From a commentator at Debunking Christianity. How can a professor say something so moronic as: "... philosophical questions, like the existence of God". WTF? This guy is NOT a professor but a bible thumping religionist.
This is a statement about
a) Victor Reppert
b) Alvin Plantinga
c) William Lane Craig
d) Keith Parsons
10 comments:
I'm guessing (d), given that that site has been highly critical of Parsons as of late.
I still say that Loftus is unwittingly complementing Christianity with his website's title. When we call something "bunk" (as in "History is bunk!"), we are most definitely not saying anything nice about it. We're declaring that it's not worth our time. So to de-bunk something is to place it into the category of the "worthwhile".
So Loftus is telling the World that Christianity is not bunk!
Jezu ufam tobie!
@B. Prokop:
"So Loftus is telling the World that Christianity is not bunk!"
And considering the source, this is damning praise.
Reminds me of this exchange from Seinfeld.
George: So it's just mono.
Elaine: Mono? Huh, well, if anyone needs any medical advise, Elaine met a doctor. And he's unattached.
Jerry: I thought the whole dream of dating a doctor was debunked.
Elaine: No, it's not debunked, it's totally bunk.
Jerry: Isn't bunk bad? Like, that's a lot of bunk.
George: No something is bunk and then you debunk it.
Jerry: What?
Elaine: Huh?
I'm going to go with "D" as well.
Bonus question (only to be answered after the correct answer to question #1 has been revealed):
The comment quoted in question #1 is embarrassing for:
a. The person who wrote it;
b. The blog it appears on;
c. Both a and b;
d. The person that comment is about; or
e. None of the above.
Based on the limited context of the quote, the answer to JJL's question would seem to be "a" in all cases. But then I just woke up, so who knows.
Based on the limited context of the quote, the answer to JJL's question would seem to be "a" in all cases. But then I just woke up, so who knows.
I would have thought C.
C as well for me.
Post a Comment