RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
March 2, 2020 at 7:28 pm
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2020 at 7:29 pm by Simon Moon.)
(March 2, 2020 at 7:11 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(March 2, 2020 at 6:29 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Of all things, I really thought that you understood where the burden of proof lies.But if they just post snark, they are not addressing arguments.
But most of us have heard all the arguments, and have addressed them.
Kalam, teleological, ontological, TAG, presup arguments all contain fallacies and flaws.
Sometimes the snark is the written word version of a forehead slap.
Quote:It doesn't matter if Dawkins' and Hitchens' books contained theological errors.
Quote:That's why I didn't say they wrote theological errors. Those are arguable.
I said they wrote factual errors. For example, they said something like "Mr. X said Y," when in fact Mr. X never said anything like that. Hitchens was particularly egregious with mixing up dates and things like that.
Ah...
I'd would appreciate some examples. And do these factual errors effect the validity of the argument being made?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
