(April 28, 2011 at 2:45 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(April 28, 2011 at 12:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: BTW, sounds like you have a desperate asshole on your hands there.
Many, in fact. My sample "conversation" was actually a paraphrasing of ongoing objections by various amateur apologists.
Then again, that is the very essence of apologetics. It's not about finding out what's really going on or what really happened in the past. It's about finding reasons to believe in a story that has already been admitted to be a matter of faith. The festival of ad hocs should have been no surprise.
Yeah...I always found this observation to be particularly correct when dealing with such abject assholes.
Quote:Bible-believers are full of clever (and some not so clever) rationalizations. The crucial question, however, is not whether "answers" can be generated in response to Bible difficulties but whether credible answers can be produced. What is the best explanation? Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem. Thus, it is not surprising that different, conflicting answers are often presented side by side. It never seems to occur to these people that such logic will also support the story of Goldilocks and the three bears! Or the Koran. Or, anything else.
http://davematson.edwardtbabinski.us/prophecy_tyre.html
