(April 16, 2016 at 12:02 am)wiploc Wrote:(April 7, 2016 at 1:04 pm)SteveII Wrote: It has not been shown he is lying.
It's a trilemma thing: He makes patently bad arguments because,
1. He's too stupid to know better?
2. He's too ignorant to know better? Or,
3. He does know better and he is guilty of deliberate misrepresentation.
I believe that he is really smart, and quite knowledgeable. I believe, therefore, that he is lying.
I assume that he is sincere in his beliefs (whatever those quasi-Christian beliefs may be) but that his arguments supporting those beliefs are those of a mountebank, a flamboyant charlatan.
> You misunderstood the context (there have been a couple of posts about that).
Care to elaborate?
> He can't help the fact you can't follow him.
Ah, insult. He may wish that I couldn't follow him.
WLC really throws out false facts ETC he know's he can't win a argument against science he throws out so many facts to were
the debater would have to refute said things while trying to present a point to the audience he does this so it always make it look like
he came out on top this is why Richard Dawkin's would never debate the guy he would simply loose he nerves like he did
on the big think.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code:
<iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>