Coined by Robert M. Price in "The Case Against The Case For Christ", derived from The Wizard of Oz.
Arguing for the truth of a controversial, often religiously significant claim by presupposing the truth of some other equally controversial claim.
Arguing for the truth of a controversial, often religiously significant claim by presupposing the truth of some other equally controversial claim.
"This is why, if apologists like William Lane Craig can get an opponent as far as admitting that Joseph of Arimathea probably did have Jesus interred in his own tomb, and if the women did probably visit the tomb, and that the tomb was probably found to be empty, he can press on to the conclusion that Bingo! Jesus must have risen from the dead! What they somehow do not see is that to argue thus is like arguing that the Emerald City of Oz must actually exist since, otherwise, where would the Yellow Brick Road lead?" -The Case Against The Case For Christ (p.209)
"The disciples clearly didn't hallucinate Jesus after the crucifixion since he allowed Thomas to poke his wounds and he shared bread with them. Simultaneous hallucinations involving multiple sensory modalities just don't happen."
"Yeah, that's just yellow brick road apologetics."
"The disciples clearly didn't hallucinate Jesus after the crucifixion since he allowed Thomas to poke his wounds and he shared bread with them. Simultaneous hallucinations involving multiple sensory modalities just don't happen."
"Yeah, that's just yellow brick road apologetics."
by justanotherusername May 3, 2021
you need to stop being so overly-apologetic.
by TheApologeticHoser September 22, 2021
No amout of mental gymnastics is going to affect the binary nature of my proposition. It is EITHER a superordinate preferentially selected for trait in a hierarchy of preferentially selected traits or it isn't. If I'm not citing studies it's because they either don't exist (YET) or I'm unaware of them. Did you look it up or do the study before you tried to rebuke me? No? If I found or did the study would you cede your point or would you make up some sophistry to ignore the results like you're ignoring me. Your position is literally implicit "No True Scottsman Fallacy." "It's not CFCT! He's just just the TRUE Scottsman! That's what women are REALLY attracted to!"
Hym "Your apologetics do not obfuscate the fact that one is stigmatized and the other is not. And YOUR emotional state is 'easily manipulated.' Under the auspices of your liberal psychology WITHHOLDING INFORMATION is emotional abuse. The imposed schizophrenia is GASLIGHTING. The stalking is A CRIME. And is literally the definition of sexual harassment in the workplace but done in a way thay affords them plausible deniability. You don't care how they interacted with me. You just don't like the response. And you don't like that I'm giving people a reason to call into question your decision making. That MAYBE... JUUUST maybe... Your selection criteria is more superficial than you would like to admit. It isn't some sort of social-trigonometry leading you to fuck the guys you're fucking. And I'm not going to engage in the violence argument until you cede that there are some situations that can only be remediated by violence (Abject tyranny, self-defense, punitive, ect). We only care about rules when people we don't like are breaking them. That applies at NON-rules as well. This applies social/behavioral norms. You don't care how people behave until someone you don't like is doing something you don't like. Find a shred of consistency in the enforcement of behavioral norms. I'll wait... I'm sure you associate with people who have violated behavioral standards you believe people should adhere to. But you let it slide, don't you? And that's all this is."
by Hym Iam August 23, 2023
Refers to where someone noisily pretends to regret an action --- such as turning off a light, splashing water, etc. --- which caused someone else momentary shock and/or outrage, when in reality said prankster was completely intentional in performing said minor atrocity, and has gotten a huge giggle out of the hilarious-to-him distressed reaction of his "victim"!
Dude #1: flips the ceiling-light off in an otherwise-darkened garage where he is fully aware that his buddy is working
Dude #2: indignantly: Yo!!
Dude #1 in a classic "apologetic guffaw" tone "Huh-hoh --- saww-rreee" gives a big grin as he flips the switch back on again.
Dude #2: indignantly: Yo!!
Dude #1 in a classic "apologetic guffaw" tone "Huh-hoh --- saww-rreee" gives a big grin as he flips the switch back on again.
by QuacksO December 5, 2020