Comments on: Why to (possibly) not debate Theologians http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-to-possibly-not-debate-theologians/ Atheism & Religious Skepticism Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:47:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: James Tracy http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-to-possibly-not-debate-theologians/comment-page-1/#comment-9188 James Tracy Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:32:10 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3700#comment-9188 Update: Randal has written an entire book on this topic, apparently, and seems willing to talk more about it at some later unspecified date. Update: Randal has written an entire book on this topic, apparently, and seems willing to talk more about it at some later unspecified date.

]]> By: Joel http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-to-possibly-not-debate-theologians/comment-page-1/#comment-9107 Joel Sat, 29 Aug 2009 03:16:24 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3700#comment-9107 I have been reading his blog, but I find his argumentation extremely tiresome, and I'm likely to unsubscribe at some point soon. Usually it feels like he's regurgitating either Theology 101 arguments (like when he tries to insist that he actually thinks of Yahweh as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived") or Campus Crusade talking points, rather than actually addressing people's challenges. I have been reading his blog, but I find his argumentation extremely tiresome, and I'm likely to unsubscribe at some point soon. Usually it feels like he's regurgitating either Theology 101 arguments (like when he tries to insist that he actually thinks of Yahweh as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived") or Campus Crusade talking points, rather than actually addressing people's challenges.

]]> By: MikeTheInfidel http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-to-possibly-not-debate-theologians/comment-page-1/#comment-9105 MikeTheInfidel Sat, 29 Aug 2009 01:37:47 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3700#comment-9105 He's being incredibly sophistic. His argument is that BELIEF doesn't require evidence, not that the acceptance of the truth of the proposition doesn't require evidence. His statement basically boils down to him not caring if the beliefs are true, and saying that people are justified to BELIEVE they are true until a "sufficient" debunker comes along. When they use words like "sufficient," you can practically hear the goalposts being dragged further down the field. He's being incredibly sophistic.

His argument is that BELIEF doesn't require evidence, not that the acceptance of the truth of the proposition doesn't require evidence. His statement basically boils down to him not caring if the beliefs are true, and saying that people are justified to BELIEVE they are true until a "sufficient" debunker comes along.

When they use words like "sufficient," you can practically hear the goalposts being dragged further down the field.

]]> By: MikeTheInfidel http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-to-possibly-not-debate-theologians/comment-page-1/#comment-9106 MikeTheInfidel Sat, 29 Aug 2009 01:37:29 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3700#comment-9106 He's being incredibly sophistic. His argument is that BELIEF doesn't require evidence, not that the acceptance of the truth of the proposition doesn't require evidence. His statement basically boils down to him not caring if the beliefs are true, and saying that people are justified to BELIEVE they are until a "sufficient" debunker comes along. When they use words like "sufficient," you can practically hear the goalposts being dragged further down the field. He's being incredibly sophistic.

His argument is that BELIEF doesn't require evidence, not that the acceptance of the truth of the proposition doesn't require evidence. His statement basically boils down to him not caring if the beliefs are true, and saying that people are justified to BELIEVE they are until a "sufficient" debunker comes along.

When they use words like "sufficient," you can practically hear the goalposts being dragged further down the field.

]]>