>increasingly desperate
Delineate, please. He is brilliant, obviously, and a skilled speaker who seems confident. I am curious as to why this phrase comes to your mind? Also, What do you believe regarding Jesus? This tends to influence perceptions of Christians, in my experience.
Honestly, I don't know what I believe about Jesus. I suspect he never existed, and is a sort of Frankenstein, cobbled together from various ancient sources.
I don’t care how good of a speaker he is. The question is whether he is truthful (obviously not and anyone with a cursory knowledge of any relevant empirical field knows it).
What I believe is irrelevant. I *know* that nobody can testify, or has ever provided warranted testimony of Paul’s claims, or anyone else’s supernatural claims regarding Jesus, and the most parsimonious explanation is simply that he was a relatively minor and primitive faith healer, who developed philosophical insights after coming into contact with Greek and Roman science and law.
The Romans should have simply integrated into the Pantheon and we would have avoided 1500+ years of nonsense.
Yeah.
The actual honest to god WLC line of argumentation, is not the apparent sophistication of his rationality, but how he transforms such desperation into philosophical mumbo jumbo. This is evident during debates when he can't respond to inquiry, he ALWAYS goes >Well, it just seems to me that [you are wrong and my intuition about is right]
And resumes by connecting another one of his arguments. When he met with Scott Clifton, WLC kept ignoring Scott's words to refute the same old Kalam criticism (which the guy explicitly said he didn't agree with at least twice). This happened at least three different times during the dialogue, WLC was continuously talking past the other person. This also happens when he's confronted by Christians who believe different things from him, like James White.
Also, don't forget that time WLC obliterated the "evidential basis" for the Kalam, yet WLC goes on life as if that never happened.
anyone with a PhD in philosophy or theology is basically brain-wormed into an artificially induced hyper-autism that makes them impossible to talk to because they're such pedantic argumentative know-it-all's
at least Jay Dyer is a straight up butthole who interrupts you and uses crude/blunt debate tactics to just steamroll you
WLC puts up a false front and feels wormy
He's like Prager. He'll crush anyone that hasn't debated the same 3 dense arguments at colleges for 50 years like him, but outside of that bubble he does the same weird fundamentalist shit like trying to contradict the theory of relativity. He's also effeminate asf, maybe a closet case, but who knows.
1. Whatever begins to seeth has a cope
2. Internet atheists begin to seeth
3. Internet atheists cope
israelite
I don't find his arguments persuasive. There's something increasingly desperate about his presentation.
>increasingly desperate
Delineate, please. He is brilliant, obviously, and a skilled speaker who seems confident. I am curious as to why this phrase comes to your mind? Also, What do you believe regarding Jesus? This tends to influence perceptions of Christians, in my experience.
Honestly, I don't know what I believe about Jesus. I suspect he never existed, and is a sort of Frankenstein, cobbled together from various ancient sources.
I don’t care how good of a speaker he is. The question is whether he is truthful (obviously not and anyone with a cursory knowledge of any relevant empirical field knows it).
What I believe is irrelevant. I *know* that nobody can testify, or has ever provided warranted testimony of Paul’s claims, or anyone else’s supernatural claims regarding Jesus, and the most parsimonious explanation is simply that he was a relatively minor and primitive faith healer, who developed philosophical insights after coming into contact with Greek and Roman science and law.
The Romans should have simply integrated into the Pantheon and we would have avoided 1500+ years of nonsense.
Yeah.
The actual honest to god WLC line of argumentation, is not the apparent sophistication of his rationality, but how he transforms such desperation into philosophical mumbo jumbo. This is evident during debates when he can't respond to inquiry, he ALWAYS goes
>Well, it just seems to me that [you are wrong and my intuition about is right]
And resumes by connecting another one of his arguments. When he met with Scott Clifton, WLC kept ignoring Scott's words to refute the same old Kalam criticism (which the guy explicitly said he didn't agree with at least twice). This happened at least three different times during the dialogue, WLC was continuously talking past the other person. This also happens when he's confronted by Christians who believe different things from him, like James White.
Also, don't forget that time WLC obliterated the "evidential basis" for the Kalam, yet WLC goes on life as if that never happened.
anyone with a PhD in philosophy or theology is basically brain-wormed into an artificially induced hyper-autism that makes them impossible to talk to because they're such pedantic argumentative know-it-all's
at least Jay Dyer is a straight up butthole who interrupts you and uses crude/blunt debate tactics to just steamroll you
WLC puts up a false front and feels wormy
He never seems to consider the possibility that he's wrong.
Presuppositionalist genocide apologist. Not a single original thought in his body of work and kind of a buffoon at presentation, too.
>Presup
Wlc is the biggest opponent of presuppositional apologetics
Exceedingly based and irrefutable, as evidenced by the atheist seething in this thread alone
?
He's like Prager. He'll crush anyone that hasn't debated the same 3 dense arguments at colleges for 50 years like him, but outside of that bubble he does the same weird fundamentalist shit like trying to contradict the theory of relativity. He's also effeminate asf, maybe a closet case, but who knows.
Makes atheists seethe like a muslim looking at Charlie Hebdo cartoon
Genius
Thread ruined