Such Idiocy: I Do Defend My Views Against the Opposition

There are several blog posts in criticism of what I've written that I have not attempted to answer. Because I choose not to do so the accusation is leveled at me that I don't interact with the opposition. This is such idiocy that no wonder these people believe. Let me explain.

First off, in my books and in my substantive posts here I am most emphatically interacting with the opposition in every paragraph. Does this fact escape their attention or what? When someone makes this accusation then I know I chose correctly not to respond to them. For it confirms what I thought in the first place, that they are ignorant of their own ignorance. Their beef with me is that I ignore them. Well then, what they should do is write something that deserves my response. I have limited time. I can only respond to criticisms I consider important or substantive. I told one such person recently that "I can only do what I can do, and you are not on my 'to do' list."

The facts defy the accusation anyway. I do defend what I write. This can be seen in a few posts off the top of my head:

Contra CL.

Contra Rev. Phillip Brown.

Contra David Marshall.

Contra Thrasymachus.

Contra Paul Manata.

Contra An Unnamed Christian Scholar.

Contra Randal Rauser.

Contra Victor Reppert.

And there have been books, chapters, and published reviews that I have responded to:

The Triablogue's Infidel Delusion.

The Loftus Delusion.

Finding Faith Losing Faith.

Norman Geisler's Review.

James Sennett's Review.

There is one book I didn't consider worth responding to, called The Anti-Supernatural Bias of Ex-Christians.

These are my choices. Have done then with such idiocy that I don't interact with the opposition. I do so almost every day in everything I write.