Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
(13-06-2015 11:04 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  One time I saw him ask people "If Noah's flood didn't happen. Then were did all this water come from?" Everyone he ask (Or at least he add to his video) was dumb founded "Wow i never thought of that before? That makes a lot of sense."

That question is, in itself, stupid. And I wonder if the people who replied were actually "randomly chosen" people or plants.

Either way, his videos have a great deal of selection. As do all videos, to be fair.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jockmcdock's post
15-06-2015, 04:32 PM
RE: Clever ways apologists try to shift the burden of proof
C.S. Lewis' trilemma is fairly clever. "Lunatic, Liar or Lord" It is pretty much dismissed by theologians and others with some claiming it is a false trilemma and there are more than 3 choices ("Lunatic, Liar, Lord or Legend" e.g.). But I think Hitchen's handled it best when he settled on lunatic. "I am bound to say that Lewis is more honest here. Absent a direct line to the Almighty and a conviction that the last days are upon us, how is it 'moral' [...] to claim a monopoly on access to heaven, or to threaten waverers with everlasting fire, let alone to condemn fig trees and persuade devils to infest the bodies of pigs? Such a person if not divine would be a sorcerer and a fanatic."

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: