Religion
In reply to the discussion: Burden of proof [View all]struggle4progress
(125,798 posts)the proper way to proceed would be to discuss the problems of biblical literalism directly
But "Acharya" proceeds in a different fashion: she herself makes claims which she advances as historical fact, and she pretends to support these claims by assertions which do not withstand scrutiny
It is one thing to say that one does not believe that someone else's claims do not withstand scrutiny. It is an entirely different matter to advance claims oneself that do not withstand scrutiny. But it is risible technique to advance claims oneself, that do not withstand scrutiny, then to argue (as "Acharya" does) that one cannot be accountable for doing so, by saying one advanced these claims in order to debunk someone else's claims (that one does not believe could not withstand scrutiny) because one feels one cannot be held to a higher standard than the person one purports to debunk