A recalcitrant skeptic demands evidence to stack the deck in favor of whatever it is that he is denying. There is never enough evidence to sway him. He knows this, so he asks for it to say that it either doesn't count or that it's not enough.
And so are some philosophical elitists. Notice how Dan keeps moving the goalpost from one comment to the next. Notice how he first didn't understand what I said, and then finally accused me of not saying what I said. Notice how he doesn't admit when he is wrong.
"Notice how Dan keeps moving the goalpost from one comment to the next." ... Explain for the reader how I keep moving the goalposts.
"Notice how he first didn't understand what I said, and then finally accused me of not saying what I said." Unfortunately, just because you say it doesn't make it so. Explain it for the reader.
"Notice how he doesn't admit when he is wrong." No, I usually admit it when I'm wrong. Here's a recent example. You, however, have never admitted that you were wrong. This is the closest you've ever come to admitting that you were wrong, and it was quite a grind to get you there.
8 comments:
A recalcitrant skeptic demands evidence to stack the deck in favor of whatever it is that he is denying. There is never enough evidence to sway him. He knows this, so he asks for it to say that it either doesn't count or that it's not enough.
What?!
Do you mean to say that (some) "skeptics" are ... wait for it ... intellectually dishonest?
Yup.
And so are some philosophical elitists. Notice how Dan keeps moving the goalpost from one comment to the next. Notice how he first didn't understand what I said, and then finally accused me of not saying what I said. Notice how he doesn't admit when he is wrong.
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so doth the Skep return here to commenteth.
Dan,
I wondered how long it would be before he poked his snout around here again.
And in case he thought he had outlasted the statute of limitations:
Skep,
Your account remains in arrears. You still need to:
- Identify the portion of scripture that has been modified to comply with Church dogma (chapter and verse, please).
- Give us the "before" version, so we can confirm that it has actually been modified.
- Explain what dogma said modification is being complied with.
You are not off the hook until you either:
a) cough up the evidence
b) retract your accusation (i.e., admit that the Church did not modify scripture to conform with doctrine).
Skep,
"Notice how Dan keeps moving the goalpost from one comment to the next." ... Explain for the reader how I keep moving the goalposts.
"Notice how he first didn't understand what I said, and then finally accused me of not saying what I said." Unfortunately, just because you say it doesn't make it so. Explain it for the reader.
"Notice how he doesn't admit when he is wrong." No, I usually admit it when I'm wrong. Here's a recent example. You, however, have never admitted that you were wrong. This is the closest you've ever come to admitting that you were wrong, and it was quite a grind to get you there.
Oops, this is the recent example in which I admit that I'm wrong.
Post a Comment