(August 9, 2012 at 7:27 pm)Stimbo Wrote: The whole thing positively reeks to me of the slimy tactics employed by the even slimier Sye Ten Bruggencate, Eric Hovind and their cohorts; get your opponent to set out their positions regarding their beliefs and then use weasel questions in an attempt to trap them into a seemingly logically inconsistent corner. Victory is then declared. I enter into evidence People's Exhibit A, m'lud: https://atheistforums.org/thread-12138-p...#pid268652
As for wanting to know the implications of my beliefs, remember I am an atheist. As far as the question of gods etc - including Necessary Beings - is concerned, I have no beliefs. Thus I do not recognise the burden.
There is no burden. You aren't being asked to support anything. You're just being asked about what you believe--whether you believe that certain statements are true.
There are no "weasel" questions here. If you agree with the statement in question, you can say so; if you disagree with the statement, you can say so; if you don't have an opinion one way or the other, you can say so.
For example, the first question on the survey is:
1. Is there a Necessary Being?
The responses are:
"It seems so", "It seems not", and "I can't say".
Quote:Are you really so obtuse that you can't recognise satire when you see it, or is it all just an act for my benefit? Consider that the survey necessitates at least one person taking it. Thus by definition that person, as far as the survey is concerned (a phrase that obviously went clean over your head the first time round) is a Necessary Being.
As far as the survey is concerned, a "Necessary Being" has properties (1) and (2). You're just equivocating on what "necessary" means.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
