Just to let you know, TEGH, Ryft is a breed of apologist that goes on the offensive.
The strategy is when you have no evidence to support your position, you put on a pompous demeanor, utilize an extensive vocabulary, dismissively insult your opponent, sprinkle in a few choice latin phrases and hope all this makes you look intelligent. You go on the offensive against the skeptics, keeping an eye out for any chinks in the armor to harp on, even when such issues are beside the point. Favored logical fallacies of this breed include ad hominem, ad hominem tu quoque, appeal to ridicule, poisoning the well and, most of all, red herring evasion.
The way to handle the pompous apologist is to not react to their insults or allow them to change the subject. Instead, firmly hold their feet to the fire. The burden of proof is on them and you'll need to make that point repeatedly clear. Keep bringing the subject back to their beliefs and how they justify them.
"Do tell, Ryft..." was an expression I often used when debating him.
Eventually, the pompous apologist breaks and you catch them in a lie. Then they lie about their lie. And then you win when they put you on "ignore" and search for an easier target.
The strategy is when you have no evidence to support your position, you put on a pompous demeanor, utilize an extensive vocabulary, dismissively insult your opponent, sprinkle in a few choice latin phrases and hope all this makes you look intelligent. You go on the offensive against the skeptics, keeping an eye out for any chinks in the armor to harp on, even when such issues are beside the point. Favored logical fallacies of this breed include ad hominem, ad hominem tu quoque, appeal to ridicule, poisoning the well and, most of all, red herring evasion.
The way to handle the pompous apologist is to not react to their insults or allow them to change the subject. Instead, firmly hold their feet to the fire. The burden of proof is on them and you'll need to make that point repeatedly clear. Keep bringing the subject back to their beliefs and how they justify them.
"Do tell, Ryft..." was an expression I often used when debating him.
Eventually, the pompous apologist breaks and you catch them in a lie. Then they lie about their lie. And then you win when they put you on "ignore" and search for an easier target.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
