video of Eric Hovind answering questions from a sixth grader:]
Most modern Christian apologists are incompetent because they approach the discourse as a chance to explicate theology rather than understanding that it is a form of intellectual combat where the goal is to discredit the interlocutor. So, like Hovind, they explicate a little theology that looks like an irrelevant evasion while simultaneously managing to get intellectually discredited by young boys. Frankly, I'd be surprised and a little disappointed if I didn't have the kid in tears and questioning his faith in science within minutes after asking such a pair of stupid questions.
First things first. Destroy the interlocutor. Answer every question directly, on his terms, and then go after the vulnerabilities they reveal with a flamethrower. Only then, when you are standing upon whatever quivering ashes remain, can you explicate further if you wish.
I doubt you would fare nearly as well as your smug assertions indicate you think you would. Unless the other person were comatose, of course. I personally am 4th Dan in Dispute-te and 6th Dan in Rebut-do. Though I am highly skilled in a Northern Chinese, highly linear style of Fuk Yu, there are no formalized ranks in that art.
In other words, instead of supporting my position with affirmative arguments and evidence, I'll spend the time attacking my opponent. Just like politicians who can only say, "vote for me because I'm not my opponent, not because of any of my policies."
That's right, that's the only way to have an intelligent pre-teen accept the bullshit that passes for religion, crush him altogether. Er.....no...that doesn't work either. Smart enough to ask annoying questions means smart enough to know shit from shinola. Annoying enough to get the adults in a lather like this means that you automatically lose a battle of wits with a kid.
SO let me get this straight... destroy people that question you rather than attempt to answer their question, then maybe, if you feel like it, bullshit something once you've wrecked the person?
You must be a hit at parties, VD. This is a pretty textbook example of hoe not to debate, how not to be taken seriously, and how not to make a point.
"Frankly, I'd be surprised and a little disappointed if I didn't have the kid in tears and questioning his faith in science within minutes after asking such a pair of stupid questions. "
I assure you. Should this happen you'd be the only one surprised, and you will feel DEEP disappointment.
So, your go-to strategy is to publicly humiliate people in order to punish them for daring to question you.
You really ARE a loathsome shitcock.
Thanks for clarifying christianity is a bankrupt ideology that can only prevail by ad hominem attacks.
"Most modern Christian apologists are incompetent because they approach the discourse as a chance to explicate theology rather than understanding that it is a form of intellectual combat where the goal is to discredit the interlocutor."
I am very intelligent. See what big words I use.
Saw that, you sorry ass would lose to that kid too. You are nothing but the likes of the Hovinds, you use all the same discredited claims from 40 years ago they do.
Your entire act is from the same lame ass playbook the Hovinds. Comfort and Hams group uses BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE BUT OLD BULLSHIT THAT YOUR FLOCK FALLS FOR BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT TRUTH, JUST ASSERTIONS.
See what I did there? I yelled the final points because that's all you people play. Loud assertions, and yelling in that kids face is what you were going for, Isn't it?
Hey Vox, Are you off to see the (not remotely) "all Timber Ark" (not)"Replica"?
That's what Hams calling his ark now.
Replica definition: "A replica is an exact reproduction"
You have to know what the original looked like, painstakingly and exactly to make a replica. The Ark is an imagined ideal at best. The original did not have a restaurant at top nor was it heavily anchored to the ground with two concrete outbuildings attached.
So, Vox answers kid's question. Tears the kid to pieces and makes him cry. He might break the kid, but he won't convince any onlookers of anything... although they'll all remember "what a disgusting man" for the rest of their lives.
You can have the kid in tears, but if you can't give a reasonable answer to the question, you are still the loser - and an asshole, too.
Vox, I would love to see you put your "intellect", up against a confident well educated sixth or seventh grader, the combined looks of confusion and rage on your face as that child methodically demolished everyone of your so called "arguments" and exposed you as the pseudo intellectual you are in front of an audience would be priceless.
Ken Ham is still experiencing extreme pain in the gluteal region after they met.
The only heat Hambone feels is burning in the cheeks (either will do): as he is
Tsundere for The Science Guy, after he turned his intellectual Plasma Cannon on Kennypoos. >:D
@Citizen Justin: in his mind, Vox thinks that's a win.
See, what he's interested in doing is proving he's got a bigger dick than anyone else. In his mind, this constitutes debate. He's not interested in an exchange of ideas or proving anything, he's only interested in publicly shaming and punishing his "opponent" for daring to question him.
Reactionary debate tactics in a nutshell.
"have the kid in tears"
Try that in a court of law, VD. Yet, it's the same goal: to discredit the other side,
Just ask Michael Behe - essentially the kid representing fundie Christainity as a whole - after late 2005. [/Kitzmiller vs. Dover]
You're just as
immature with your inability to accept the simple fact that Cre(a)ti(o)nism has been obliterated by the nuclear device of Federal Law. As you still being in tears about such more than a decade after demonstrates.
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to
Sign in or Register. Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.