Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You claimed to have already debunked the video I posted. I haven't seen you do that yet.
You provide nothing to substantiate that and now you want to change the topic? Not hard to see what's going on here. No thanks. I'm not interested in playing your time-wasting games. I recommend seeking out someone who values their time as little as you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
No. I suppose- since you did not mention it - that you accept that his 'Lord Liar or lunatic' apologetic is a fallacy. If so, I stand by my response to the video that CS Lewis is a very clever apologist for Christianity, but his arguments are, in the end, fallacious. Now by all means go ahead and respond to that assertion of mine.
N. B. Just to save everyone's time, referring me to books, appealing to Authorities or posting videos that I am expected to watch, pick out your evidence for you and then refute it, will not be accepted.
if you have arguments to make, make them yourself, and make them here.
You claimed to have already debunked the video I posted. I haven't seen you do that yet.
You provide nothing to substantiate that and now you want to change the topic? Not hard to see what's going on here. No thanks. I'm not interested in playing your time-wasting games. I recommend seeking out someone who values their time as little as you do.
Didn’t Transponder debunk the video by pointing out that “Lord, lunatic, or liar” is not a comprehensive set of possibilities? There is a fourth option, which is that the gospels are fictional.
So a more complete set of options would be Lord, lunatic, liar, fictional. Given that CS Lewis did not include all of the possible options when setting up his argument, that renders his conclusion, and his argument, invalid on the basis that it was not complete.
No. I suppose- since you did not mention it - that you accept that his 'Lord Liar or lunatic' apologetic is a fallacy. If so, I stand by my response to the video that CS Lewis is a very clever apologist for Christianity, but his arguments are, in the end, fallacious. Now by all means go ahead and respond to that assertion of mine.
N. B. Just to save everyone's time, referring me to books, appealing to Authorities or posting videos that I am expected to watch, pick out your evidence for you and then refute it, will not be accepted.
if you have arguments to make, make them yourself, and make them here.
You have no clue how ignorant those kinds of statements sound. You are just pulling stuff out of the air and posting it like it means something. It is almost laughable.
You have no clue how ignorant those kinds of statements sound. You are just pulling stuff out of the air and posting it like it means something. It is almost laughable.
They don't seem ignorant to the other posters here, who have the same arguments. It is your deprecation without any kind of case that sounds ignorant. What is worse, I already gave one example of a fallacious argument by CS Lewis, backed up by explanation of a known informal logical fallacy. That you didn't know of this even after i'd posted it, seems truly 'ignorant'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
You claimed to have already debunked the video I posted. I haven't seen you do that yet.
You provide nothing to substantiate that and now you want to change the topic? Not hard to see what's going on here. No thanks. I'm not interested in playing your time-wasting games. I recommend seeking out someone who values their time as little as you do.
I claimed no such thing. The vid was a reading of 'mere christianity' and I stated that C S Lewis was a clever apologist but logically unsound. If you take that as 'debunking the vid' then what you do is present the arguments in the vid and see whether i can debunk them. You don't get to disagree without presenting a case and pretend that the case stands. or at least, you can, but everyone will see that you had no case. I need hardly point out to the Experienced punters here the cheap attempt at a 'Flounce' while claiming a win. Or at least pretending that you didn't lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
No. That argument is unrelated to the video I posted. Did you watch it?
It was. But you are being ingenuous, not to say crafty. It was not the argument that Lewis made in what is watched of the vid. (though I shall be surprised if it isn't made in the course of the reading) but another argument which was even more clever but essentially flawed. It depicted atheist disbelief in any one god -claim as irrational denialism when it is a valid disbelief in ANY religion that has not made a sound case, while shrugging off as a minor matter his own belief in One of the religions while dismissing all the others as much as the atheists do.
This is special pleading. True, he can make a germ of a point with 'it's all the same god'. But that just pushes the argument down the road - the same god, but are all religions equally valid? If not, why is your religion (and it's personal god) the right one?
Lewis is very crafty in wrapping this one up to try to discredit other religons and atheism in one go, but, when you unpack it, it's special pleading.
Now, you can try to debunk that or pick any other apologetic made in the video. You don't just get to say that I haven't refuted anything that YOU can see and claim that makes the content of the vid valid.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-07-2019 at 05:26 AM..
Now, you can try to debunk that or pick any other apologetic made in the video. You don't just get to say that I haven't refuted anything that YOU can see and claim that makes the content of the vid valid.
wow trans ... do you steal every single thing I say?
I have been telling you for years "You don't just get to say you are wrong" or "I have debunked you"?
how about you actually apply the same rigor to you sect of atheism central dogma to what you do to others?
Didn’t Transponder debunk the video by pointing out that “Lord, lunatic, or liar” is not a comprehensive set of possibilities? There is a fourth option, which is that the gospels are fictional.
So a more complete set of options would be Lord, lunatic, liar, fictional. Given that CS Lewis did not include all of the possible options when setting up his argument, that renders his conclusion, and his argument, invalid on the basis that it was not complete.
didn't i tell your sect of atheist priest that words like "apologetic". sort-a-god", "semantics", and others is not actually evidence against a more valid claim than your own.?
you do know that they only minimize claims not lessen the validity ... right?
You have no clue how ignorant those kinds of statements sound. You are just pulling stuff out of the air and posting it like it means something. It is almost laughable.
ozzy, Lewis is as weak the god delusion author. thats a given.
but, yeah, trans sect of atheism would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous to liberty and freedom everywhere.
any ideology, like his, based on obscurantism, ends up hurting people. we see it in fundy theism and millitant atheism run countries.
didn't i tell your sect of atheist priest that words like "apologetic". sort-a-god", "semantics", and others is not actually evidence against a more valid claim than your own.?
you do know that they only minimize claims not lessen the validity ... right?
Unless they are honest descriptions. Did your superior intellect not consider that alternative? By the way, Transponder has blocked you, so he does not know what you are saying to him, just that you stalk every post of his.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
