Atheism and secular living from a woman's point of view.
WLC and his famous four "facts" lol. I think he has a hard time distinguishing facts from assumptions. He bases his facts on the gospel narratives although they are all contradictory.
Shouldn't that be infamous four facts?You have to wonder if he really read the Bible sometimes.
WLC is BS incarnate.His 4 made up BS requires citations.I can appreciate the time constraints of a debate, has he never heard of PowerPoint?They can easily start the debate with a statement that all citations will not be mentioned but will appear on the screen or some-such.But one of my major tests of BS is the lack of BLUE in a blog. Most religious BS is stated with no BLUE and when it is there it only points to a worthless buyBull entry.
On many of the blogs I have been reading when the blogger makes a statement the subject is in blue, when you cursor over it it can be surfed to and is the citation of the statement.Most religious blogs never bother, your are to accept their word as they are holier then thou so would never lie for jesus.
ohhhh I'm too lazy for that. I link references though
As an example the Tippling Philosopher uses red....http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/03/31/original-sin-answering-thomas-l-mcdonald/
I went to the largest private college in my state, a catholic school which is the only one in the United States to be affiliated with the Angelicum in Rome. As in atheist I fit right in. Craig's four "facts" are pretty common in Catholic, and I suspect other sects', circles for trying to prove the resurrection. I heard these time and time again in school from professors as well as students in the Catholic Studies program. Of the 4 I only find the fourth somewhat convincing. I think it is a good question that atheists need to answer: why did these people believe so ardently in the resurrection and entire message? Was his body indeed not in the tomb, proving (at least in their minds if not in truth) he had risen from the dead? Was it a cover-up and they spread the story to further bolster their claims? If they did this, why? Why face death over a lie when there is no tangible reward for doing so? But yes, his 4 proofs are largely laughable. I heard these so much during my college days I can skip his entire speech and know exactly what he went over.
It's distressing that a leading apologist parrots his own lines over and over, but now that I know that NONE of what he says represents his own thinking, I have even less respect for him. All he really brings to the table is a superior attitude (unjustified of course)
Post a Comment