaware of, seeing that eight of your last nine comments [i.e., on his OnlySky blog, as can be verified by clicking on his name in the combox] were replies to me. What is this: doublethink?

In the last fifteen days on this (or any OnlySky) blog, as anyone can see, looking at your profile on OnlySky, you have made nine comments. Eight of those were responding to me. So in fifteen days, you have responded exactly once to someone other than me.

But now you are saying that you completely ignore me. Right. I do agree that you never make a sustained rational, thoughtful, non-mocking response . . .

Good point. I’ll try to ignore you better in the future.

If the above is the level of your “argumentation”, please do!


Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!


Photo credit: William Kentridge, In Mockery of Progress. Image courtesy of the artist and Marian Goodman Gallery, New York. [Flickr / CC BY-NC-SA 2.o license]


Summary: Bob Seidensticker again provides a textbook / playbook demonstration of the mentality & folly of anti-theist polemicists, in a ridiculous non-“conversation” with me.


"Personhood does NOT begin at conception. Some fetal deformities/abnormalities are not detected until 20th week ..."

Thoughts on Roe Being Overturned
"I'd assert that the Right is far more antithetical to Christianity, despite its pretenses at ..."

Thoughts on Roe Being Overturned
"The foundation of the modern left is secularism: Religion was not revealed, it was inspired. ..."

Thoughts on Roe Being Overturned
"That's not what I said. Don't be dismissive when you're basing it on a distortion.I ..."

Thoughts on Roe Being Overturned

Browse Our Archives

Close Ad